Corrigendum: Clinical safety and efficacy of a fully automated robot for MRI‐guided breast biopsy
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The authors of the following paper discovered errors in the data analysis of the original paper preceding this corrigendum. These errors have been corrected and they do not impact the results, discussion, or conclusion of the study. Anvari M, Chapman T, Barlow K, Cookson T, Van Toen C, Fielding T. Clinical safety and efficacy of a fully automated robot for magnetic resonance imaging-guided breast biopsy. Int J Med Robot. 2023;19(2):e2472. https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.2472 In the abstract and Section 3.2.3, the authors clarified the number of procedures that reported adverse events (AEs). New text in Abstract (p. 1 online): In phase II, three procedures in the IGAR group reported a total of seven AEs and two procedures in the manual group reported a total of three AEs (p = 1.000), with no serious AEs and 10 device deficiencies. New text in Results Section 3.2.3 (p. 9 online): Overall, 10 adverse events were reported during the trials, with seven AEs reported in three IGAR procedures and three AEs reported in two manual procedures (p = 1.000; Table 5). An incorrect formula was used to calculate the positioning error. Data points were also corrected. These revisions were made in Sections 3.1.3 and 3.2.4, and Table 5 and Figures 4A,B and 5B. New text in Section 3.1.3 (p. 6 online): The median absolute positioning error of the IGAR obturator tip was 3.2 mm (IQR: 2.0–3.9). For each of the three-dimensional components of error, the median positioning error was 1.9 mm in the X dimension, 1.3 mm in the Y dimension, and 1.5 mm in the Z dimension (Table 5). There were no systematic targeting errors in positioning (Figure 4A,B). New text in Section 3.2.4 (p. 10 online): The median absolute positioning error of the IGAR obturator tip was 2.1 mm (IQR: 0.6–3.6). For each of the three-dimensional components of error, the median positioning error was 0.6 mm in the X dimension, 0.2 mm in the Y dimension, and 0.6 mm in the Z dimension (Table 5). New Figure 4A and 4B. New Figure 5B There was an error in the classification of successful, unsuccessful and converted biopsies. The number of converted and successful biopsies have been modified in Section 3.2 and Table 2 accordingly. New text in Section 3.2 (p. 7 online): There were 48 patients who consented during the Phase II IGAR clinical trial with 20 patients who underwent successful IGAR biopsies, 1 had an unsuccessful IGAR biopsy that needed to be repeated, 2 IGAR procedures were converted to manual, 18 had successful manual biopsies, and 5 had their procedures cancelled due to reasons unrelated to IGAR. New TABLE 2 There was an error in reporting the number of device deficiencies with IGAR in phase II. These changes have been made in Section 3.2.3 and Table 4. New text in Section 3.2.3 (p. 9 online): Further, there were 10 device deficiencies with IGAR in phase II, including four errors with VAB tool rolling, one needle retraction without injecting anaesthesia, one case where the workstation could not validate the target lesion identified by the radiologist, one recurrent collision error, and three errors with anaesthesia tool rolling (Table 4). New TABLE 4 There were errors in transcribing results in Tables 5 and 7. Corrections to the tables have been made, as well as their corresponding entries in the Results Section. These corrections did not impact the statistical significance or the conclusion. New TABLE 5 New TABLE 7
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».