Haejung Kim,Eun Young Ko,Ka Eun Kim,Myoung Kyoung Kim,Ji Soo Choi,Eun Sook Ko,Boo-Kyung Han
Correction: Kim et al. Assessment of Enhancement Kinetics Improves the Specificity of Abbreviated Breast MRI: Performance in an Enriched Cohort. Diagnostics 2023, 13, 136
Correction: Kim et al. Assessment of Enhancement Kinetics Improves the Specificity of Abbreviated Breast MRI: Performance in an Enriched Cohort. Diagnostics 2023, 13, 136

There were errors in the original publication [1]. The CAD system version and an inequality sign in the definition should be corrected. A correction has been made to 2. Materials and Methods, 2.4. Kinetic Analysis, 1st paragraph: The sentence “Kinetic information was retrospectively analyzed on a dedicated workstation using a CAD system (CadstreamTM version 4.1.3, Merge Healthcare, Inc., Hartland, WI, USA).” should be replaced with “Kinetic information was retrospectively analyzed on a dedicated workstation using a CAD system (CadstreamTM v6.0, Merge Healthcare, Inc., Hartland, WI, USA).”. The sentence “The enhancement rate, defined as the signal change between the pre- and first post-contrast images, was categorized as slow (<50% increase), medium (50–100%), or rapid (≥100%).” should be replaced with “The enhancement rate, defined as the signal change between the pre- and first post-contrast images, was categorized as slow (<50% increase), medium (50–100%), or rapid (>100%).”. A p-value should be corrected. A correction has been made to 3. Results, 3.1. Patient and Lesion Characteristics, 1st paragraph: The sentence “In the morphological analysis, malignant masses more frequently showed non-circumscribed margins (p < 0.001), heterogeneous enhancement (p = 0.012), and rim enhancement (p = 0.012).” should be replaced with “In the morphological analysis, malignant masses more frequently showed non-circumscribed margins (p < 0.001), heterogeneous enhancement (p = 0.012), and rim enhancement (p = 0.014).”. Inequality signs and an AUC value should be corrected. A correction has been made to 3. Results, 3.2. Receiver Operating Characteristics Curve Analysis of Parameters for Differentiating Benign and Malignant Breast Lesions, 1st paragraph: The sentence “For the detection of all malignancies including in situ carcinoma, the enhancement degree, enhancement curve type, and size showed significantly better AUC values compared to morphological analysis alone (0.72–0.74 vs. 0.62; p ≤ 0.05 for all parameters).“ should be replaced with “For the detection of all malignancies including in situ carcinoma, the enhancement degree, enhancement curve type, and size showed significantly better AUC values compared to morphological analysis alone (0.72–0.74 vs. 0.62; p < 0.05 for all parameters).”. The sentence “For the detection of invasive cancers, enhancement degree and size showed significantly better AUC values compared to morphological analysis alone (0.72 for each vs. 0.6; p ≤ 0.05 for both parameters).” should be replaced with “For the detection of invasive cancers, enhancement degree and size showed significantly better AUC values compared to morphological analysis alone (0.72 for each vs. 0.61; p < 0.05 for both parameters).”. Incorrect dividing lines inside the Table 1 and Table 3 and the indentations should be corrected. The corrected Table 1 and Table 3 appear below. In the fifth line of Figure S1, “circumscribed” should be corrected to “heterogeneous enhancement.” The corrected Figure S1 appears below. The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the academic editor. The original publication has also been updated.