Dhana A, Hamada Y, Kengne AP, et al. Tuberculosis screening among ambulatory people living with HIV: a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis 22: 507–182022; —In the Acknowledgments section of this Article, the authors have added the statement: “We acknowledge the provision of data by the AIDS Clinical Trials Group”. This correction has been made to the online version as of April 17, 2023.


Correction to: Stem Cell Research & Therapy 10.1186/s13287-021-02678-yIn the original article, the authors identified two editing errors: Methods section, concretely in the Study population subsection, a typing error was made, since it states that twenty-seven women were included in the study (14 with GDM and 14 with NGT), but indeed there are twenty-eight women.1. In the 2. In Table


Correction: Molecular Medicine (2023) 29:49https://doi.org/10.1186/s10020-023-00638-1Following publication of the original article  Representative Micro-CT images of 3-month-old caRhoA and RCre;caRhoA mice tibias. (b) The parameters of tibias growth plate trabecular bone, n = 6. (c) Representative H&E and TRAP staining images of mice femurs. Scale bars, 200 µm (H&E) and 20 µm (TRAP). (d) The parameters of femur osteoclasts, n = 6. (e) Representative TRAP staining images of BMMs from caRhoA and RCre;caRhoA mice. Scale bars, 200 µm. (f) SEM analysis and quantification of bone resorption area of bone slides, n = 6, Scale bars, 20 µm. (g) Representative Phalloidin staining images and quantification of F-actin ring per well and nuclei per osteoclast, n = 3, Scale bars, 500 µm. Mean ± s.d., *P < 0.05, Student’s t-test.Additional file 1: Figure S4. The authors confirm all results, and conclusions of this article remain unchanged. The authors apologize for this error and any confusion it may have caused.


The authors regret that they divided the blots from the same groups of samples into two images  in consideration of layout neatness but used the same β-actin. Although Fig. 4 C and D were both from the same group of samples, it is not properly to use the same β-actin in Fig. 4 C and 4D. Similar blot division and usage of the same β-actin could also be found in Fig 5B and 5C. The authors would like to merge figure Fig. 4C and D into one image, and merge figure Fig.5B and 5C into one image. Thus, they make this corrigendum.


Ward et al., Chem. Sci., 2023, 14, 2024–2032, https://doi.org/10.1039/D2SC06375A.Correction for ‘Isolation of C1 through C4 derivatives from CO using heteroleptic uranium( The correct C–O bond distance in complex 3 is 1.158(6) Å, while the one quoted in the manuscript of 1.363(4) Å is the C–O distance in the U–O–C(ipso).The authors regret that the C–O bond distance for complex The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.


In the original publication , the autFigure 1. Concept of an overlapping spectrum of allergic fungal airway diseases. Adapted from reference [7]. ‘Journal of Asthma and Allergy 2021:14 557–573’, originally published by and used with permission from Dove Medical Press Ltd.”“The original publication has also been updated.


The authors regret that the Author contributions statement was shown incorrectly in the original manuscript. The corrected Author contributions statement is shown here.Xingyu Liu and Lili Xu contributed equally to this work. Xingyu Liu: conceptualization, investigation, methodology, writing – original draft. Lili Xu: methodology, validation, conceptualization, theoretical analysis. Shuaisheng Zhao: investigation, validation, methodology, writing – review & editing. Haoxuan Hua: investigation. Gang Li: investigation. Jinlei Wang: investigation. Yifan Su: investigation. Xinquan Yu: funding acquisition, review & editing. Youfa Zhang: project administration, supervision, review & editing.The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.


This erratum corrects the following:J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2022; 22: 175–181. https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13234Ferris WS, Culberson WS, Smilowitz JB, Bayouth JE. Effects of variable‐width jaw motion on beam characteristics for Radixact Synchrony®. John E. Bayouth reports ownership interest in a company that provides consulting services on image‐guided radiation therapy technology . He/(his employer) received travel reimbursement/speaking fees from ViewRay Inc. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.


The journal retracts the 2022 article cited above.Following publication, concerns were raised regarding the contributions of the authors of the article. Our investigation, conducted in accordance with Frontiers policies, confirmed a serious breach of our authorship policies and of publication ethics; the article is therefore retracted.This retraction was approved by the Chief Editors of Frontiers in Psychology and the Chief Executive Editor of Frontiers. The authors responded to the concerns raised, but did not provide a satisfactory explanation. The authors do not agree to this retraction.


In the original publication , there wAuthor Contributions: Conceptualization, K.D. and T.L.; investigation, K.D. (reviewed 78 articles), K.E. (reviewed 7 articles) and T.L.; methodology, K.D.; visualization, K.D.; supervision, T.L.; writing—original draft, K.D.  and K.E. (Sections 4.2.2 and 5); writing—review and editing, K.D., K.E., T.L. and C.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.Khang Dang was not included as an author in the original publication. The corrected Author Contributions statement appears here.The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.


Nature Communications 10.1038/s41467-019-09865-9, published online 06 May 2019Retraction to: The authors have retracted this article due to image errors across the figures, and some of the data lacking biological repeats, which calls into question the reliability of the data and the conclusions. In particular, there are errors in the immunohistochemistry images in Figure 6A, invasion assay images in Figure 1C, western blots  and would healing assay images . The authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused to the community.Xinyao Lin, Guoshi Chai, Yingming Wu, Jiexin Li, Feng Chen, Jianzhao Liu, Guanzheng Luo, Jordi Tauler, Shuibin Lin, Chuan He and Hongsheng Wang agree to this retraction. Jun Du has not responded to any correspondence from the editor or publisher about this retraction.


CorrectionThe original articles , 2 mista


In the original publication , there wThe authors apologize for any inconvenience caused and state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.


The authors were asked for an explanation to account for these concerns, but the Editorial Office did not receive a reply. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused.Owing to the fact that the contentious data in the above article had already been submitted for publication elsewhere prior to its submission to


Biomarker Research (2023) 11:9710.1186/s40364-023-00536-yThe original article [1] contained an error in the affiliations of co-authors, Yaqi Zhang and Xuefeng B. Ling due to a no-fault misinterpretation during the proofing process. The affiliations have since been amended to reflect the affiliations that were originally requested by the authors.


Retraction Note: J Ovarian Res 6, 52 (2013)https://doi.org/10.1186/1757-2215-6-52The authors have retracted this article. After 10 years of publication, a concern was raised regarding highly similar cell pattern in different area of Fig. 2A. The corresponding author has stated that Fig. 2A is a composite image, and unintentional duplication occurred while compiling the data. The corresponding author has also stated that bright field smear images in Figs. 1–3 are composite, due to a low number of cells spread apart across the sample, which should have been indicated in the figure legends. The authors are preparing a revised version of this manuscript for peer review.Hiren Patel, Deepa Bhartiya, Seema Parte and Mithun Bhatt agree to this retraction. The Publisher has not been able to obtain current email addresses for Pranesh Gunjal and Snehal Yedurkar.


The Acknowledgements section is missing in the paper. The correct Acknowledgements is as follows: The authors would like to acknowledge the support of Prince Sultan University for paying the Article Processing Charges (APC) of this publication.


There was no probiotics supplementation in the study, so the erratum would be necessary. The correction is as follows:In the original publication , there wFigure 5. Effect of the eight-week training intervention on NH3 (A), LDH (B), and CK (C) levels after an acute exercise challenge (20 min treadmill). Blood was immediately sampled after the exercise for biochemical assessments. Data are represented as mean ± standard deviation, and the columns with different letters  indicate significant difference at p < 0.05.”“The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.


The correct version of funding information can be found below:In the original published version of this article, the authors have not provided the complete funding information. The funding information has now been updated. 10.13039/501100012650TU Wien Bibliothek for financial support through its Open Access Funding Program.The authors acknowledge The authors apologize for the errors. Both the HTML and PDF versions of the article have been updated to correct the errors.The authors declare no conflict of interest.


The authors were asked for an explanation to account for these concerns, but the Editorial Office did not receive a reply. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused.Owing to the fact that the contentious data in the above article had already been published elsewhere, or were under consideration for publication, prior to its submission to


In the original publication , there wIn In The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.


The authors were asked for an explanation to account for these concerns, but the Editorial Office did not receive any reply. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused.Following the publication of this paper, it was drawn to the Editor's attention by a concerned reader that certain of the data shown for the Transwell cell migration and invasion assays in Figs. 2C and 4C were strikingly similar to data appearing in different form in another article by different authors at a different research institution. Owing to the fact that the contentious data in the above article were under consideration for publication elsewhere at a similar time to when it was submitted to


In Methods section “Transcutaneous immunizations” DI-TCI was replaced by DIVA, and finally typos were fixed in Figs 3 and 6. Those changes have now been updated in the HTML and PDF version of this Article.Figs. 3 and 6 are attached.


Moreover, three overlapping data panels were identified in Fig. 6A, such that data which were intended to show the results from differently performed experiments appeared to have been derived from the same original source(s). In view of the fact that certain of these data had already apparently been published previously, and given the lack of rigour on the part of the authors in assembling the figures, the Editor of Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine has decided that this paper should be retracted from the Journal. After having been in contact with the authors, they agreed with the decision to retract the paper. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused.Following the publication of this paper, it was drawn to the Editors’ attention by a concerned reader that the Transwell invasion assay data shown in Fig. 6B on p. 3085 were strikingly similar to data appearing in different form in other articles written by different authors at different research institutes that had either already been published elsewhere prior to the submission of this paper to


Scientific Reports, 10.1038/s41598-022-10958-7, published online 02 May 2022Retraction of: The Authors have retracted this Article.Following the publication of the Article, the authors have identified a number of errors which invalidate the results reports in this paper. First, in “Case studies”, subheading “Basic data”, for the simulation the output data shown in Figure 2 were used as input. Since these are not real data, the results of the simulation are incorrect. Second, in “Methods: solving an integrated demand response IES optimization dispatch model for electricity and heat”, in the description of the application of the IGWO to the IES scheduling optimisation, in Step 4 the Authors incorrectly used the FCM clustering algorithm, which is not an appropriate solution. This makes the whole process incorrect. Finally, in “Integrated demand response model for electric and thermal multiple loads” the Authors did not consider the real-time capacity variation which makes the mathematical model incorrect.All Authors agree with the retraction and its wording.


