搜索结果：Apologize

In the previously published version of this article [1], the study limitations section was missing. To ensure completeness and clarity, this section has now been added. We apologize for any inconvenience caused and appreciate the opportunity to rectify this matter. The original article can be found online at https://www.eurekaselect.com/article/148532 The publisher apologizes for any inconvenience caused. Details of the error and its correction are provided here. CORRECTED VERSION STUDY LIMITATIONS This study has several limitations, including the fact that predictors were measured based on medical records in a multicenter setting, and the possible time-varying effects of the predictors could not be reported. Another limitation was that patients with T2DM were enrolled in three multicenters in Bali Province, Indonesia. Therefore, the results may not be generalized to other Asian populations because of different genetic backgrounds and healthcare systems.

Subsequently to the publication of the above paper, an interested reader drew to the authors' attention that the rabbit anti‑apoptosis‑associated speck‑like protein containing a C‑terminal caspase recruitment domain (ASC) western blot data shown in Fig. 4A on p. 275 were strikingly similar to data that had already been published two years previously in Fig. 6 of an article in British Journal of Pharmacology that featured the author Xufeng Tao in common. Upon investigating the figure in question, the authors have realized that the data in Fig. 4A in the above article had inadvertently been assembled incorrectly. A revised version of Fig. 4, now showing western blot data from an alternative experiment in Fig. 4A (where the results presented are very similar to those in the originally published article) is shown on the next page. In addition, the authors have realized that the immunohistochemical data shown in Fig. 3A, highlighting the effects of emodin on MPO‑immunopositive stained regions of the pancreas, were not representative of these experiments, and a revised version of Fig. 3, showing replacement data for Fig. 3A, is also shown on the next page. The authors regret the errors that were made during the compilation of the original figures, and are grateful to the editor of Oncology Reports for allowing them the opportunity to publish this Corrigendum. Note that the errors that were made in compiling this pair of figures did not have a significant impact on the conclusions reached in this study. All the authors agree with the publication of this corrigendum; furthermore, they apologize to the readership for any inconvenience caused. [Oncology Reports 41: 270‑278, 2019; DOI: 10.3892/or.2018.6844].

Following the publication of this paper, it was drawn to the Editor's attention by a concerned reader that, in comparing the bar charts shown in Fig. 2D and F on p. 5 representing the quantification of the western blot data featured in Fig. 2C and E respectively, these bar charts were strikingly similar, suggesting that the same chart may have erroneously been included in this figure twice to represent the different experimental conditions. The authors have re‑examined their original data, and realize that the bar chart that was correctly shown for Fig. 2F was erroneously duplicated in the figure to show the quantification of the data in Fig. 2D. The corrected version of Fig. 2, now showing the correct data for the bar chart in Fig. 2D, is shown on the next page. Note that this error did not affect the overall conclusions reported in the paper. All the authors agree with the publication of this corrigendum, and are grateful to the Editor of Molecular Medicine Reports for allowing them the opportunity to publish this. They also apologize to the readership for any inconvenience caused. [Molecular Medicine Reports 24: 492, 2021; DOI: 10.3892/mmr.2021.12131].

