3 ms·
1. The correction doesn’t invalidate that previous study at all 2. I fail to see how the previous study is an “underpinning” of the new paper. The new paper is
by cowsandmilk 1y ago
1. The correction doesn’t invalidate that previous study at all
2. I fail to see how the previous study is an “underpinning” of the new paper. The new paper is a chemistry paper about dissociation of GBCAs in the presence of certain chemicals. Maybe people care because it is a potential explanation for toxicity, but the paper is very focused on the chemistry findings.
- shakna 1y agoIt is underpinning, as it is the most frequently cited in the entire paper. It is underpinning, as the claims in both introduction and conclusion are precipitate to it. The correction: > After personal communication with the radiologists the administered Gd-contained contrast agent was documented in the MR examination reports of the mentioned nine patients incompletely and inexactly as Gd–DTPA by themselves. There is solely one MR contrast agent used in the described observation period: Gd–DTPA–BMA. Therefore, all mentioned nine patients received Gd–DTPA–BMA and not Gd–DTPA. Means that Gd-DTPA is irrelevant. Guess which is analysed here?
- bonsai_spool 1y agoNeither - the OP paper talks about Gd-DOTA. I’m not a specialist so I can’t comment on how significant that is. We generally don’t use the compounds that cause NSF, which is one reason why the 2006 paper link you provided may not reflect the agents under current study.