Scientific Reportshttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-13692-2, published online 08 June 2022Retraction of: The Editors have retracted this Article.After publication, concerns were raised the validity of the XRD spectra presented in Figure 1, and the authorship and author contributions. The Editors requested the authors to provide raw original data and explanations regarding the contributions, but found the response provided by the Authors insufficient. The Authors were also not able to provide all of the original data with meta-data that would allow for the verification of its veracity. Additionally, references 18–68 appear to be unrelated to the research described in this Article. The Editors therefore no longer have confidence in the reliability of the data presented in this Article.Merhdad Khatami does not agree to this retraction. Maryam Darvish, Navid Nasrabadi, Farnoush Fotovat, Setareh Khosravi, Samira Jamali, Elnaz Mousavi, Siavash Iravani and Abbas Rahdar have not responded to any correspondence from the Editor about this retraction.


The authors were asked for an explanation to account for these concerns, but the Editorial Office did not receive a reply. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused.Following the publication of this paper, it was drawn to the Editor's attention by a concerned reader that the colony formation data shown in Fig. 2C on p. 333 had already appeared in previously published articles written by different authors at different research institutes. Owing to the fact that the contentious data in the above article had already been published prior to its submission to


Retraction Note: BMC Infectious Diseases (2020) 20:94910.1186/s12879-020-05630-2The Editor has retracted this article because the authors have been unable to provide documents confirming that ethics approval was obtained for the study. None of the authors have responded to correspondence from the Editor about this retraction.


Following the publication of this article , concernβ-actin panels in Figs 7D and 7K.β-actin panels in Figs 8E and 9D.c-fos panels in Figs 9D and 9E.The following panels appear similar despite representing different conditions:Data tables are not consistent with the reported number of samples in multiple graphs.The corresponding author provided original uncropped western blots underlying some of the results in Figs 7–9. In relation to the three pairs of similar panels representing different conditions in Figs 7D and 7K, 8E and 9D, and 9D and 9E, the corresponding author stated that the pairs are not the same. Their responses and the original uncropped images did not resolve the concerns regarding similarity between these blots.The corresponding author provided data tables underlying all graphs other than those in Fig 5 and Fig 6D. Data tables underlying the graphs in Figs 3A, 6C, 7, 8 and 9 contain less samples than indicated in the corresponding figure legends. Data tables underlying the graphs in Fig 4 contain inconsistent numbers of samples for the Tempol and FG-7142 groups. Additionally, many data tables contain values labelled as outliers that were excluded from analyses. The corresponding author’s responses did not resolve these concerns which question the accuracy of data reporting and the reliability of the results.PLOS ONE Editors retract this article.In light of the concerns affecting multiple figure panels that question the reliability of these data, the SS did not agree with the retraction and stands by the article’s findings. All other authors either did not respond directly or could not be reached.


The authors were asked for an explanation to account for these concerns, but the Editorial Office did not receive a reply. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused.Following the publication of the above paper, it was drawn to the Editors' attention by a concerned reader that western blot data shown in Fig. 2B were strikingly similar to data that had appeared in different form in another article. Owing to the fact that the contentious data in the above article were already under consideration for publication elsewhere prior to its submission to


The authors were asked for an explanation to account for these concerns, but the Editorial Office did not receive a reply. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused.Owing to the fact that the contentious data in the above article had already been published prior to its submission to


Following the publication of this article , concernIn Fig 1, there appears to be an overlapping region in the A and B panels despite these panels representing CD34 expression in a control group and infants with Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) respectively.In Fig 5, there appears to be an overlapping region in the A and B panels despite these panels representing melatonin receptor 1 expression in infants with SIDS and a control group respectively.In Fig 6, there appears to be an overlapping region in the B and D panels despite these panels representing melatonin receptor 1 and melatonin receptor 2 expression respectively.Whilst the underlying data for these panels is provided via a repository of the figures and datasets presented in the published article, the above concerns are additionally present in the underlying data and therefore they do not resolve the concerns. The authors did not provide a response to concerns raised about Figs 1, 5, and 6.PLOS ONE Editors retract this article.In light of the concerns affecting multiple figure panels that question the integrity and reliability of these data, the All authors either did not respond directly or could not be reached.


Retraction: ‘Comparative molecular docking and molecular‐dynamic simulation of wild‐type‐ and mutant carboxylesterase with BTA‐hydrolase for enhanced binding to plastic’, by Fatana Lameh, Abdul Qadeer Baseer, and Abubakar Garba Ashiru, Eng Life Sci. 2021; 13‐29: The above article, published online on 15 November 2021 in Wiley Online Library (https://doi.org/10.1002/elsc.202100083), has been retracted by agreement between the authors, the journal's Editors in Chief, Prof. Dr. Ralf Takors and Prof. Dr. An‐Ping Zeng, and Wiley‐VCH GmbH.The retraction has been agreed because the copyright owner, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, does not consent to publication of the research. Retraction: ‘Comparative molecular docking and molecular‐dynamic simulation of wild‐type‐ and mutant carboxylesterase with BTA‐hydrolase for enhanced binding to plastic’, by Fatana Lameh, Abdul Qadeer Baseer, and Abubakar Garba Ashiru, Eng Life Sci. 2021; 13‐29: The above article, published online on 15 November 2021 in Wiley Online Library (https://doi.org/10.1002/elsc.202100083), has been retracted by agreement between the authors, the journal's Editors in Chief, Prof. Dr. Ralf Takors and Prof. Dr. An‐Ping Zeng, and Wiley‐VCH GmbH.The retraction has been agreed because the copyright owner, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, does not consent to publication of the research.


The correct version of the institutional information of the authors can be found below:In the original published version of this article, the authors have requested to change the institutional information. The institutional information of the authors have been updated. Mohammed I. Abuashour institutional information has been changed from:Renewable Energy Centre, The Hashemite University, Zarqa, 13115, Jordanto:Renewable Energy Centre, Electrical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, The Hashemite University, Zarqa, Jordan.And.Haris M. Khalid L institutional information has been changed from:Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Higher Colleges of Technology, Sharjah 7947, United Arab EmiratesTo.College of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Dubai, Academic City 14143, Dubai, United Arab EmiratesThe authors/publisher apologize for the errors. Both the HTML and PDF versions of the article have been updated to correct the errors.The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.


In the original publication , there wWith regard to the correction of Table 1, a correction has been made to Section 3.2, Paragraph 1.From raw data of a Eurasian blackbird’s transcriptomic analysis [30] we deduced the mRNA sequences from the positive TDSCs markers CD29, CD44, CD71, CD73, CD90, CD105, and the negative markers CD14, CD34, and CD45. Nucleotide sequence data reported are available in the Third Party Annotation Section of the DDBJ/ENA/GenBank databases under the accession numbers TPA: BK064237-BK064246. From these mRNA sequences, we designed the primers presented in Table 1.The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.


Nucleic Acids Research, Volume 28, Issue 4, 15 February 2000, Pages 875–885, https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/28.4.875The Editors were alerted in August 2023 that two areas in the background of Figure 1B appear more similar than expected.The Editors have contacted the authors and are investigating. In the interim, we advise readers to examine the details of this study with particular care.Julian E. Sale, Barry L. StoddardSenior Executive Editors


Cryptococcus neoformans, FEMS Yeast Research, Volume 20, Issue 3, 11 May 2020, https://doi.org/10.1093/femsyr/foaa015.This is a retraction of Jiu Yi, Junjun Sang, Jingyu Zhao, Lei Gao, Yali Yang, Lei Yan, Chao Zhang, Weihua Pan, Guizhen Wang, Wanqing Liao, Transcription factor Liv4 is required for growth and pathogenesis of https://pubpeer.com/publications/4D828B96E005A6D0D0A2A74312D5B4). That individual asserted they had not been aware of the article, noted inconsistencies with the data presented, did not endorse the research results reported, and stated they had consulted the other named authors, who collectively agreed the article should be retracted. The journal subsequently attempted to contact the other named authors directly, but none of them were responsive. The journal is ultimately retracting this article, because the editor no longer believes the data presented in Figure 2 provides confidence in the construction of the liv4Δ mutant, which anchors the study.The last-named author contacted the journal editor in May 2023, after being alerted to concerns with duplicated images in Figure 2, which had been posted on PubPeer in November 2021 (


We changed this statement to: “The data of the French HD cohort is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request and institutional data use agreement. For queries to obtain biomaterials, raw and processed data of the CHDI cohort, please contact CHDI Foundation (info@chdifoundation.org)” to the table titles. We updated the title for Table S15 to “Table S15. CAG and CCG repeat sizes for the French cohort. The repeat sizes were quantified by NanoRepeat from Oxford Nanopore long reads.” We updated Table S10 to show that the genomic positions are based on T2T-CHM13v1.1.In the originally published version of this article, we included information from CHDI in Tables S11, S14, and S16 inadvertently. This is considered as Material-Related Information by CHDI. We removed the sample-related columns of Tables S11, S14, and S16 and added the following sentence “Sample-related information can be obtained from the CHDI Foundation ” should be “(D),” and “(F)” should be “(E and F).” Additionally, in the main text, the citation of Figure 6I should be Figure 6G.The results and conclusions of the manuscript are not affected by the above changes. The article has been corrected online. The authors regret the errors.