In the article "Pediatric Endocrine Society Annual Meeting (PES 2025), National Harbor, MD, USA, May 15-18, 2025: Abstracts" [Horm Res Paediatr. 2025;98(suppl 3):4-348; https://doi.org/10.1159/000549079], two abstracts were not correctly published in error by the conference organizers. The organizers apologize for the inconvenience and provide the two aforementioned abstracts below.PosterAbstract 1420THE UTILITY OF GROWTH VELOCITY DATA IN DETERMINING THE SEVERITY OF IDIOPATHIC GROWTH HORMONE DEFICIENCYRohan Henry, MD, MS, Nationwide Children's Hospital; Leena Mamilly, MD, Nationwide Children's Hospital; Monika Chaudhari, MD; Amy Pyle-Eiolola, PhD, Nationwide Children's HospitalBackground/Objectives: It is believed by some that growth hormone (GH) secretion exists on a continuum. As such, classification of idiopathic growth hormone deficiency seen as the most common etiology of growth hormone deficiency (GHD), include classical or partial based on severity as defined by peak stimulated growth hormone levels (pGH). Though response to GH therapy is purported to be commensurate with GHD severity, this hypothesis has not been tested. The study aims to determine if there is a difference in GH therapeutic response of GHD cases as defined by growth velocity (GV) based on peak stimulated growth hormone (pGH) levels and MRI findings. Retrospective chart review of GHD cases diagnosed between 3 and 16 years according to GHD severity (pGH <5, 5-7.4 and 7.5-9.9). GV was determined for patients immediately prior to beginning GH therapy, 6-9 months after initiation of GH therapy, and 12-18 months after initiation of GH therapy. Patient's sex, MRI findings, and pubertal status were ascertained. Pre-pubertal was defined as <9.7 years for females and <10.5 years for males. Differences in GV between groups were analyzed by t test and analysis of variance (ANOVA). p values <0.05 were considered significant. The study included 399 children who were diagnosed with GHD and consisted of 292 males and 107 females. Of this, peak GH levels <5, 5-7.4 and 7.5-9.9 ng/mL groups consisted of 116 (79.5%), 85 (75.2%), and 107 (76.4%) males, respectively. Overall, GVs increased by 6-9 months (mean: 9.29 cm/yr, SD: 3.5 cm/yr) and 12-18 months (mean: 8.67 cm/yr, SD: 3.3 cm/yr) post GH therapy when compared to pre-GH therapy (mean: 3.89 cm/yr, SD: 2.2 cm/yr), p < 0.001. However, there was no difference in GV by sex, pre-GH therapy, 6-9 months and 12-18 months post-GH therapy between these groups and also based on MRI findings (pre- and post-pubertal). While GV improves at 6-9 and 12-18 months post-GH therapy in GHD cases based on pGH, GH response is not a valid surrogate for determining GHD severity. In addition, specific MRI finding does not determine therapeutic response to GH.PosterAbstract 1439PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF QOLISSY QUESTIONNAIRE IN TURNER SYNDROME - A CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDYNandini Vijayakanthi, MBBS DNB, Wake Forest University/Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist/Brenner Children's Hospital; David Marcus, PhD, Children's Healthcare of Atlanta; Sobha Fritz, PhD, Emory University School of Medicine/Children's Healthcare of Atlanta; Yijin Xiang, MPH, Emory University School of Medicine; Doris Fadoju, MD, Emory University School of Medicine/Children's' Healthcare of AtlantaShort stature is a major feature in Turner syndrome (TS). The impact on quality of life (QoL) in adolescents/adults with TS have largely been studied using generic QoL questionnaires not short stature-specific questionnaires. In this study, we aimed to assess the psychometric properties of a short stature specific questionnaire - Quality of Life in Short Stature Youth (QoLISSY) in girls with TS.Participants with a karyotype-proven diagnosis of TS were included in our study after they had attained final adult height. English and Spanish gender-specific (female version) QoLISSY questionnaires for adolescents (13-18 years) and the parent version were used to assess the psychometric properties of the questionnaire in this study population (TS). The adolescent version consists of 22 Likert-scaled items assigned to the 3 core QoL dimensions: physical, social, emotional, and 28 additional items reflecting three predictors of QoL: Coping, Beliefs and Treatment (growth hormone therapy). The parent questionnaire consists of 16 additional items on effects of treatment and future dimensions. All scores were transformed from raw scores to 0-100 scores with higher values representing higher QoL.Of the 41 eligible participants, 37 participants were enrolled. The mean age of our cohort was 16.3&#xb1;1.3 years. Compared to reference short stature mean values, our cohort had comparable scores in most QoL subscales and total scores in both parent and participant reports. All of the QoLISSY subscales (except the participant-reported beliefs subscale) had a Cronbach's alpha of >0.70 indicating good internal consistency. Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) showed moderate (r > 0.3) to strong (r > 0.5) positive correlations among most of the QoLISSY subscales and the total score in both parent and participant reports (Table 1). Strong positive correlations were found between the parent report and the participant reports (r = 0.83).The short stature-specific QoLISSY questionnaire could be a valuable tool in assessing QoL with respect to short stature in girls with TS with good internal consistency and strong positive correlations.

Following the publication of the above article, the authors have contacted the Editor to explain that, regarding the immunofluorescence experiments shown in Fig. 3 on p. 5089, the data correctly shown in Fig. 3I (for the 'V&#x2011;ctrl+DMSO+R 24 h' experiment) had inadvertently also been included for Fig. 3E (showing the result of the 'DMSO+R &#xa0;4 h' experiment). However, the authors had retained their original data, and were able to determine how this error had occurred. A revised version of Fig. 3, now showing the correct data for Fig. 3E, is shown on the next page. Note that the error made in assembling the data in Fig. 3 did not significantly affect either the results or the conclusions reported in this paper. All the authors agree with the publication of this Corrigendum, and are grateful to the Editor of Molecular Medicine Reports for allowing them the opportunity to publish this; moreover, they apologize to the readership for any inconvenience caused. [Molecular Medicine Reports 22: 5083&#x2011;5094, 2020; DOI: 10.3892/mmr.2020.11611].

