The acknowledgements was erroneously given as “The authors would like to thank Dr. Devra Davis and Dr. Kent Chamberlin for their encouragement, incite, and expert assistance in obtaining IRB approval.” The correct acknowledgements is “The authors would like to thank Dr. Devra Davis and Dr. Kent Chamberlin for sharing their encouragement and expertise.”
The ethics statement was erroneously given as “The studies involving humans were approved by University of New Hampshire Research Integrity Services. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participant(s) provided their written informed consent to participate in this study. Written informed consent was obtained from the individual(s) for the publication of any potentially identifiable images or data included in this article.” The correct ethics statement is “The study was conducted on and with the written informed consent of author BB, without ethical approval having been sought or obtained. Approval was granted on January 8, 2025, by the University of New Hampshire Research Integrity Services, for a new study planned to prospectively involve up to 40 participants, but did not include the participant/author mentioned in the current study.”
The conflict-of-interest statement was erroneously given as “The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.” The correct conflict of interest statement is “The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. At the time of publication, the handling editor was a board member of the Environmental Health Trust, and the first author was an executive committee member of that same non-profit organization.”
The original version of this article has been updated.
Statements
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.
Summary
Keywords
cellphone, mobile phone, EMFs, radiofrequency radiation, wireless communication, rouleaux, blood viscosity
Citation
Brown RR and Biebrich B (2026) Correction: Hypothesis: ultrasonography can document dynamic in-vivo rouleaux formation due to mobile phone exposure. Front. Cardiovasc. Med. 13:1724889. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2026.1724889
Received
14 October 2025
Revised
01 February 2026
Accepted
02 February 2026
Published
19 February 2026
Approved by
Frontiers Editorial Office, Frontiers Media SA, Switzerland
Volume
13 - 2026
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Brown and Biebrich.
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: Robert R. Brown rbrown@ehtrust.org
Disclaimer
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.