In “Voice-Based Screening for SARS-CoV-2 Exposure in Cardiovascular Clinics (VOICE-COVID-19-II): Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial”  the authors noted the following error:In the author list, the first two authors Emily Oulousian and Seok Hoon Chung had contributed equally but this was not listed. In the corrected version the first two authors have been listed as:Emily Oulousian*; Seok Hoon Chung**these authors contributed equallyThe corrections will appear in the online version of the paper on the JMIR Publications website on November 23, 2023, together with the publication of this correction notice. Because this was made after submission to PubMed, PubMed Central, and other full-text repositories, the corrected article has also been resubmitted to those repositories.


Moreover, a range of data included in this paper also appeared in different formats in several other articles published subsequently.Oncology Letters, the Editor has decided that this paper should be retracted from the Journal. After having been in contact with the authors, they accepted the decision to retract the paper. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused.Owing to the fact that the contentious data in Fig. 5 of the above article were already under consideration for publication prior to its submission to


The recent review by Dyńka et al.  conclude(I) The authors call into question the link between elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and CVD, as they state that association is not causation. However, the AHA presidential panel ranked the link between LDL-C and CVD to reach the level of evidence to meet causality, and this conclusion was reached unanimously by three independent guideline committees based on “Level A, Strong” evidence . I suspe(II) Despite the authors’ prior dismissal of the link between LDL-C and CVD, they contradictorily proceed to argue that a KGD is favorable in preventing CVD by reducing LDL-C. In any case, the authors cite mostly trials in which diets were designed to be hypocaloric to draw this conclusion. The confounding effects of weight loss were not considered when evaluating the lipid-mediating effects of a KGD. For example, carefully designed metabolic ward studies have revealed that ad libitum intake or weight-maintaining KGDs significantly increases LDL-C and all subfractions ,5. It ha(III) The authors claim that a KGD is more effective in reducing body weight compared to other diets. Ignoring the fact that most of the trials examined were designed to be hypocaloric, it has been demonstrated in a convincing metabolic ward study that calorie-for-calorie, dietary fat restriction reduces fat mass to a greater extent than carbohydrate restriction . In fact(IV) The authors claim that a KGD will favorably impact blood glucose, however, a KGD will also increase fasting free fatty acids (FFAs) ,5. ElevaThe misleading conclusions made by authors will send the wrong public health message, dangerously promoting the use of KGDs in treating CVDs, when, in fact, a KGD likely exacerbates CVD.


A randomized controlled trial of a mindfulness-based intervention program for people with schizophrenia: 6-month follow-up” .The authors clarify that the RCT reported in this Psychological Medicine article was a multi-centre RCT shared part of the data/results of another publication “


Following the publication of this article , concernIn Fig 2B, the aconitine panel appears similar to the TIF panel found in Fig. 6B of [○ Fig 3C and Fig 3D○ Fig 6C, Fig 6D, and Fig 6E○ Fig 9B and Fig 9CThe following graphs appear similar despite representing different experimental conditions:In Fig 7A, there appear to be vertical discontinuities between lanes 1 and 2 in the Oct4 panel and lanes 1 and 2 in the Nanog panel.In Fig 7A the GAPDH panel appears similar to the beta-actin panel found in Figure 4E of .In Fig 7B, the Notoginsenoside R1 Cleaved Caspase-3 panel appears similar to the Control Pimonidazole panel in Fig. 6A of .In Fig 9A the left region of the Shikonin panel appears to overlap with the right region of the Notoginsenoside R1 panel.In Fig 9A the control, Shikonin, Aconitine Notoginsenoside R1 and combined three compounds panels appear similar to the correspondingly named panels in Fig. 7 of .The authors stated that the underlying data for all figures was no longer available. Regarding the concerns in Fig 2B, Fig 7A and Fig 7B the authors stated they were caused by errors in arranging data in the submission process for  and thatPLOS ONE Editors retract this article.In light of the concerns affecting multiple figure panels that question the integrity and reliability of these data, the All authors either did not respond directly to the editorial decision or could not be reached.


Corentin Warnier, Thibault Gendron, Muhammad Otabashi, Charles Vriamont and Alex Jackson were not included as authors in the original publication . The corAuthor Contributions: A.P.: conceptualisation, investigation, original draft; F.Z.: review, conceptualization; C.W.: methodology, conceptualization; T.G.: methodology, conceptualization; M.O.: methodology, conceptualization, validation; C.V.: methodology, conceptualization; A.J.: funding acquisition, resources, conceptualisation; W.P.F.: funding acquisition, review; K.H.: funding acquisition, review; M.N.: review. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.In the published publication, the following two affiliations are missing:2 Trasis, Rue Gilles Magnee 90, 4430 Ans, Belgium3 Theragnostics Ltd., 1 Sans Walk, London EC1R 0LT, UKIn the original publication, there was a mistake in Funding. The correct version should be:Funding: This research was funded by Theragnostics Ltd.A correction has been made to Conflicts of Interest. The updated text appears below.Conflicts of Interest: Alex Jackson is an employee of Theragnostics Ltd. Charles Vriamont, Corentin Warnier, Thibault Gendron and Muhammad Otabashi are employees of Trasis.The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.


First, for the RAHBT cohort, the values for “Lumpectomy + radiation” and “Lumpectomy − radiation” were transposed. Second, in the RAHBT “DCIS with invasive recurrence” group, the number of samples with grade 3 DCIS should be n = 3, not 2 as listed. Third, for the RAHBT “DCIS without recurrence” group, there should be n = 53 ER+, not 55 as listed; and n = 15 ER−, not 13 as listed.Table 1 has been corrected in the original article online. The authors apologize for any confusion these errors might have caused. Since these errors only occurred in Table 1, none of the analyses or the conclusions of the paper are affected.


Following publication, concerns were raised regarding the integrity of the images in the published figures. The authors failed to provide a satisfactory explanation during the investigation, which was conducted in accordance with Frontiers’ policies.The authors agree to this retraction.This retraction was approved by the Chief Editors of Frontiers in Pharmacology and the Chief Executive Editor of Frontiers.


Munawar et al., Nanoscale Adv., 2023, https://doi.org/10.1039/d3na00017f.Correction for ‘Revealing the electronic, optical and photocatalytic properties of PN-M The authors regret that the email address of one of the corresponding authors (Tahani A. Alrebdi) was incorrectly listed as taalrebdi@pnu.edu.pk in the original manuscript. The correct email address  is listed here.The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.


The journal retracts the 2022 article cited above.Following publication, concerns were raised regarding the contributions of the authors of the article. Our investigation, conducted in accordance with Frontiers policies, confirmed a serious breach of our authorship policies and of publication ethics; the article is therefore retracted.This retraction was approved by the Chief Editors of Frontiers in Chemistry and the Chief Executive Editor of Frontiers. The authors have not responded to correspondence regarding this retraction.


The Editorial Office has been made aware of potential issues surrounding the scientific validity of this paper, hence has issued an Expression of Concern to notify readers.It has been noted by a reader that there is a similarity of the Western blots with those in several other unrelated publications suspected of originating from a third party. The reader has also identified highly similar data between this publication, and that of Zhao et al. 2018 (doi: 10.3892/ijo.2018.4576) and Liang et al. 2017 (doi: 10.3892/or.2017.6049).The authors were contacted regarding the concerns raised and provided the Editorial Office with copies of the original Western blots, however minor differences in the shape and spacing of the bands, as well as the addition/removal of background and surface features can be seen between the original submitted Figures and the raw Western blots images provided post-publication. The authors state that these differences are due to staining due to improper preservation.


Scientific Reportshttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-45611-3, published online 24 June 2019Retraction of: Editors have retracted this Article.After publication of this paper concerns about ethical oversight of this study were brought to the attention of the Editors. The Authors were not able to provide documentation of appropriate approval from an ethics committee in either Niger or Senegal, where the participants in this study were based.Thi-Phuong-Thao Pham, Cheikh Sokhna, Frank Wieringa, Mathieu Million, and Didier Raoult disagree with this retraction. Maryam Tidjani Alou, Dipankar Bachar, Anthony Levasseur, Souleymane Brah, and Daouda Alhousseini did not respond to correspondence from the Editors about this retraction. The Editors were not able to confirm current contact details for Aldiouma Diallo.


The journal and Chief Editors retract the 20 January 2022 article cited above.Following publication, concerns were raised regarding the quality of the article and the language of the presentation. An investigation was conducted in accordance with Frontiers' policies.A post-publication assessment by an expert in the field found that the complaints were valid and that the study design is not adequate to justify the conclusions drawn by the authors. The article does not meet the standards of editorial and scientific soundness for Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience; therefore, it has been retracted.This retraction was approved by the Chief Editors of Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience and the Chief Executive Editor of Frontiers. The authors did not agree to this retraction.


In the article by Chang et al., , there wThe correct details are as follows:aWing type of male samples is WT‐3 ). The forewings are shorter than or just reach two‐thirds of the hind femur and at least adjoin the back.bWing type of female samples is WT‐2 ). The wings degenerated into scales, laterally located, usually covering the tympanum, a few do not reach the tympanum.The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.


