Corrigendum: Enhancing oncolytic virotherapy by extracellular vesicle mediated microRNA reprogramming of the tumour microenvironment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Corrigendum: Enhancing oncolytic virotherapy by extracellular vesicle mediated microRNA reprograming of the tumour microenvironmentError in the Article TitleIn the published article, there was an error in the article title. Instead of “Enhancing oncolytic virotherapy by extracellular vesicle mediated microRNA reprograming of the tumour microenvironment”, it should be “Enhancing oncolytic virotherapy by extracellular vesicle mediated microRNA reprogramming of the tumour microenvironment”.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.Error in the Funding Statement In the published article, there was an error in the Funding statement. Several funders were omitted from the original statement. The correct Funding statement appears below.“The authors declare that financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Ovarian Cancer Action funded Victoria Jennings, Rhea Rumbold-Hall and the costs required to undertake this study. Alan Melcher was supported by CRUK (Programme grant CRM183X), Tyler Barr was supported by the Myrovlytis Trust and by an MRC/NIHR Cancer Research Transatlantic Development and Skills Enhancement Award (NIHR304246), Samuel Heaton by an MRC Discovery Medicine North (DiMeN) studentship (MR/N013840/1) and Noura Alzamel by a scholarship from Kuwait University. Nicola Ingram is supported in part by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Leeds Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) (NIHR213331). Other authors were supported by their respective institutions. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care, or any other funders of this work”.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.Error in the Acknowledgements In the published article, there was an error in the Acknowledgements. Funders others than Ovarian Cancer Action were omitted from the original statement. The correct statement appears below.“The authors would like to extend their sincere gratitude to Ovarian Cancer Action for their generous funding and support, which made this research possible. Their commitment to advancing ovarian cancer research, has been instrumental in enabling us to carry out this study. We thank the other organisations who supported the study and thank our colleagues Robert Salmond and Sandra Bell for the kind gift of materials and for their scientific input into this study”.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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.065 | 0.046 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".