Following the publication of the above article, an interested reader drew to the authors' attention that, concerning the images showing the construction of the CX3CL1&#x2011;over-expression adenovirus and the CX3CL1 short hairpin RNA (shRNA) adenovirus in Fig. 1 on p. 1581, the 'P3x100, Ad&#x2011;CX3CL1 OE' data panel in Fig. 1A contained an overlapping section with the 'P3x100, Ad&#x2011;CX3CL1 shRNA1' data panel in Fig. 1B, such that these were apparently derived from the same original source where different experiment conditions were reported. In addition, for the lung pathology images shown in Fig. 3 on p. 1584, the images showing the 'ASPx100' and the 'M+Ax100' experiments were apparently identical, suggesting that this figure had also been assembled incorrectly. After re&#x2011;examining their original data, the authors regret that Figs. 1 and 3 did contain errors in terms of their assembly, as identified by the external reader. Concerning Fig. 1, the authors wish to point out that these experiments were performed by the virus packaging company (Hanbio Biotechnology), who acknowledged that they were responsible for the error that was made in the provision of the images for this figure. Moreover, this error did not have any real significance in terms of the reported reports in this study, since neither shRNA1 nor shRNA2 was ultimately selected as the vector for the subsequent experiments; shRNA3 was selected as the interference vector of choice. Therefore, the Editor has approved the inclusion of a new version of Fig. 1 in this Corrigendum, comprising only the data for shRNA3 in Fig. 1B.Regarding Fig. 3, the revised version of this is also shown in the subsequent pages, showing the correct data for the 'Nx100', 'ASPx100' and 'M+Ax100' panels. Note that the revisions made to these figures do not affect the overall conclusions reported in the paper. The authors express their gratitude to the Editor of International Journal of Molecular Medicine for allowing them the opportunity to publish this corrigendum, and apologize to the readership for any inconvenience caused. [International Journal of Molecular Medicine 39: 1580&#x2011;1588, 2017; DOI: 10.3892/ijmm.2017.2969].

Following the publication of the above article and an Expression of Concern statement that was issued in light of concerns raised by an interested reader (doi: 10.3892/ijo.2025.5816) regarding potential duplications of data comparing Figs. 1D and 2E, and the apparent re&#x2011;use of &#x3b2;&#x2011;actin control data in Fig. 4A and B where different experimental conditions were reported, the authors have now responded to the enquiry posed by the Editorial Office. After consulting their original data, the authors have realized that the data in Fig. 2E for the MDA&#x2011;MB&#x2011;231 cell line, and the &#x3b2;&#x2011;actin blots in Fig. 4B, were chosen incorrectly (it was also noted by the Editorial Office, upon performing an independent analysis of the data in this paper, that, in Fig. 6C, the CD68/Lep. and CD163/CNL.+Lep. data panels appeared to contain an overlapping section of data, such that the data shown in these panels may have been derived from the same original source). The revised versions of Figs. 2 and 4 (showing the correct data for the MDA&#x2011;MB&#x2011;231 cell line in Fig. 2E and the &#x3b2;&#x2011;actin blots in Fig. 4B) are shown on the next two pages. Furthermore, a revised version of Fig. 6, showing replacement data for the CD68/Lep. data panel, is also shown on the third page. Note that the errors made in assembling these figures did not affect the overall results and conclusions reported in the paper. The authors are grateful to the Editor of International Journal of Oncology for granting them the opportunity to publish this corrigendum, and all the authors agree with its publication; furthermore, they apologize to the readership of the journal for any inconvenience caused. [International Journal of Oncology 48: 2479&#x2011;2487, 2016; DOI: 10.3892/ijo.2016.3483].