Correction to: BMC Surgery 10.1186/s12893-023-02070-y.Following publication of the original article , in thiswww.editage.jp) for English language editing. The authors are grateful to JPSKAKENHI #22K16548.The authors thank Editage (


Affiliation number 3, “Suizhou No. 2 High School, Suizhou 441300, China” need to be changed to his Current Address. The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.In the published publication , there w


Purity, which states that facts about derivative entities are non-fundamental. Purity is questionable. In this paper, I introduce a new argument—the argument from Settledness—for a similar conclusion but which does not rely on Purity. The conclusion of the new argument is that every “thick” grounding fact is grounded, where a grounding fact  is said to be thick when at least one of F, G, H, … is a fact—a condition that is automatically satisfied if grounding is factive. After introducing the argument, I compare it with the argument from Purity, and I assess its cogency relative to the relevant accounts of the connections between grounding and fundamentality that are available in the literature.Many philosophers have recently been impressed by an argument to the effect that all grounding facts about “derivative entities”—e.g. the facts expressed by the (let us suppose) true sentences ‘the fact that Beijing is a concrete entity is grounded in the fact that its parts are concrete’ and ‘the fact that there are cities is grounded in the fact that p’, where ‘p’ is a suitable sentence couched in the language of particle physics—must themselves be grounded. This argument relies on a principle,  Assume for example the physicalist view that some given microphysical fact grounds the fact that there are cities. What grounds this grounding fact? There is no obvious answer.The argument from Purity poses a serious challenge. For what are the grounding facts about (say) cities grounded in? In some cases, the answer is easy—or so it may seem. Thus, given the orthodox view that grounding is transitive, it is perhaps plausible to hold that.Many philosophers have been impressed by this argument, and several, more or less plausible suggestions about what grounds grounding facts have been put forward in order to accommodate its conclusion.The argument from Purity involves three key notions: a fact’s being about derivative entities, being fundamental, and grounding. Each of these notions is equivocal in the present context, and therefore, before critically examining the argument, one should in principle specify how these notions are to be understood. It can be argued that specifying how the notion of a fact’s being about derivative entities is to be understood is not really mandatory. Instead of critically examining the argument from Purity itself, one may as well critically examine the arguments that result from it by replacing all occurrences of ‘derivative entities’ by kind terms that pick out entities that presumably count as derivative, e.g. ‘cities’, ‘people’, ‘molecules’ or ‘planets’. By moving from the “general” argument from Purity to particular “instances” in the suggested way, something is lost, for sure, but for practical purposes this may not matter.It is common to distinguish between various notions of grounding, e.g. between factive and non-factive, weak and strict, and worldly and representational grounding.weak grounding. Since weak grounding is reflexive, the conclusion of the argument from Purity is trivial, and therefore the argument as a whole is obviously dialectically ineffective. Proponents of the argument are thus best understood as having strict grounding in mind.Suppose for instance that the argument is understood as involving factive notion grounding, i.e. that grounding is understood in such a way that it is impossible that grounding be exemplified without the exemplifiers holding, i.e. without the exemplifiers being facts.Also, suppose that the argument is understood as involving a clearly discarded as being unintended.These considerations leave open the possibility of there being more than one notion of grounding that the argument from Purity can be taken to target. It is also plausible to hold that ‘fundamental’ may be understood in different ways in the argument. Knowledge of the literature on fundamentality naturally suggests the following four candidate notions: being “natural” or “joint-carving” . For consider [NYC = NYC]. This is a fact about a city, and hence (presumably) it counts as a fact about derivative entities. By Purity, it is non-fundamental, i.e.  grounded. But is it? [NYC = NYC] look very much like a good candidate for being brute, i.e. ungrounded. I do not deny that there are accounts on which this fact is grounded. For instance, friends of grounding who espouse Sider’s conception of fundamentality might suggest that [NYC = NYC] is grounded in [def(NYC) = def(NYC)], where ‘def(NYC)’ is a definite description that provides a “metaphysical definition” of NYC couched in joint-carving terms  Every fact about derivative entities is grounded.Using again [NYC = NYC] as I did before, one can argue that Purity* is questionable: granted that [NYC = NYC] is a fact about derivative entities, Purity* entails that it is grounded, but the view that it is grounded is questionable. The point is interesting, because it is independent from the particular notion of fundamentality taken to be involved in Purity and NF → G.thick grounding fact be a grounding fact [F is grounded in FF] such that F or one of FF holds, i.e. is a fact. If grounding is factive, then all grounding facts are thick, but if grounding is not factive, then there may be—indeed, there certainly are—grounding facts that are not thick. Consider, then, the following argument—the argument from Settledness, as I will call it:1) For every thick grounding fact [F is grounded in FF] and some fact X among F and FF, [F is grounded in FF] is less fundamental than XSettledness2) A fact is non-fundamental if it is less fundamental than another factTruism3) Every thick grounding fact is non-fundamentalBy 1) and 2)4) If a fact is non-fundamental, then it is groundedNF→G5) Every thick grounding fact is groundedBy 3) and 4)Note that by Truism, NF → G and the assumption that some fact is less fundamental than some other fact, there are thick grounding facts and hence 5) is not vacuously true. Also note that if grounding is factive, then Settledness is equivalent toFor every grounding fact [F is grounded in FF] and some X among F and FF, [F is grounded in FF] is less fundamental than X,and the conclusion of the argument is equivalent toEvery grounding fact is grounded.Let a not taken to be factive, the conclusion of the argument from Settledness (that every thick grounding fact is grounded) is not logically stronger than the conclusion of the argument from Purity, but it remains at least as challenging as the latter when the focus is on thick grounding facts.The argument from Settledness is in some ways similar to the argument from Purity, and in some ways different. If grounding is taken to be factive, the conclusion of the argument from Settledness (that every grounding fact is grounded) is logically stronger than the conclusion of the argument from Purity (that every grounding fact about derivative entities is grounded). This makes the former argument at least as challenging as the latter.absolute fundamentality , Settledness connects grounding and relative fundamentality . Truism connects absolute and relative fundamentality. Relative fundamentality is completely absent from the argument from Purity .The premises of the two arguments overlap. Like the argument from Purity, the new argument invokes NF → G. But unlike the former, it does not invoke Purity—nor any principle involving the notion of a fact’s being about derivative entities, for that matter. It has Settledness and Truism instead. Settledness, like Purity, connects grounding and fundamentality. But whereas Purity connects grounding and Importantly, the premises of the argument from Settledness do not entail Purity*. As a result, the questionable character of Purity* every (not just some) fact X among F and FF, [F is grounded in FF] is less fundamental than XFor every thick grounding fact [F is grounded in FF] and sounds indeed compelling. However, these are only first impressions, and a proper assessment of the cogency of the argument requires at least prior specification of which key notions are involved.Settledness may not sound literally truistic, but it seems nevertheless very plausible. The stronger view thatThe discussion of Sect. However, since the argument from Settledness involves the relative notion of being less fundamental than, the discussion of Sect. absolute fundamentality have been reasonably thoroughly studied in the past few years, philosophical theorising on the connections between grounding, absolute fundamentality and relative fundamentality is greatly underdeveloped. As far as I know, there currently are only three reasonably elaborated views about these connections, one put forward in Bennett, F is fewer grounding steps away from the ungrounded fact(s) that terminate its unique grounding chain than G is from the ungrounded fact(s) that terminate its unique grounding chain;(2)F at least partially grounds G;(3)F stands in the ancestral of partial grounding to G;(4)F is ungrounded while G is grounded;(5)F belongs to some kind K and G belongs to some kind K* such thatNeither K nor K* includes both grounded and ungrounded members, andG does not belong to K and F does not belong to K*, andK*s are typically or normally grounded in Ks.Fact F is more fundamental than fact G ≡Some parts of the second characterisation would require further elaboration in order to be fully clear, but we do not need to go into such details.18Bennett relativises fundamentality to “building relations”, and she takes grounding to be among these relations. She holds that one can characterise, in terms of each such relation, both a notion of being fundamental and a notion of being more fundamental than. For grounding, the characterisations go as follows (see Ch. 5 and Ch.6):17(LF→G)If a fact is less fundamental than another fact, then it is grounded.Putting the two characterisations together, we accordingly get Truism.Bennett’s characterisation of absolute fundamentality trivially validates NF → G. Moreover, a quick inspection of the five clauses of Bennett’s characterisation of being more fundamental than reveals that each clause entails ‘G is grounded’. Accordingly, an immediate consequence of the characterisation is thatThe same diagnosis holds if Werner’s  account df the holding of FF entails that F holds and is less fundamental than FF.F is grounded in FF ≡The situation with Correia  is signiIn the original characterisation of factive grounding, ‘entails’ is left underspecified on purpose, in order to allow several precisifications among which one may make a choice. Various notions of entailment may indeed be deemed relevant for the purpose of characterising factive grounding. Of course, the same is true of non-factive grounding. Importantly, Grounding from Fundamentality does not entail LF → G, and accordingly the previous considerations about Bennett’s account and Werner’s account do not apply to the account under focus.20In Correia , no accometaphysical necessitation, emergence only entails nomological necessitation  (A) is nothing but a consequence of the familiar view that facts expressed by atomic sentences are complex entities, composed of properties and relations and their exemplifiers. One may wish to argue in favour of (B) on the grounds that (u) if a fact is a component of another fact, then the former is less complex than the latter, and (v) less complex facts are more fundamental than more complex facts. However, one may accept (B) without accepting (v), e.g. because one do not believe that facts have degrees of complexity, or more generally because one do not believe that there is such a thing as a relation of being more complex than among facts.I previously claimed that the principle seems plausible. But what more could be said in its favour? Here is an argument that strikes me as having This argument in favour of Settledness can be attacked in various ways.immediate component instead of that of being a component:(A*) If F is grounded in FF, then F and FF are immediate components of [F is grounded in FF];(B*) Facts that are immediate components of other facts are more fundamental than them.(B*) is not subject to the counterexample to (B) discussed above, because G is not an immediate component of F ∨ (G & ¬G). Since (A*) and (B*) together entail Settledness , the modified principles can still be used to support Settledness, as announced.This counterexample to (B) suggests a modified argument in favour of Settledness, based on principles that are just like (A) and (B) but which invoke the concept of being an Of course, this amended argument in favour of Settledness does not escape all the objections to the original argument mentioned above, and accordingly a proper defence of the argument would require more work. But as far as my current purposes are concerned it is not necessary to push the discussion further. What is important is that the argument has been identified, because it can indeed be used to show that the views about relative fundamentality that I put forward in Correia  support The way I treat relative fundamentality there is indeed guided by the following principle, where the sentences in question are taken from certain regimented languages: if sentence S is an immediate part of sentence T, and if both sentences are true, then the fact expressed by S is more fundamental than the fact expressed by T.Let me wrap up the discussion of Correia . Purity (Order)(FF hold/s & F is grounded in FF) ⇒ FF are/is more fundamental than [F is grounded in FF](Rigidity)If F is grounded in FF, then FF hold/s ⇒ F is grounded in FF(Reflexivity)φ ⇒ φ(Transitivity)φ ⇒ ψ, ψ ⇒ χ / φ ⇒ χ(&-Intro)φ ⇒ ψ, φ ⇒ χ / φ ⇒ ψ & χThe following argument establishes that these five principles, together with Grounding from Fundamentality, yield the superinternality of grounding:Suppose that F is grounded in FF. By Rigidity, it follows that FF hold/s ⇒ F is grounded in FF. By Reflexivity and &-Intro, we then get that FF hold/s ⇒ (FF hold/s & F is grounded in FF). Thanks to Order and Transitivity, we can infer that FF hold/s ⇒ FF are/is more fundamental than [F is grounded in FF]. By Grounding from Fundamentality, this means that [F is grounded in FF] is grounded in FF.The three logical principles are very weak. Order is very close to Settledness—once Settledness is accepted, it is indeed hard to see how Order could be rejected (modulo acceptance of the relevant notion of entailment). As I emphasised, my views on relative fundamentality support Settledness. Rigidity is not obvious, and it is natural to think that it is the weakest link in the argument. However, note that given Grounding from Fundamentality, the principle follows from the following further principle about entailment:(Expansion)φ ⇒ ψ / φ ⇒ (φ ⇒ ψ)Expansion is not as weak as Reflexivity, Transitivity and &-Intro. It is not validated in the celebrated system R of relevant logic, for instance. Yet it is validated in systems that are much weaker than classical logic, e.g. in another celebrated system of relevant logic, RM, which can be axiomatised as R plus the Mingle axiom φ ⇒ (φ ⇒ φ) , follows from Grounding from Fundamentality and from my approach to relative fundamentality, given certain assumptions about the logic of entailment. Consider the following five general principles, the first two about grounding and entailment and the last three only about entailment (symbolised as ⇒):Let me wrap up the discussion of this section. Assuming Bennett’s account of the connections between grounding and fundamentality—more precisely, assuming her characterisation of being more fundamental than in terms of grounding, the argument from Settledness is dialectically ineffective because given that characterisation, the conclusion of the argument directly follows from Settledness. The same is true if Werner’s account of being more fundamental than is assumed instead. By contrast, assuming the account of grounding in terms of being more fundamental than explored in Correia , the natTheorising about the connections between grounding, absolute fundamentality and relative fundamentality is in its infancy. So far, Bennett , Werner


