TY - JOUR
T1 - Correction to
T2 - Deep brain stimulation of symptom-specific networks in Parkinson’s disease (Nature Communications, (2024), 15, 1, (4662), 10.1038/s41467-024-48731-1)
AU - Rajamani, Nanditha
AU - Friedrich, Helen
AU - Butenko, Konstantin
AU - Dembek, Till
AU - Lange, Florian
AU - Navrátil, Pavel
AU - Zvarova, Patricia
AU - Hollunder, Barbara
AU - de Bie, Rob M. A.
AU - Odekerken, Vincent J. J.
AU - Volkmann, Jens
AU - Xu, Xin
AU - Ling, Zhipei
AU - Yao, Chen
AU - Ritter, Petra
AU - Neumann, Wolf-Julian
AU - Skandalakis, Georgios P.
AU - Komaitis, Spyridon
AU - Kalyvas, Aristotelis
AU - Koutsarnakis, Christos
AU - Stranjalis, George
AU - Barbe, Michael
AU - Milanese, Vanessa
AU - Fox, Michael D.
AU - Kühn, Andrea A.
AU - Middlebrooks, Erik
AU - Li, Ningfei
AU - Reich, Martin
AU - Neudorfer, Clemens
AU - Horn, Andreas
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2024.
PY - 2024/12/1
Y1 - 2024/12/1
N2 - Correction to: Nature Communicationshttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-48731-1, published online 31 May 2024 The original version of this Article contained an error in Figure 2, in which the statistical analyses in the insets of panel B were incorrectly reported. Permutation tests were inadvertently reported instead of circular tests and cross-validation values. The correct version of Figure 2 is: (Figure presented.) Which replaces the previous incorrect version: (Figure presented.) The original version of this Article contained an error in the text in the third paragraph of the results section ‘Symptom-Response Multi-Tract Model (Discovery Cohort)’ on page 3, which incorrectly read ‘Here, all symptom tracts significantly explained more variance in outcomes than re-calculated tract models after permuting improvement values across patients 1000 times (p < 0.001). Second, we subjected tract models to cross-validations. Here, all but the tremor tract model explained statistically significant amounts of variance when subjected to 10-fold cross-validations (bradykinesia: R = 0.20, p = 0.02; rigidity R = 0.20, p = 0.02; axial symptoms R = 0.22, p = 0.01, also see Fig. 2)’. The correct version states ‘Here, the bradykinesia and rigidity tracts significantly explained more variance in outcomes than re-calculated tract models after permuting improvement values across patients 1,000 times (p < 0.05). Second, we subjected tract models to cross-validations. Here, all but the tremor tract model explained statistically significant amounts of variance when subjected to 10-fold cross-validations (bradykinesia: R = 0.20, p = 0.02; rigidity R = 0.20, p = 0.02; axial symptoms R = 0.22, p = 0.01, also see Fig. 2)’. The original version of this Article contained an error in the text in the figure legend of Figure 2 for panel B, which incorrectly read ‘B Symptom-response tracts visualized separately at the STN level with the other tracts grayed out for spatial comparison. Insets represent permutation tests and 10-fold cross-validation results for each symptom tract’. The correct version states ‘B Symptom-response tracts visualized separately at the STN level with the other tracts grayed out for spatial comparison. Insets represent circular and 10-fold cross-validation results for each symptom tract’. This has been corrected in both the PDF and HTML versions of the Article.
AB - Correction to: Nature Communicationshttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-48731-1, published online 31 May 2024 The original version of this Article contained an error in Figure 2, in which the statistical analyses in the insets of panel B were incorrectly reported. Permutation tests were inadvertently reported instead of circular tests and cross-validation values. The correct version of Figure 2 is: (Figure presented.) Which replaces the previous incorrect version: (Figure presented.) The original version of this Article contained an error in the text in the third paragraph of the results section ‘Symptom-Response Multi-Tract Model (Discovery Cohort)’ on page 3, which incorrectly read ‘Here, all symptom tracts significantly explained more variance in outcomes than re-calculated tract models after permuting improvement values across patients 1000 times (p < 0.001). Second, we subjected tract models to cross-validations. Here, all but the tremor tract model explained statistically significant amounts of variance when subjected to 10-fold cross-validations (bradykinesia: R = 0.20, p = 0.02; rigidity R = 0.20, p = 0.02; axial symptoms R = 0.22, p = 0.01, also see Fig. 2)’. The correct version states ‘Here, the bradykinesia and rigidity tracts significantly explained more variance in outcomes than re-calculated tract models after permuting improvement values across patients 1,000 times (p < 0.05). Second, we subjected tract models to cross-validations. Here, all but the tremor tract model explained statistically significant amounts of variance when subjected to 10-fold cross-validations (bradykinesia: R = 0.20, p = 0.02; rigidity R = 0.20, p = 0.02; axial symptoms R = 0.22, p = 0.01, also see Fig. 2)’. The original version of this Article contained an error in the text in the figure legend of Figure 2 for panel B, which incorrectly read ‘B Symptom-response tracts visualized separately at the STN level with the other tracts grayed out for spatial comparison. Insets represent permutation tests and 10-fold cross-validation results for each symptom tract’. The correct version states ‘B Symptom-response tracts visualized separately at the STN level with the other tracts grayed out for spatial comparison. Insets represent circular and 10-fold cross-validation results for each symptom tract’. This has been corrected in both the PDF and HTML versions of the Article.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85201619051&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1038/s41467-024-51394-7
DO - 10.1038/s41467-024-51394-7
M3 - Comment/Letter to the editor
C2 - 39164294
SN - 2041-1723
VL - 15
JO - Nature communications
JF - Nature communications
IS - 1
M1 - 7120
ER -