This article is a correction to:
Common Pitfalls in the Interpretation of Endocrine Tests
Jose C. Alvarez-Payares1,2*
Jesus David Bello-Simanca3Edwin De Jesus De La Peña-Arrieta3Jose Emilio Agamez-Gomez3Jhon Edwar Garcia-Rueda3Amilkar Rodriguez-Arrieta4Luis Antonio Rodriguez-Arrieta5- 1Internal Medicine Department, Faculty of Medicine, University of Antioquia, Medellin, Colombia
- 2Internal Medicine Service, Institución Prestadora de Servicios (IPS) Universitaria - Clínica León XIII, Medellin, Colombia
- 3Faculty of Medicine, University of Antioquia, Medellin, Colombia
- 4Faculty of Medicine, University of Cartagena, Cartagena, Colombia
- 5Endocrinology Section, Internal Medicine Department, Faculty of Medicine, University of Antioquia, Medellin, Colombia
A corrigendum on
Common pitfalls in the interpretation of endocrine tests
by Alvarez-Payares JC, Bello-Simanca JD, De La Peña-Arrieta EDJ, Agamez-Gomez JE, Garcia-Rueda JE, Rodriguez-Arrieta A and Rodriguez-Arrieta LA (2021). 12:727628. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2021.727628
In the published article, there was an error in the legend for Figure 1 as published. The image referenced from Haddad et al. image 3 of the Common Pitfalls in the Interpretation of Endocrine Tests, in this publication does not correspond to the hook effect. The Figure 1 provided in this document, which is taken from the same reference as above, corresponds to Illustration of the high dose hook effect. The corrected legend appears below.
FIGURE 1
Figure 1 The left panel illustrates the non-competitive “sandwich” immunoassay with normal (or elevated within the tolerance of the assay kit) hormone concentration. The right panel illustrates the mechanism of the hook effect with exceedingly high hormone concentration. (A) At the sample that contains remarkably elevated hormone concentration is added to the test tube which contains both capture and signal antibodies. (B) It is both the capture and signal antibodies preventing the formation of the “sandwiches”. (C) After the washout phase, only a few “sandwiches” will be left producing a low signal. Adapted from Haddad et al. Clinical Diabetes and Endocrinology (2019) 5:12 (3) with previous authorization from the author (2).
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.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Keywords: endocrine test, hook effect, hyperprolactinemia, adrenal insufficiency, Cushing’s syndrome, acromegaly, hypogonadism
Citation: Alvarez-Payares JC, Bello-Simanca JD, De La Peña-Arrieta EDJ, Agamez-Gomez JE, Garcia-Rueda JE, Rodriguez-Arrieta A and Rodriguez-Arrieta LA (2022) Corrigendum: Common pitfalls in the interpretation of endocrine tests. Front. Endocrinol. 13:875346. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2022.875346
Received: 14 February 2022; Accepted: 28 June 2022;
Published: 09 November 2022.
Approved by:
Frontiers Editorial Office, Frontiers Media SA, SwitzerlandCopyright © 2022 Alvarez-Payares, Bello-Simanca, De La Peña-Arrieta, Agamez-Gomez, Garcia-Rueda, Rodriguez-Arrieta and Rodriguez-Arrieta. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Jose C. Alvarez-Payares, am9zZWNhcmxvc2FsdmFyZXpqOUBob3RtYWlsLmNvbQ==