TY - JOUR
T1 - Correction to
T2 - Large-scale plasma proteomics comparisons through genetics and disease associations (Nature, (2023), 622, 7982, (348-358), 10.1038/s41586-023-06563-x)
AU - Eldjarn, Grimur Hjorleifsson
AU - Ferkingstad, Egil
AU - Lund, Sigrun H.
AU - Helgason, Hannes
AU - Magnusson, Olafur Th
AU - Gunnarsdottir, Kristbjorg
AU - Olafsdottir, Thorunn A.
AU - Halldorsson, Bjarni V.
AU - Olason, Pall I.
AU - Zink, Florian
AU - Gudjonsson, Sigurjon A.
AU - Sveinbjornsson, Gardar
AU - Magnusson, Magnus I.
AU - Helgason, Agnar
AU - Oddsson, Asmundur
AU - Halldorsson, Gisli H.
AU - Magnusson, Magnus K.
AU - Saevarsdottir, Saedis
AU - Eiriksdottir, Thjodbjorg
AU - Masson, Gisli
AU - Stefansson, Hreinn
AU - Jonsdottir, Ingileif
AU - Holm, Hilma
AU - Rafnar, Thorunn
AU - Melsted, Pall
AU - Saemundsdottir, Jona
AU - Norddahl, Gudmundur L.
AU - Thorleifsson, Gudmar
AU - Ulfarsson, Magnus O.
AU - Gudbjartsson, Daniel F.
AU - Thorsteinsdottir, Unnur
AU - Sulem, Patrick
AU - Stefansson, Kari
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2024.
PY - 2024/6/6
Y1 - 2024/6/6
N2 - Correction to: Naturehttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06563-x Published online 4 October 2023 Due to an error in data analysis, several different samples from the same individual in the Icelandic data set measured using SomaScan were treated as repeated measurements of the same sample. This affects the computation of the coefficient of variation (CV) of repeated measurements of the same sample on the SomaScan platform, leading to an artificially high CV. Furthermore, as the difference in distribution of protein levels between platforms may be at least partly due to population differences, we have removed attempts to evaluate the CV of repeated measurements relative to the CV of the assay in the population (CV ratio). Both issues affect the conclusion of Olink assays being more precise than SomaScan assays, as using only the repeated measurements and computing the CV of repeated measurements of the same sample instead of the CV ratio, Olink assays exhibit higher CV than SomaScan assays, indicating higher precision of the SomaScan assays. Finally, we have identified a couple of errors in our processing of raw measurements: while the Olink measurements were transformed with a base-2 logarithm, the SomaScan measurements were transformed with the natural logarithm, and an incorrect scaling factor was used to compute the MAD estimate of s.d. While these errors do not affect the conclusions, Extended Data Fig. 2 and Supplementary Tables 1, 2, 4 and 9 have been updated to reflect this. As a consequence of the first two issues described, the section Comparison of precision has changed considerably (see the Supplementary Information for a list of edits and original article for comparison).
AB - Correction to: Naturehttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06563-x Published online 4 October 2023 Due to an error in data analysis, several different samples from the same individual in the Icelandic data set measured using SomaScan were treated as repeated measurements of the same sample. This affects the computation of the coefficient of variation (CV) of repeated measurements of the same sample on the SomaScan platform, leading to an artificially high CV. Furthermore, as the difference in distribution of protein levels between platforms may be at least partly due to population differences, we have removed attempts to evaluate the CV of repeated measurements relative to the CV of the assay in the population (CV ratio). Both issues affect the conclusion of Olink assays being more precise than SomaScan assays, as using only the repeated measurements and computing the CV of repeated measurements of the same sample instead of the CV ratio, Olink assays exhibit higher CV than SomaScan assays, indicating higher precision of the SomaScan assays. Finally, we have identified a couple of errors in our processing of raw measurements: while the Olink measurements were transformed with a base-2 logarithm, the SomaScan measurements were transformed with the natural logarithm, and an incorrect scaling factor was used to compute the MAD estimate of s.d. While these errors do not affect the conclusions, Extended Data Fig. 2 and Supplementary Tables 1, 2, 4 and 9 have been updated to reflect this. As a consequence of the first two issues described, the section Comparison of precision has changed considerably (see the Supplementary Information for a list of edits and original article for comparison).
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85193845584
U2 - 10.1038/s41586-024-07549-z
DO - 10.1038/s41586-024-07549-z
M3 - Comment/debate
C2 - 38778117
AN - SCOPUS:85193845584
SN - 0028-0836
VL - 630
SP - E3
JO - Nature
JF - Nature
IS - 8015
ER -