In the Calculating epidemiologically adjusted Ct values subsection of the Methods, there are a number of formatting errors in the sixth and ninth equations. Please view the complete, correct sixth equation here:In the Investigating variables associated with within-host viral burden subsection of the Results, there is an error on the third line of the second paragraph referencing


The correct value is 3.39. The corresponding text [following eqn (1) in Section 3.1] should thus read:The authors regret that there was an arithmetical error in the calculation of the molar SiO4 (mAl) with m = 1…4, shown in Table 4, into eqn (1) yields SiO2/Al2O3 = 3.39 (Si/Al = 1.70) for the sodium aluminosilicate gel. This value is very close to the starting SiO2/Al2O3 ratio of RHA_3.5_1d ; together with the fact that the silica RHA had reacted only incompletely (degree of reaction: 89%) this shows that some of the Al from the sodium aluminate had not entered the sodium aluminosilicate gel.”“Insertion of the intensities of QThis change requires an additional minor change of a statement in the second paragraph of Section 3.2, which should read:2/Al2O3 ratio of its sodium aluminate gel was very similar to the overall SiO2/Al2O3 ratio of the starting mix and the complete reaction of the sodium aluminate, while the silica RHA had reacted only incompletely.”“The occurrence of a separate aluminate phase in RHA_3.5_1d is in line with the above finding that the SiOAn independent expert has viewed the corrected data and has concluded that it is consistent with the discussions and conclusions presented.The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.


Nature Plants 10.1038/s41477-022-01305-9. Published online 23 December 2022.Correction to: 2 sequestered by sinking seaweed in the ambient nutrient scenario were incorrect due to typographical errors. As a result, in the sentence beginning “In the optimistic case”, “0.85%” is now “0.110%”, “310,000 km2” is now “400,000 km2”, and “Poland” now reads as “Zimbabwe”. In the sentence following, “is slightly higher: 0.036% and 0.099%” now reads as “is 0.035% and 0.100%” and “$40” is now “$30”. Furthermore, in the penultimate sentence of this paragraph, “ocean areas of 0.09–0.10% and 0.28–0.37%” now reads as “ocean areas of 0.085–0.100% and 0.285–0.410%” and “roughly 320,000–360,000 km2 and 1,010,000–1,330,000 km2” is now “roughly 310,000–360,000 km2 and 1,030,000–1,480,000 km2”. Calculated values in this subsection have been revised to reflect these corrections: in the sentence beginning “Average costs at the median of Monte Carlo”, “$1,110–$2,100” is now “$1,120–$2,090”; and in the paragraph beginning “Despite being a small percentage”, “17%” is now “18%” and “61%” is now “64%”. Corresponding values in the Methods subsection “Comparison of gigaton-scale sequestration area to previous estimates” and in Supplementary Figures 10 and 11 have been updated accordingly. The errors have been corrected in the HTML and PDF versions of the article.In the version of this article initially published, in the Results subsection “Costs and benefits of large-scale seaweed farming”, the percentages of ocean area farmed to reach 1 Gt and 3 Gt of CO


After having been in contact with the authors, they agreed with the decision to retract the paper. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused.Following the publication of this paper, it was drawn to the Editor's attention by a concerned reader that certain of the cell migration and invasion assay data shown in Fig. 5C were strikingly similar to data appearing in different form in other articles by different authors at different research institutes, some of which have been retracted. Owing to the fact that the contentious data in the above article were already under consideration for publication, or had already been published, prior to its submission to


Scientific Reports 10.1038/s41598-021-86716-y, published online 07 April 2021Correction to: The Acknowledgements section in the original version of this Article was incomplete. It now reads:“This research was funded by the following awards from the National Institute on Aging (NIA): K99 AG056599, R00 AG056599, P30 AG012846, T32 AG000221 (Schmitz), and P30 AG017266 (Lu and Schmitz). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The authors would like to thank Jason Fletcher, Rebecca Johnson, and Ramina Sotoudeh for helpful comments and feedback on earlier versions of this draft. This study deploys data from the Genetics Resource with the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), accession number phs000428.v2.p2.c1. These data were collected with financial support from the National Institute of Health’s (NIH) Director’s Opportunity for Research awards using American Reinvestment and Recovery Act funds . With these funds, the HRS has genotyped almost 20,000 respondents who provided DNA samples and signed consent forms in 2006–2012. The HRS data were produced and distributed by the University of Michigan under the directorship of David R. Weir, with funding from the National Institute on Aging (grant number NIA U01AG009470), Ann Arbor, MI. These data were accessed through dbGaP, under project number 14753 .”The original Article has been corrected.


This article has been retracted: Aging has completed its investigation of this paper. We found internal duplication and, although cropped differently, three tube formation assay images in Figure 5G were previously published as Figure 3C in a much older paper by different authors [ authors . As a reThe Administration of the Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University was notified about the retraction by Aging Journal.. Original article: Aging. 2018; 10:2695–2708.


The term “prognosis” is used inaccurately throughout the article . The corIn the Introduction, a reference  has beenPLOS ONE Editors and the authors regret that these errors were not identified prior to publication.The


Dear Editor1. We would be happy to elaborate further on the questions raised by the authors.We thank the authors for their comments on our studyWe agree with the authors that additional variables would be interesting to take into account for the primary outcome. In a statistical analysis, however, the number of confounders that can be included is limited. We therefore deliberately limited the number of confounders to those described to have the greatest potential effect on the primary and secondary outcomes.The authors point out that there were differences in baseline characteristics in terms of preoperative treatment, tumour location, and clinical nodal status. We included these possible confounders for the outcomes in our multilevel mixed statistical model. It could, therefore, be concluded that surgical approach was an independent factor associated with pneumonia, despite these differences in baseline characteristics.per se.Finally, we believe that a proficiency gain curve could have an effect on our results. As the data were anonymized, they were not sufficient to correlate the proficiency gain curve with postoperative outcomes. It should be noted, however, that all participating hospitals were high-volume centres and that the most experienced centres did not have the lowest anastomotic leakage rates


Childhood injuries are the leading cause of death in children above the age of one , 2. Amonn = 18), lack of control for confounding factors that may have resulted in different treatment modalities being utilized, and medical management that is not representative of contemporary pTBI management. Unfortunately, there have been few studies since then on this topic. Those that have been conducted have largely been limited due to their retrospective nature and small sample size (Current Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines suggest that decompressive craniectomy (DC) is a potentially suitable therapeutic measure for certain patients with TBI . The eviple size , 11. Onlple size . In 2001High-quality multi-center RCTs focusing on pTBI are urgently needed. France is paving the way in this matter, having recently launched the “Decompressive Craniectomy for Severe Traumatic Brain Injury in Children With Refractory Intracranial Hypertension” (RANDECPED) trial . If the All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work and approved it for publication.SB is funded by the National Institute for Health Research .The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.


The revised version of


The authors apologize for any potential confusion caused by the use of the phrase “glucose bigotry” in the original article.The phrase was employed to characterize a condition wherein the body encounters difficulty in regulating blood sugar levels, typically associated with prediabetes or diabetes. This condition signifies an impediment in the effective processing of glucose (sugar), resulting in elevated blood sugar levels.To improve the article the authors, correct the phrase “glucose bigotry” in line 2, section 3 to the well-recognized medical term “glucose intolerance.”The authors would like to make apologies for any inconvenience caused.