Following the publication of the above article, a concerned reader drew to the authors' attention that the immunohistochemical data shown for the 'Collagen I/Control' panel in Fig. 5B on p. 1104, and the '&#x3b2;&#x2011;catenin/DKK' panel for the immunofluorescence data shown in Fig. 7B on p. 1106, subsequently appeared in a pair of later publications by the same research group. In addition, in Fig. 5B, the 'Vimentin/ALI' and 'Vimentin/ALI+MSC&#x2011;GFP' data panels were found to contain an overlapping section, such that data which were intended to show the results of differently performed experiments had apparently been derived from the same original source. Furthermore, upon performing an independent analysis of the data in this paper in the Editorial Office, it also came to light that the '&#x3b1;&#x2011;SMA/ALI+MSC&#x2011;CXCR4' data panel in Fig. 5B had subsequently reappeared in an article by the same research group; the Control panel for the 'MSC (GFP+)' experiment in Fig. 3A on p. 1102 was matching with the Control panel shown in Fig. 6A on p. 1105; certain of the &#x3b2;&#x2011;actin and MMP2 protein bands shown for the ALI+MSC&#x2011;CXCR4 and ALI+MSC&#x2011;GFP experiments in Fig. 7A appeared to be identical in the two sets of western gels; and finally, in Fig. 5A, two sets of data [namely, the data for the IL&#x2011;6 and TNF&#x2011;&#x3b1; blots for the ALI+MSC&#x2011;GFP experiments (central panel of blots), and the pair of Con and 3d 18S blots for the ALI experiments and the 7d and 14d 18S blots for the ALI+MSC&#x2011;GFP experiments], bore strikingly resemblances to each other. On re&#x2011;examining their original data, the authors realized that they had inadvertently included some of the data incorrectly in Figs. 5, 6 and 7. The revised versions of these three figures, now featuring the correct data for Fig. 5A (the PCR analysis results of TNF&#x2011;&#x3b1; and 18S in the ALI+MSC&#x2011;GFP group), Fig. 5B (vimentin antibody immunohistochemical staining of the ALI+MSC&#x2011;GFP group, &#x3b1;&#x2011;SMA antibody immunohistochemical staining of the ALI+MSC&#x2011;CXCR4 group, and Collagen &#x2160; antibody immunohistochemical staining of the Control group); Fig. 6A (&#x3b1;&#x2011;SMA immunofluorescence staining), Fig. 6C (IgG immunofluorescence staining), Fig. 7A (western blotting results of &#x3b2;&#x2011;catenin in the ALI group, MMP2 and &#x3b2;&#x2011;actin in the ALI+MSC&#x2011;CXCR4 group, and MMP2 and &#x3b2;&#x2011;actin in the ALI+MSC&#x2011;GFP group) and Fig. 7B (&#x3b2;&#x2011;catenin antibody immunofluorescence staining of the DKK1 group), are shown on the subsequent three pages. The image duplications were caused by accidental mix&#x2011;up of the files during figure sorting and final manuscript preparation. The authors regret that they did not perform more rigorous cross&#x2011;checking of the figures before submission. The corrected figures are consistent with the original experimental data; moreover, there are now no overlaps with any of the group's previously published work, Notably, the overall experimental results and scientific conclusions of the article remain entirely unchanged following the correction of these figures. All the authors agree with the publication of this corrigendum, and they are grateful to the Editor of International Journal of Molecular Medicine for granting them the opportunity to publish this; furthermore, they apologize to the readership for any inconvenience caused. [International Journal of Molecular Medicine 33: 1097&#x2011;1109, 2014; DOI: 10.3892/ijmm.2014.1672].

Boyle, R.J. (2026), Allergy in Australia. Clin Exp Allergy, 56: 309-311. https://doi.org/10.1111/cea.70290. The article did not acknowledge the collaborative nature of the Australian Government funding awarded to both the National Allergy Centre of Excellence (NACE) and the National Allergy Council (NAC), which is a partnership between the Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy (ASCIA) and Allergy & Anaphylaxis Australia. We apologize for this error.

Following the publication of the above article, an interested reader drew to the authors' attention that, concerning the Masson trichrome&#x2011;stained sections of left ventricles shown in Fig. 6A on p. 395, a portion of the panel representing the DM+EGCG group (centre panel) contained an overlapping area with a portion of the panel from the DM group (second panel on the left), which was representative of the experiment that lacked EGCG treatment. Upon investigating this figure, the authors have realized that the affected data panels were inadvertently assembled incorrectly. This error arose due to an oversight in image selection made during figure assembly. A revised version of Fig. 6, now showing the correct data panel for the DM+EGCG group (centre panel) in Fig. 6A, is shown on the next page. Also note that the published version of Fig. 6A did not feature labels portraying the different experimental groups in this figure part, and these are now included in the revised figure to improve its clarity. The authors confirm that the error associated with this figure did not have any significant impact on either the results or the conclusions reported in this study, and all the authors agree with the publication of this Corrigendum. The authors are grateful to the Editor of International Journal of Molecular Medicine for allowing them the opportunity to publish this Corrigendum; furthermore, they apologize to the readership of the Journal for any inconvenience caused. [International Journal of Molecular Medicine 40: 389&#x2011;399, 2017; DOI: 10.3892/ijmm.2017.3014].

