In the above article by Hoskova K, Kayton Bryant N, Chen ME, Nachtigall LB, Lippincott MF, Balasubramanian R, and Seminara SB (J Clin Endo Metab. 2022; doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgac166), an incorrect version of the text was initially published as the Accepted Article:
In the Statistical Analysis section, the article stated that “Paired, two-tailed t-tests were used to assess significance of data with normal distribution (Fig. 2A, C, D and Fig. 4A; Fig. 6; and Fig. 7). Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank tests were used to assess data that was not normally distributed (Fig. 2B, and Fig. 4B-D). Two-tailed Pearson correlation analyses were used to assess significance of data with normal distribution (Fig. 1B, D). Two-tailed Spearmen correlation analyses were used to assess significance of data that was not normally distributed (Fig. 3 and Fig. 1A, C).”
The corrected statement is “Two-tailed Pearson correlation analyses were used to assess significance of data with normal distribution. Two-tailed Spearman correlation analyses were used to assess significance of data that was not normally distributed. Paired, two-tailed t-tests were used to assess significance of data with normal distribution. Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank tests were used to assess data that was not normally distributed. “
The sequence of letters identifying the panels in Fig. 1 was changed to match the layout in the caption to Figure 1 and in the text. The sequence of letters identifying the panels in Fig. 4 was changed to match the layout in the caption to Figure 4 and in the text. The sequence of letters identifying the panels in Figure 6 was changed to match the layout in the caption to Figure 6 and in the text. The sequence of letters identifying the panels in Figure 7 was changed in the caption to Figure 7 and the statement “Statistically significant p-values are included in the figure” was added to the caption.
In the section entitled “Neuroendocrine Profile of Study Cohort During Kisspeptin Administration (Visit 2),” the following statement was added after “In addition, overall mean FSH levels did not differ between the two frequent sampling studies (see Table 3 and Figure 4C [corrected to Figure 4B], P=.3”: “Of note, each participant’s circulating prolactin levels were nearly identical at Visits 1 and 2 (Fig. 4C).”
The corrections have been included in the final version of the article online.