Retraction Note: J Exp Clin Cancer Res 38, 475 (2019)10.1186/s13046-019-1433-3The Editor in Chief has retracted this article after concerns were raised regarding a number of potential image overlap issues. Specifically:It appears there are several potential image overlaps between Figs. 2E and 4E of this article, despite the authors providing a correction to Fig. 2 .Further potential image overlap has been alleged between Figs. 1D and 6E of  by some Potential image overlap between 4B and 4B of  by some The authors were unable to provide raw images and evidence of ethical approval. Therefore, the Editor has lost confidence in the data presented here. All authors agree to this retraction.


Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine has retracted the article titled “Analysis of Clinical Characteristics of Hepatitis B and Alcohol-Related Liver Cancer” [ Cancer”  due to cFollowing an investigation conducted by the Hindawi Research Integrity team , signifiThe authors do not agree to the retraction.


Correction: Cell & Bioscience (2023) 13:10310.1186/s13578-023-01061-zIn this article, the email addresses of the authors Qun Wang & Zhencong Chen was swapped.Also, the authors Qihai Sui, Zhengyang Hu and Xing Jin should have been denoted as co-first authors.


The Royal Society of Chemistry is publishing this expression of concern in order to alert readers that concerns have been raised regarding the reliability of the XPS data in Fig. 5, the IPCE data in Fig. 6 (right) and the Nyquist data in Fig. 7. An investigation is underway, and an expression of concern will continue to be associated with the article until a final outcome is reached.Laura Fisher02/11/2023RSC AdvancesExecutive Editor,


Retraction Note: Arthritis Res Ther 17, 145 (2015)https://doi.org/10.1186/s13075-015-0659-5The Editors-in-Chief has retracted this article because after the publication of the article concerns were raised about image overlap. Further investigation by the Publisher found the following concerns to be valid.Partial image overlap between Fig. 1A  and Fig. 2A Partial overlap between Fig. 1A  and Fig. 2A .Partial image overlap between Fig. 2A  with Fig. 6A Partial image overlap in Fig. 2A  with Fig. 5A  of .Partial image overlap in Fig. 3D  with Fig. 6B  of [The authors provided the raw data for validation. However, further checks by the Publisher identified some differences between the raw data and the figures, as well as overlap in raw images. The authors were unable to provide ethical approval for experiments involving Balb/c mice strain. The Editors-in-Chief therefore no longer has confidence in the presented data.Nadine Ruzehaji, Muriel Elhai, Jerome Avouac, Camelia Frantz, Joerg H. Distler and Yannick Allanore agree to this retraction. Maxime Frechet has not responded to any correspondence from the editor/publisher about this retraction. The editor was not able to obtain a current email address for Barbara Ruiz.


Hypertonic saline compared to mannitol for the management of elevated intracranial pressure in traumatic brain injury: a meta-analysis Han C, Yang F, Guo S and Zhang J. (2022) Front. Surg. 8:765784. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2021.765784A Retraction of the Systematic Review Article The journal and Chief Editors retract the 07 January 2022 article cited above.Following publication, concerns were raised regarding abnormal similarities with the contents of other articles published by unrelated research groups. A subsequent investigation, which was conducted in accordance with Frontiers' policies, raised strong concerns over the authorship of the articles, resulting in a loss of confidence in the findings presented in the article.The authors have not responded to this retraction.This retraction was approved by the Chief Editors of Frontiers in Surgery and the Chief Executive Editor of Frontiers.


Sci., 2023, https://doi.org/10.1039/d3sc03514j.Correction for ‘Liquid electrolyte chemistries for solid electrolyte interphase construction on silicon and lithium-metal anodes’ by Sewon Park  The authors regret that there is an error in Section 3.1.2 of the original article. The correct sentence is shown below.Multilayer SEI structuring is further discussed in Section 3.3.3.The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.


Clinical practice guidelines and Scientific statements are influential publications that define the standard of care for many diseases. However, little is known about industry payments and financial conflict-of-interest among authors of such publications in cardiology. We identified guidelines published between 2014 and 2020 by the American Heart Association (AHA) and the American College of Cardiology (ACC) in order to assess the payment status of CPG authors using the Open Payment Program (OPP) database. In recent years, there has been an increase in relationships with industry (RWI) in academia to conduct large, randomized trials of new medicines and technologies. While some level of RWI is necessary to test potential new advances in medical care, the National Academy of Medicine has published policies to regulate industry influence on the development of guidelines , since f2https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov). We linked the OPP database with the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System (NPPES) database that contains physicians’ National Provider Identifier in order to associate guideline authors to their respective payments (https://npiregistry.cms.hhs.gov/).We identified and reviewed both Clinical Practice Guidelines and Scientific Statements published between 2014 and 2020 by the American Heart Association (AHA) and the American College of Cardiology (ACC) by accessing the ACC and AHA guideline archives ,6. We exFirst, we reported descriptive statistics of industry payments received by guideline authors from 2014 to 2020, including all payment years for each guideline. We included all payment years to understand industry relationships prior to guideline development as well as payments received following publication, since 1) guidelines can take years from conception to publication and 2) authors may gain status and expertise following publication which can result in future speaking or consulting fees. Next, we assessed payments received by guideline authors within 2 years of guideline publication, since this approach may evaluate potential bias in guidelines more directly. Since annual industry payment data was unavailable in OPP until 2014, we limited this analysis to guidelines published between 2016 and 2020. We calculated the proportion of all guideline authors who received payments, the total value of payments, and the number of authors who received payments at the following levels: <$100; $100-$999; $1000-$9999; $10,000-$99,999; $100,000-$999,999; and >$1,000,000. We also calculated the annual percent change in the proportion of guideline authors who received payments and the median sum of payments per guideline. Finally, we evaluated whether FCOI disclosures made by guideline authors at the time of guideline publication correlate with OPP database records.3Among 578 physicians who co-authored 41 guidelines between 2014 and 2020, 169 (29%) received at least one industry payment. Payments to guideline authors totaled $16.8 million, or $29,107 per person . The proportion of authors with industry payments per guideline was 39% . Of authors who received payments, 82 (14.2%) received less than $10,000, whereas 38 (6.6%) received more than $100,000. These 38 authors accounted for $14.8 million, or 87.8% of total payments.Of the 430 physicians who co-authored 26 guidelines between 2016 and 2020, 102 (24%) authors received payments within 2 years of guideline publication. Payments made to guideline authors within 2 years of guideline publication totaled $4.3 million, or an average of $41,823 per person . The median percentage of authors per guideline who received payments within 2 years of publication was 21% . The number of authors receiving payments and the median value of payments per guideline are shown in 4Our study of relationships with industry among cardiology guideline authors from 2014 to 2020 had several findings that advance current understanding of physician relationships with industry. First, we found that approximately 40% of authors per guideline received industry payments over the study period, and 25% received payments within 2 years of guideline publication. AHA and ACC requirements state that no more than 50% of authors per guideline can have a FCOI, and that authors with FCOI are prohibited from voting on recommendations that involve products developed by companies with which they have FCOI. Our findings suggest that these goals are being met. Second, we found that the average payment for a guideline author $29,107) was around five times higher than previously reported average payments to all cardiologists (about $6500) [ was arouThis study has limitations. First, there may be inherent inaccuracies in payments reported by the OPP as well as limitations to OPP capture. As per OPP, payments made to any physician, physician assistant, nurse practitioner, clinical nurse specialist, certified registered nurse anesthetist, or certified nurse-midwife must be reported. Hence, any recipients of compensation who do not fall within these “covered recipients”, as defined by OPP, are not accounted for. Second, we used comprehensive (rather than guideline-specific) FCOI information provided by guideline authors, which may overestimate the concordance rate between FCOI disclosure and industry payments. Third, non-monetary compensation such as food and beverage may not have been viewed as relationships with industry by guideline authors but are documented as OPP general payments, which may overestimate the discrepancy between FCOI disclosures and industry payments.Subhanik Purkayastha: Conceived and designed the experiments; Performed the experiments; Analyzed and interpreted the data; Wrote the paper. Ruina Zhang: Conceived and designed the experiments; Analyzed and interpreted the data; Wrote the paper. Xiaohan Ying: Conceived and designed the experiments; Contributed reagents, materials, analysis tools or data. Vinay Kini: Conceived and designed the experiments; Analyzed and interpreted the data; Contributed reagents, materials, analysis tools or data; Wrote the paper.Data will be made available on request.No additional information is available for this paper.The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.


The above article, published online on September 28, 2018, in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com), has been retracted by agreement between the authors, the journal's Editor‐in‐Chief, Dr Stephen Tait, and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. The retraction has been agreed due to evidence of image duplication between figures 3D, 3E, and 6C and figures from articles published elsewhere in a different scientific context. As a result, the journal no longer has confidence in the results and conclusions.Zhang Z, Tan X, Luo J, Cui B, Lei S, Si Z, Shen L, Yao H. GNA13 promotes tumor growth and angiogenesis by upregulating CXC chemokines via the NF‐κB signaling pathway in colorectal cancer cells. Cancer Med. 2018;7(11):5611‐5620.  The above article, published online on September 28, 2018, in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com), has been retracted by agreement between the authors, the journal's Editor‐in‐Chief, Dr Stephen Tait, and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. The retraction has been agreed due to evidence of image duplication between figures 3D, 3E, and 6C and figures from articles published elsewhere in a different scientific context. As a result, the journal no longer has confidence in the results and conclusions.Zhang Z, Tan X, Luo J, Cui B, Lei S, Si Z, Shen L, Yao H. GNA13 promotes tumor growth and angiogenesis by upregulating CXC chemokines via the NF‐κB signaling pathway in colorectal cancer cells. Cancer Med. 2018;7(11):5611‐5620.


Respiratory Research (2020) 21:16110.1186/s12931-020-01426-9The Editors-in-Chief have retracted this article. Concerns with Fig. 6B were previously addressed with a correction  but moreFigure 2D: theShp(KO) + CS panel appears to partially overlap with the MK-2206 + CS MMP-9 panel of Fig. 2C in a previously published article [Figure 5A: there appears to be a splice in the Pro-MMP-9 band.Figure 7A: the JNK 1.25 and 2.5 blots appear to be identical to the JNK //- and +// blots in Fig. 7B.The Editors-in-Chief therefore no longer have confidence in the results reported in this article.Authors Ya-nan Liu Jian Shen, Jian-cang Zhou, Hui-juan Shen, Qiang Shu, Qiang-min Xie and Yicheng Xie agree with this retraction. The other authors have not responded to correspondence regarding this retraction.