Following the publication of the above article, an interested reader drew to the Editor's attention that a number of western blots in the paper appeared to contain incorrectly assembled data. First, comparing the F. Length (full&#x2011;length) Caspase 3 blots in Fig. 1F with the p&#x2011;ASK1 blots in Fig. 2C revealed that they were remarkably similar after horizontally flipping one set of the bands. In addition, the cytochrome c (Cyt. C) bands in Fig. 1F were similarly found to be remarkably similar to the I&#x3ba;B&#x3b1; blots in Fig. 2A, again after horizontal flipping of one set of the bands. Finally, it was noted that the &#x3b2;&#x2011;actin bands in Fig. 5C were very similar to the blots included in Fig. 3B to show the Tom20 data. After having examined the raw data underling these figures (which were also presented to the Editorial Office for our inspection), the authors realized that data in Figs. 1, 2, 3 and 5 were inadvertently assembled incorrectly in these figures. The revised versions of Figs. 1, 2, 3 and 5 are shown on the subsequent six pages. Specifically, in Fig. 1F, the blot for Cyt. C was incorrectly chosen; in Fig. 2A, the blot for IkB&#x3b1; was incorrectly chosen; in Fig. 3B, the blot for Tom20 was incorrectly chosen; and in Fig. 5C, the &#x3b2;&#x2011;actin blots shown to represent the gels for both the treated and control CLS&#x2011;354 and RPMI 2650 cells were incorrectly placed in this figure. These data have all been replaced with the correct data in the figures shown subsequently in this Corrigendum.&#xa0;The authors regret that the errors in Figs. 1F, 2A, 2C, 3B and 5C went unnoticed in the published versions of these figures in this paper, although note that these errors did not influence either the validity of the published data or the conclusions described in the article. The authors are grateful to the Editor of International Journal of Oncology for allowing them the opportunity to publish this Corrigendum. All the authors agree with the publication of this Corrigendum, and apologize to the readership for any inconvenience caused. [International Journal of Oncology 55: 1324&#x2011;1338, 2019; DOI: 10.3892/ijo.2019.4900].

Subsequently to the publication of the above paper, an interested reader drew to the authors' attention that, concerning the immunofluorescence images shown in Fig. 2C on p. 855, the 'Blank/E&#x2011;cadherin' and 'TGF&#x2011;&#x3b2;2&#x2011;SIS3/E&#x2011;cadherin' data panels appeared to show the same data, albeit with different intensities of staining. In addition, in Fig. 3B on p. 856, the GAPDH blots shown for the '7 days' and '28 days' experiment gels were strikingly similar in appearance, in spite of different experiments being reported. After having asked the authors to explain the apparent anomalies in these figures, they realized that they had been assembled erroneously. Corrected versions of Figs. 2 and 3, now showing the correct data for the 'TGF&#x2011;&#x3b2;2&#x2011;SIS3/E&#x2011;cadherin' experiment in Fig. 2C and the GAPDH western blots for the '28 days' experiment in Fig. 3B, are shown opposite and on the next page. The errors made in assembling Figs. 2 and 3 did not grossly affect either the results or the conclusions reported in this paper. All the authors agree with the publication of this corrigendum, and are grateful to the Editor of International Journal of Molecular Medicine for allowing them the opportunity to present this; moreover, the Editor and the authors apologize to the readership for any inconvenience caused. [International Journal of Molecular Medicine 42: 851&#x2011;860, 2018; DOI: 10.3892/ijmm.2018.3662].

