TY - JOUR
T1 - Correction: Effect of emphysema on AI software and human reader performance in lung nodule detection from low-dose chest CT (European Radiology Experimental, (2024), 8, 1, (63), 10.1186/s41747-024-00459-9)
AU - Sourlos, Nikos
AU - Pelgrim, Gert Jan
AU - Wisselink, Hendrik Joost
AU - Yang, Xiaofei
AU - de Jonge, Gonda
AU - Rook, Mieneke
AU - Prokop, Mathias
AU - Sidorenkov, Grigory
AU - van Tuinen, Marcel
AU - Vliegenthart, Rozemarijn
AU - van Ooijen, Peter M.A.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2024.
PY - 2024/8/16
Y1 - 2024/8/16
N2 - https://doi.org/10.1186/s41747-024-00459-9, published online 20 May 2024 In the original article, the results section “Performance evaluation and comparison” displays two statements that the authors wish to clarify to remove ambiguity: On page 6, “Sensitivity of AI was not significantly different for either the emphysema (p = 0.320) or the non-emphysema group (p = 0.090).”, should instead read: “Sensitivity was not significantly different between the emphysema and non-emphysema group for either AI (p = 0.80) or human reader (p = 0.54).” On page 7, “Also, the nodule detection sensitivity in emphysema tended to be higher for AI than the human reader, but there were no significant differences for either the emphysema (p = 0.310) or the non-emphysema group (p = 1.000).” should instead read: “Also, the nodule detection sensitivity in emphysema tended to be higher for AI than the human reader, but no significant differences were found between the emphysema and the non-emphysema group for either AI (0.94) or human reader (p = 0.29).” On page 6, “Sensitivity of AI was not significantly different for either the emphysema (p = 0.320) or the non-emphysema group (p = 0.090).”, should instead read: “Sensitivity was not significantly different between the emphysema and non-emphysema group for either AI (p = 0.80) or human reader (p = 0.54).” On page 7, “Also, the nodule detection sensitivity in emphysema tended to be higher for AI than the human reader, but there were no significant differences for either the emphysema (p = 0.310) or the non-emphysema group (p = 1.000).” should instead read: “Also, the nodule detection sensitivity in emphysema tended to be higher for AI than the human reader, but no significant differences were found between the emphysema and the non-emphysema group for either AI (0.94) or human reader (p = 0.29).”.
AB - https://doi.org/10.1186/s41747-024-00459-9, published online 20 May 2024 In the original article, the results section “Performance evaluation and comparison” displays two statements that the authors wish to clarify to remove ambiguity: On page 6, “Sensitivity of AI was not significantly different for either the emphysema (p = 0.320) or the non-emphysema group (p = 0.090).”, should instead read: “Sensitivity was not significantly different between the emphysema and non-emphysema group for either AI (p = 0.80) or human reader (p = 0.54).” On page 7, “Also, the nodule detection sensitivity in emphysema tended to be higher for AI than the human reader, but there were no significant differences for either the emphysema (p = 0.310) or the non-emphysema group (p = 1.000).” should instead read: “Also, the nodule detection sensitivity in emphysema tended to be higher for AI than the human reader, but no significant differences were found between the emphysema and the non-emphysema group for either AI (0.94) or human reader (p = 0.29).” On page 6, “Sensitivity of AI was not significantly different for either the emphysema (p = 0.320) or the non-emphysema group (p = 0.090).”, should instead read: “Sensitivity was not significantly different between the emphysema and non-emphysema group for either AI (p = 0.80) or human reader (p = 0.54).” On page 7, “Also, the nodule detection sensitivity in emphysema tended to be higher for AI than the human reader, but there were no significant differences for either the emphysema (p = 0.310) or the non-emphysema group (p = 1.000).” should instead read: “Also, the nodule detection sensitivity in emphysema tended to be higher for AI than the human reader, but no significant differences were found between the emphysema and the non-emphysema group for either AI (0.94) or human reader (p = 0.29).”.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85201386803&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1186/s41747-024-00494-6
DO - 10.1186/s41747-024-00494-6
M3 - Erratum
C2 - 39150589
AN - SCOPUS:85201386803
SN - 2509-9280
VL - 8
JO - European Radiology Experimental
JF - European Radiology Experimental
IS - 1
M1 - 94
ER -