Retraction Note: BMC Complement Med Ther 15, 445 (2015)10.1186/s12906-015-0970-3The Editor has retracted this article because the authors have not been able to provide evidence that they obtained appropriate approval by an animal ethics committee for this study. In addition, Fig. 4A  appears to overlap with Fig. 4A (panel ERK 1/2) of [


Traumatic crystallin lens dislocation is a common complication following open globe injuries. Wound repair, lensectomy, and prophylactic antibiotic administration are essentials in the management. In the ophthalmic examination, we found traumatic scleral rupture and subconjunctival crystallin lens dislocation  are defined as full‐thickness defects of the eyewall and are among the major public health problems in developing countries.2.1We summarized the management approach for a patient with OGI in Figure Mehrdad Motamed Shariati: Conceptualization; investigation; project administration; supervision; writing – original draft; writing – review and editing. Seyedeh Maryam Hosseini: Data curation; supervision; writing – review and editing. Zeinab Hashemi Javaheri: Data curation; investigation.The authors received no funding.The authors declare that they have no competing interests.Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for the publication of this clinical image report.


Experimental Hematology & Oncology (2023) 12:7410.1186/s40164-023-00436-9After online publication of the article1, the authors noticed Table The correct tables are published with this erratum.


Retraction Note: Molecular Medicine (2020) 26:3110.1186/s10020-020-00150-wThe Editor-in-Chief has retracted this article at the corresponding author’s request. After publication, the authors became aware that the presented results could not be reproduced. Further checks by the publisher raised concerns regarding the animal models used in the study , as no information about this model is available from the stated supplier.All authors agree to this retraction.


The authors decided to retract this article, since some authors did not know the publication of the paper and the first author also disagreed with his personal ranking in the paper. The authors take full responsibility for these oversights, and apologize for any confusion or inconvenience that this may have caused to the readers, the journal, and the scientific community as a whole.


Following the publication of this article , concernIn Fig 4A the invasion assay vector and SOX2 panels appear similar to the invasion assay SOX2 and SOX2/si-Src panels found in Fig 7A respectively.○ The H08910 cell MMP-2 panel and the Skov3 MMP-2 panel when rotated through 180 degrees.○ The HO8910-pm NC p-P130cas (Y410) band and the Skov3 NC P130cas band when the latter is horizontally flipped.○ The HO8910 SOX2 P130cas band and the Skov3 si-SOX2 P130cas band.○ The HO8910 Vector MMP-9 band and the HO8910-pm si-SOX2 MMP-9 band.○ The HO8910-pm NC GAPDH band and the Skov3 si-SOX2 GAPDH band.In Fig 6B the following bands appear similar:○ The SOX2/si-SRC -/- p-P130cas (Y410) band and the HO8910 SOX2 P130cas band.○ The SOX2/si-SRC +/- p-P130cas (Y410) band and the HO8910-pm NC p-P130cas (Y410) band.○ The SOX2/si-SRC +/+ p-P130cas (Y410) band and the HO8910-pm si-SOX2 p-P130cas (Y410) band.In Fig 7B the following bands appear similar to bands found in Fig 6B:HO8910 cells are suspected of being HeLa derivatives rather than an ovarian cancer cell line .The authors stated that the similarity of panels in Fig 4A and 7A were due to errors made in the preparation of figures and provided images described as underlying data for these panels and a corrected version of Fig 4A. The authors provided some of the original data for Figs 6B and 7B but stated certain parts of the data were unavailable in addition to providing replication data. Due to the extensive nature of the concerns regarding Western blots in this article, the concerns regarding these figures can only be resolved via provision of original underlying data in its entirety for the published panels, which was not made available for editorial review. As such the PLOS Editors remain concerned about Figs 6B and 7B. The authors stated that concerns regarding the HO8910 cells were not known at the time of the study but did not provide data characterising the cells in question as ovarian cancer.PLOS ONE Editors retract this article.In light of the concerns affecting multiple figure panels that question the integrity and reliability of these data, the XW did not agree with the retraction. XJ, JC, DY, ZZ, QW, XX, and YF either did not respond directly or could not be reached.


Retraction Note: BMC Anesthesiology (2023) 23:21610.1186/s12871-023-02182-1The authors have retracted this article. After publication the authors realised that there was an error in the unit of oxygen consumption, the unit was listed as ml/kg/min, instead of 10 − 1 ml/kg/min. As this error affects all of the results and conclusions presented, the authors decided to retract the article. All authors agree to this retraction.


Correction: Mol Cancer 19, 99 (2020)https://doi.org/10.1186/s12943-020-01215-4Molecular Cancer entitled “Circular RNA circCORO1C promotes laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma progression by modulating the let-7c-5p/PBX3 axis” ), we identified minor errors in the images presented in Figs. In our research published  in MolecThe corrected Figs.


The authors wish to replace the ‘Author Contributions’ statement and the affiliation for Jochen Maurer of this article  with theAuthor Contributions: A.M. and F.M. supervised and administered the project. R.A.S., A.M. and F.M. contributed to the study conception and design. R.A.S. and J.P. analyzed and curated the data. A.T.J.V., A.C., S.T. and C.B. conducted chemical syntheses. R.A.S. and J.P. carried out the cell culture, experiments with cell lines, western blot experiments, microscopy and imaging. R.A.S. and M.B. performed statistical analyses. A.T.J.V., C.B., S.T., A.C. and J.M. provided material and resources. R.A.S., J.P., M.B., A.M. and F.M. interpreted the analyzed data. R.A.S. wrote the manuscript. A.M., M.B., F.M. and J.M. corrected the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.Affiliation 5: Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Aachen, RWTH Aachen University, 52074 Aachen, Germany.The authors apologize for any inconvenience caused and state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. The original article has been updated.


In the published article, there was an error in the affiliation list.Instead of “Unit of Geriatrics and Internal Medicine, National Institute of Gastroenterology “Saverio de Bellis”, Research Hospital, Bari, Italy”, authors Sara De Nucci, Martina Di Chito, Roberta Rinaldi and Giovanni De Pergola should be affiliated to “Unit of Geriatrics and Internal Medicine, National Institute of Gastroenterology-IRCCS “Saverio de Bellis”, Castellana Grotte, Italy”.Instead of “Unit of Data Sciences and Technology Innovation for Population Health, National Institute of Gastroenterology “Saverio de Bellis”, Research Hospital, Bari, Italy”, authors Fabio Castellana, Roberta Zupo, Luisa Lampignano and Rodolfo Sardone should be affiliated to “Unit of Data Sciences and Technology Innovation for Population Health, National Institute of Gastroenterology-IRCCS “Saverio de Bellis”, Castellana Grotte, Italy”.Instead of “Department of Gastroenterology, National Institute of Gastroenterology “Saverio de Bellis”, Research Hospital, Bari, Italy”, authors Vito Giannuzzi and Raffaele Cozzolongo should be affiliated to “Department of Gastroenterology, National Institute of Gastroenterology-IRCCS “Saverio de Bellis”, Castellana Grotte, Italy”.Instead of “Scientific Direction, National Institute of Gastroenterology “Saverio de Bellis”, Research Hospital, Bari, Italy”, author Gianluigi Giannelli should be affiliated to “Scientific Direction, National Institute of Gastroenterology-IRCCS “Saverio de Bellis”, Castellana Grotte, Italy”.The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.


Following the publication of this article , concernSpecifically:In Fig 2B, AKAP LBC V5 panel band 1 appears similar to band 4 when horizontally flipped.○ Bands 1, 2, and 4 of the AKAP Lbc V5 panel appear similar when band 2 is horizontally flipped. Additionally, these bands appear similar to band 1 in the AKAP Lbc V5 panel in Fig 2C.○ When levels are adjusted to visualize the background, there appear to be vertical discontinuities in the AKAP Lbc V5 panel between lanes 1 and 2 and lanes 3 and 4.In Fig 2D:The authors stated that the underlying data for the figures of concern could not be recovered, as the Carnegie lab, which conducted these experiments, closed following his death in 2014. Regarding the concern in Fig 2B, the authors provided a raw blot from a replicate experiment corroborating the data provided in the published panel. The authors additionally provided individual level data for the RHO-Gef and PKA activity assays in Fig 2, but were unable to provide the original underlying data for the blots in Fig 2C and 2D. The PLOS Editors remain concerned about the unresolved issues in these panels.PLOS ONE Editors retract this article.In light of the concerns affecting multiple panels in Fig 2 that question the reliability of these data, the The corresponding author noted that GC is deceased. MJSpindler, BTB, ECH, NS, DS, and BRC agreed with the retraction. YH and MJScott either did not respond directly or could not be reached.


There were missing figures and associated legends for There was an error in the original publication . The figSection 4.1, First Paragraph and Second Paragraph:A correction has been made ton = 3–7 out of a population of 50,000 conformers for sphingosine [M+H]+. MC sampling was run for 1,000,000 iterations for each n-sized set, with each taking more than 2 h to complete. After loading the data matrix, which required about 3 min, the heuristic algorithm found all sets in <1 min. SDS also had a greater RMSD log-sum  for every set size, as shown in SDS was shown to be faster and produce more dissimilar sets than a Monte Carlo (MC) sampling method in a contest to find the most dissimilar sets of +, with similar results. Here, MC performed better than SDS at n = 3 by a small margin (n < 50,000 in approximately 7 min, including the approximate 3 min required to load the matrix.This benchmarking analysis was applied again to 50,000 conformers of methyleugenol [M+Na]l margin . SDS ran2.Section 4.2, First Paragraph:N = 20, 22, and 24 with n = N/2 used on randomly generated datasets, as summarized in SDS was benchmarked against the exact solution for The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected, and we acknowledge that these figures were part of the original review. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor, and have already been approved by the reviewers. The original publication has also been updated.