In the article, titled "A Comprehensive Review of Nanomaterials as Potential Weapons against Multidrug-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus," published in Pharmaceutical Nanotechnology [1], the citation for Figure 4 was inadvertently omitted in the original version of the manuscript. This omission has now been corrected. The details of the correction are as follows: Original: Nanomaterial-based approaches show promise for efficient, economical point-of-care diagnostics due to their inherent antimicrobial activity and ability to bind pathogens, facilitating improved detection methods. Nanoparticles offer intrinsic benefits such as size, high surface area, morphology, simplicity of surface modification, and unique optical, electromagnetic, mechanical, and chemical capabilities. Aside from improved antimicrobial action, the features of metal-based NPs allow them to be used as diagnostics agents for microbial infections [29, 156]. Fig. (5) depicts several ways for bioimaging S. aureus using colorimetric, fluorescent, magnetic NPs, and surface-enhanced Raman scattering approaches. Corrected: Nanomaterial-based approaches show promise for efficient, economical point-of-care diagnostics due to their inherent antimicrobial activity and ability to bind pathogens, facilitating improved detection methods. Nanoparticles offer intrinsic benefits such as size, high surface area, morphology, simplicity of surface modification, and unique optical, electromagnetic, mechanical, and chemical capabilities. Aside from improved antimicrobial action, the features of metal-based NPs allow them to be used as diagnostics agents for microbial infections [29, 156]. Fig. (4 and 5) depicts several ways for bioimaging S. aureus using colorimetric, fluorescent, magnetic NPs, and surface-enhanced Raman scattering approaches. We regret the error and apologize to the readers. The original article can be found online at: https://www.eurekaselect.com/article/141225.

The publisher identified, after publication of this article [1], that the publication year was incorrectly printed as 2024 instead of 2025. This error has now been corrected. The original article can be found online at: https://www.eurekaselect.com/article/149361 We regret the error and apologize to readers. Details of the correction: Original Received Dates: October 24, 2024 Accepted: March 21, 2024 Corrected ; Received Dates: October 24, 2025 Accepted: March 21, 2025.

Subsequently to the publication of this paper, and following the publication of an expression of concern statement (doi: 10.3892/mmr.2025.13679) that was published after an interested reader had noted that, regarding the confocal microscopic images shown in Fig. 3 on p. 2240, the top (Sham) and bottom (SCI) data panels appeared to show a small overlapping section such that data which were intended to show the results from differently performed experiments had apparently been derived from the same original source, the authors have now replied to the Editorial Office. After re&#x2011;examining their original data, the authors have realized that the data in Fig. 3 were inadvertently assembled incorrectly. The revised version of Fig. 3, now showing alternative data from one of the repeated experiments, is shown below. Note that this error did not significantly affect either the results or the conclusions reported in this paper, and all the authors agree with the publication of this corrigendum. Furthermore, the authors thank the Editor of Molecular Medicine Reports for granting them the opportunity to publish this corrigendum, and apologize to the readership for any inconvenience caused. [Molecular Medicine Reports 18: 2237&#x2011;2244, 2018; DOI: 10.3892/mmr.2018.9194].

Following the publication of the above article, a concerned author drew to the authors' attention that, in Fig. 1B on p. 7548, the first two lanes for the lower set of &#x3b2;&#x2011;actin western blots were unexpectedly similar to the data shown for the ATM protein blots in the third and fourth lanes in the same figure part. In addition, the upper set of &#x3b2;&#x2011;actin western blots featured in Fig. 1B were also strikingly similar to the blots shown for the Bax protein in Fig. 2 on p. 6549. Moreover, an independent analysis of the data in this paper undertaken by the Editorial Office also revealed that the TAp73 and GRAMD protein blots shown in Fig. 2 were very similar.&#xa0;After having re&#x2011;assessed these figures, the authors have submitted corrected versions of Figs. 1 and 2, as shown on the next page, featuring revised data for the upper and lower sets of &#x3b2;&#x2011;actin blots in Fig. 1, and the TAp73 blots and certain of the &#x3b2;&#x2011;actin blots in Fig. 2. Note that these errors did not affect the results or the main conclusions reported in the study. All the authors approve of the publication of this corrigendum, and are grateful to the Editor of Molecular Medicine Reports for allowing them the opportunity to publish this. The authors regret their oversight in allowing these errors to be included in the paper, and apologize to the readership for any inconvenience caused. [Molecular Medicine Reports 17: 7545&#x2011;7552, 2018; DOI: 10.3892/mmr.2018.8828].

In the originally published article entitled "A Comprehensive Review on Deep Learning Techniques in Alzheimer's Disease Diagnosis", published in "Current Topics in Medicinal Chemistry" Vol: 25 Issue: 04 [1], certain phrases and expressions were unclear, which may have affected readability. These have now been revised to improve clarity and ensure that the intended meaning is accurately conveyed. The corrections do not affect the results, interpretations, or conclusions of the article. The original article can be found online at https://www.eurekaselect.com/article/140894 Details of the error and a correction are provided here: ORIGINAL Moreover, DBN is a graphical model that investigators use to obtain a deep hierarchical representation of training data and is frequently used for AD detection. An unsupervised probabilistic Deep Learning Technique is created by pre-training DBN models using the greedy learning approach. From bottom to top, layers of RBMs are stacked to create the DBN architecture. Each RBM layer includes both a visible and concealed layer. The top two levels of the DBN structure have an undirected or symmetric link, whereas the lowest layers have a direct connection. DBN building is comparable to RBM construction in that the first RBM is made through training, after which the weights are fixed, and the concealed layer is established as the RBM's next visible layer. The next RBMs go through this procedure iteratively [79]. CORRECTED Moreover, DBN is a graphical model that investigators use to obtain a deep hierarchical representation of training data and is frequently used for AD detection. An unsupervised probabilistic Deep Learning Technique is created by pre-training DBN models using the greedy learning approach. From bottom to top, layers of RBMs are stacked to create the DBN architecture. Each RBM layer includes both a visible and hidden layer. The top two levels of the DBN structure have an undirected or symmetric link, whereas the lowest layers have a direct connection. DBN building is comparable to RBM construction in that the first RBM is made through training, after which the weights are fixed, and the hidden layer is established as the RBM's next visible layer. The next RBMs go through this procedure iteratively [79]. The authors apologize for any inconvenience caused.

Following the publication of the above article, an interested reader drew to the authors' attention that, concerning the Von Kossa staining experiments shown in Fig. 5E on p. 2002, the 'NC' and 'OvercircRNA&#x2011;0079201+miR&#x2011;140&#x2011;3p mimic' data panels appeared to contain an overlapping section of data, such that data which were intended to show the results of different experiments had apparently been derived from the same original source. In addition, it was also noted that the COL10A1 western blots featured in Fig. 5D were strikingly similar to blots that had appeared in an article in Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine by the same research group. In their response, the authors confirmed that the only figure part requiring correction was the 'NC' von Kossa staining panel in Fig. 5E; concerning the COL10A1 western blot in Fig. 5D, after re&#x2011;examining the original experimental records and source files, they could confirm that this panel was derived from experiments conducted specifically for the above article.&#xa0;The revised version of Fig. 5, now showing the correct data for the 'NC' data panel in Fig. 5E, is shown on the next page. The authors can confirm that the errors associated with this figure did not have any significant impact on either the results or the conclusions reported in this study, and all the authors agree with the publication of this Corrigendum. The authors are grateful to the Editor of International Journal of Molecular Medicine for allowing them the opportunity to publish this Corrigendum; furthermore, they apologize to the readership of the Journal for any inconvenience caused. [International Journal of Molecular Medicine 46: 1993&#x2011;2006, 2020; DOI: 10.3892/ijmm.2020.4737].

Following the publication of this paper, it was drawn to the Editor's attention by an interested reader that, for the Transwell migration and invasion assay experiments shown in Fig. 3A and 3C respectively on p. 772, one and two pairs of data panels respectively were overlapping, such that data which were intended to show the results of differently performed experiments had apparently been derived from the same original sources. In addition, in Fig. 1 on p. 771, the same data panel had apparently been included to show the results of (C) strong cytoplasmic Rac1 expression and (E) weak cytoplasmic Rac1 expression in lung squamous cell carcinoma tissues. Upon contacting the authors about these issues, they realized that certain of the data had inadvertently been included in Figs. 1 and 3 incorrectly. The revised versions of Figs. 1 and 3, now featuring the correct data for weak cytoplasmic expression in Fig. 1E and the correct data panels for the 801D&#x2011;shRNA control and 801D&#x2011;NSC23766 experiments in Fig. 3A and C respectively, are shown opposite and on the next page. The authors wish to emphasize that the errors made in assembling the data in this pair of figures did not affect the overall conclusions reported in the paper. The authors are grateful to the Editor of International Journal of Molecular Medicine for granting them this opportunity to publish a Corrigendum, and apologize to both the Editor and the readership for any inconvenience caused. [International Journal of Molecular Medicine 28: 769&#x2011;776, 2011; DOI: 10.3892/ijmm.2011.775].