In an articleThe correct statement is shown below:“There are no conflict of interests in this research.”The authors apologize for the error.


Retraction Note: J Exp Clin Cancer Res 35, 100 (2016) 10.1186/s13046-016-0379-yThe Editor-in-Chief has retracted this article. Concerns were raised regarding a number of figures, specifically:Figure 2d: the TRIM11 NCI-H446 band appears to be identical to the PCNA band of Fig. 5C in an article by different authors that was simultaneously under consideration with another journal [Figure 5a: the p-AKT band appears to be identical to the the STK39 NCI-H358 band of Fig. 3C in an article by different authors that was simultaneously under consideration with another journal .The Editor-in-Chief therefore no longer has confidence in the results and conclusions reported in this article.Authors Yusheng Shu has not responded to correspondence regarding this retraction. The Publisher has not been able to obtain a current email address for authors Xiaolin Wang, Weiping Shi, Hongcan Shi, Shichun Lu, Kang Wang, Chao Sun, Jiansheng He, Weiguo Jin, Xiaoxia Lv and Hui Zou.


There are errors in the Funding section. The correct Funding statement is: This research is partially funded by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPQ) and Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG). The authors and grant numbers are as following: Amir Khatibi: (CNPq: 169823/2017-2); Ana Paula Couto da Silva and Marcos A. Gonçalves: , ; Jussara Almeida: (CNPq: 305683/2019-5 and 403106/2021-4). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.The publisher apologizes for the error.


Specifically, a change in the multi-threading factor resulted in fewer permutations generated for the null distribution than had been preregistered, which were then divided incorrectly. This affected only the movie-wide tests (not associations with suspense). The authors have corrected this error and rerun their analyses, which did not change statistical inference.The authors discovered an error in their code for deriving p values in the Movie-wide Connectivity Tests section of the Results required updating. These p values all remained nonsignificant, leaving the overall results and interpretations unaffected.As a result of this error, the 6 reported p values have been corrected in the final paginated version of this article.The


The journal retracts the 2022 article cited above.Following publication, concerns were raised regarding the contributions of the authors of the article. Our investigation, conducted in accordance with Frontiers policies, confirmed a serious breach of our authorship policies and of publication ethics; the article is therefore retracted.This retraction was approved by the Chief Editors of Frontiers in Psychology and the Chief Executive Editor of Frontiers. The authors have not responded to correspondence regarding this retraction.


There are errors in the Funding section. The correct Funding statement is: This project was carried out within the framework of the priority program SPP 2089: “Rhizosphere spatiotemporal organization—a key to rhizosphere functions” funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft —Project number 403641683 (RI-903/7-1). Hans Hermann Richnow (HHR) received the fund for this project from DFG. This work was conducted at ProVIS Centre for Chemical Microscopy  und dem Freistaat Sachsen Program) at Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research—UFZ.The authors apologize for this error and state that this error does not affect the results, conclusions, and overall scientific understanding of the article in any way.


BMC Psychology (2023) 11:35810.1186/s40359-023-01342-9Following publication of the original article, the authors flagged that in the Questionnaires subsection of the Methods the ‘phi’ symbol had erroneously been used instead of the ‘omega’ symbol in the following (now correct) instances:α=0.88 and ω=.92.α=0.82 and ω=0.91 for trait FoMO, and α=0.89 and ω=0.92 for state FoMOα=0.90 and ω=0.92 for presence of meaning in life (Presence), and α=0.96 and ω=0.97 for search for meaning in life (Search).The published article has been corrected. The authors thank you for reading this erratum and apologize for any inconvenience caused.


The journal retracts the 2022 article cited above.Following publication, concerns were raised regarding the contributions of the authors of the article. Our investigation, conducted in accordance with Frontiers policies, confirmed a serious breach of our authorship policies and of publication ethics; the article is therefore retracted.This retraction was approved by the Chief Editors of Frontiers in Chemistry and the Chief Executive Editor of Frontiers. The authors have not responded to correspondence regarding this retraction.


Funding statement. The correct Funding statement appears below.In the published article, there was an error in the “This work was funded by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) through COMPETE 2020, Portugal 2020 and by FCT (Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia), ([POCI-01-0145-FEDER-030985 and POCI-01-0145-FEDER-016385]) and by FCT/Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação in the framework of individual funding [CEECINST/00091/2018] to DN and by QREN funds through the project ClinUCX (QREN 30196) and individual fellowships: [PD/BD/127997/2016] to TL, [SFRH/BD/144490/2019] to RG [SFRH/BD/111799/2015] to VS-P. The funding bodies other than ECBio had no role in design, in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.”Conflict of interest statement. The correct Conflict of interest statement appears below.Also, the role of funder ECBio S.A. was missing from the “HC and PC were shareholders of ECBio S.A. JS and RB were employees of ECBio S.A.The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.The authors declare that this study received funding from ECBio S.A. The funder had the following involvement in the study: provided all cell batches required for the studies.”The authors apologize for these errors and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.


After this article  was publMultiple sections of the CA IV panels in Fig 1a in  but the In Fig 1b, there appear to be similarities between two sets of two areas within the left CA IV panel.During editorial follow-up on these issues, the authors stated that the histochemical images in Fig 1a in  may havePLOS ONE Editorial Board reviewed the concerns and authors’ responses, and advised that whilst repetitive transverse lines are expected for this type of experiment due to the striated pattern of transverse tubules, different images or different regions within an image would not be expected to have the level of similarity observed in these figures.A member of the PLOS ONE Editors retract this article.Without the original images we cannot resolve the concerns about the integrity and reliability of results reported in Fig 1. Therefore, the GG, SP, and RJS did not agree with the retraction. JH, AW, WSS, PW, and VE either did not respond directly or could not be reached.


Nature Communications 10.1038/s41467-018-07998-x published online 10 January 2019Retraction to: The authors have retracted this article due to multiple imaging errors across several figures which call into the reliability of the data and the conclusions. In particular, we note there were errors in the colony formation images , migration images , western blots  and histology . In addition, at the time of publication some experiments were lacking biological repeats  We apologise for any inconvenience caused to the community. Qingling Zhang has stated on behalf of all authors that they agree to this retraction.


Pages 1014 and 1016. The list of authors has been updated to includePaul G. Wyatt, whose information is as follows:Paul G.Wyatt – Drug Discovery Unit,Wellcome Centre for Anti-Infectives Research, School of Life Sciences,University of Dundee, Dundee DD1 5EH, U.K.; orcid.org/0000-0002-0397-245X


Correction:J Exp Clin Cancer Res42, 284 (2023)https://doi.org/10.1186/s13046-023-02848-1In Fig. In Fig. In Fig. In the main text, the tumor clearance efficiency of PRV-LAV in the CT26 model is 50%, not 40%.n = 9), not (n = 6).In the legend of Fig. 5, the number of mouse in Fig. 5I is (n = 5)” should be (n = 6).In the description of animal experiments in the Materials and Methods section, the sentence “Age matched (14 to 16-week-old) naïve mice were used as controls (Following publication of the original article , errors The correct Figs.


The authors wish to make the following corrections to this paper :Ms. Paraskevi Kogionou (P.K.) was not included as a first co-author in the original publication. The corrected Author Contributions Statement appears here.Conceptualization, C.N.B.; Data curation, P.K. S.P.F., M.G., P.B. and S.S.; Formal analysis, P.K., S.P.F., M.G., N.A., P.B. and S.O.; Funding acquisition, C.N.B.; Investigation, P.K., S.P.F., M.G., P.B., D.C., G.M., S.S. and A.D.G.; Methodology, P.K., S.P.F., M.G. and S.S.; Project administration, C.N.B.; Resources, S.S., D.C., G.M. and C.N.B.; Supervision, C.N.B.; Validation, P.K., S.P.F., M.G., G.M. and C.N.B.; Visualization, P.K., S.P.F., M.G., N.A. and S.O.; Writing—original draft, P.K., S.P.F., M.G. and C.N.B.; Writing—review and editing, S.P.F., M.G., N.A., G.M., S.S., A.D.G. and C.N.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.The authors apologize for any inconvenience caused and state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.


Retraction Note: BMC Cancer (2020) 21:210.1186/s12885-020-07670-yThe Editors have retracted this article due to the authors’ inability to provide documentation of approval from the ethics committee. The authors have not responded to correspondence from the publishers about this retraction.


Due to a publishing error the article: “Stem cell-derived exosomes from human exfoliated deciduous teeth promote angiogenesis in hyperglycemic-induced human umbilical vein endothelial cells”, published at Journal of Applied Oral Science 31(e-20220427):1-13. doi: 10.1590/1678-7757-2022-0427 was printed with the following error:Where it reads:AcknowledgmentsThe authors thank Natthapatt Sooppapipatt, Pitchaporn Teacharushatakit, Wifada Powattanasuk, and Chareerut Phruksaniyom for their technical assistance. Moreover, the authors thank Enago (www) for the English language review.The sentence should read:AcknowledgmentsThe authors thank Natthapatt Sooppapipatt, Pitchaporn Teacharushatakit, Wifada Powattanasuk, and Chareerut Phruksaniyom for their technical assistance. Moreover, the authors thank Enago (www) for the English language review.This research work is supported by Mahidol University .


Retraction note: Nanoscale Research Letters (2020) 15:139https://doi.org/10.1186/s11671-020-03357-2The Editors in Chief have retracted this article. After publication, concerns were raised around a seeming partial overlap within images presented in Fig. 1C as well as in multiple panels in Figs. 2C, D, E. The authors provided partial data, but were unable to provide uncropped, original files. The Editors in Chief, therefore, have lost confidence in the integrity of the article's findings. None of the authors agree to this retraction.