The title of this article was erroneously given as: “Evaluation of a novel aspergillus IgG lateral flow assay for the diagnosis of non-neutropenic patients with acute and subacute invasive aspergillosis”. The correct title of the article is “Evaluation of a novel Aspergillus IgG lateral flow assay for the diagnosis of non-neutropenic patients with acute and subacute invasive aspergillosis”.
“Zhu, R. Z., Cheng, J., Luo, Y., Qiu, W., Huang, J., Jiang, Y., et al. (2023b). Diagnostic
laboratory features and performance of an aspergillus IgG lateral flow assay in a chronic
pulmonary aspergillosis cohort. Microbiol. Spectr. 11, e0026423. doi: 10.1128/
spectrum.00264-23]”was not cited in the article. The citation has now been inserted in the page 10, section 4 Discussion, paragraph 5 and should read:
“Zhu, 2023b”
In the Abstract, The mistake was the non-uniform writing of “vs.”. This has been corrected to read: “The level of plasma Aspergillus IgG LFA in the IA group was significantly higher than that in the control group (190.5 AU/mL vs 50.3 AU/mL, P < 0.001)”
1. Page 06, section 3 Results, sub-section 3.3, paragraph 2
The mistake was the non-uniform writing of “vs.”.
“Compared to the Aspergillus IgG ELISA with a cut-off value of 80 AU/mL, the Aspergillus IgG LFA had equivalent sensitivity (65.1% vs. 69.8% for sensitivity, P = 0.549), but significantly higher specificity (97.5% vs. 87.5% for specificity, P = 0.021)(Table 5).”
The correct statement is “vs”.
“Compared to the Aspergillus IgG ELISA with a cut-off value of 80 AU/mL, the Aspergillus IgG LFA had equivalent sensitivity (65.1% vs 69.8% for sensitivity, P = 0.549), but significantly higher specificity (97.5% vs 87.5% for specificity, P = 0.021)(Table 5).”
2. Page 06, section 3 Results, sub-section 3.4
The mistakes were the non-uniform writings of “vs.” and “to”.
“The ROC curves of Aspergillus IgG LFA had no significant differences between patients with acute and subacute IA (AUC0.812[95% CI: 0.705, 0.919] vs 0.874 [95% CI: 0.780 to 0.967], P =0.401)(Figure 3D). The sensitivities, PPVs and NPVs of the Aspergillus IgG LFA were equivalent between patients with acute and subacute IA (57.6% vs. 73.3% for sensitivity, P = 0.190; 90.5% vs. 91.7% for PPV, P = 1.000; 84.8% vs. 90.7% for NPV, P =0.231)(Table 5).”
The correct statements are “vs” and “,”.
“The ROC curves of Aspergillus IgG LFA had no significant differences between patients with acute and subacute IA (AUC0.812[95% CI: 0.705, 0.919] vs 0.874 [95% CI: 0.780, 0.967], P =0.401)(Figure 3D). The sensitivities, PPVs and NPVs of the Aspergillus IgG LFA were equivalent between patients with acute and subacute IA (57.6% vs 73.3% for sensitivity, P = 0.190; 90.5% vs 91.7% for PPV, P = 1.000; 84.8% vs 90.7% for NPV, P =0.231)(Table 5).”
3. Page 09, section 4 Discussion, paragraph 2
The mistake was the wrong writing of “65.1%”.
“In this study, the sensitivity and specificity of the BALF GM were 65.1% and 90.0%, respectively (Table 6).”
The correct statement is “65.0%”.
“In this study, the sensitivity and specificity of the BALF GM were 65.0% and 90.0%, respectively (Table 6).”
4. Page 09, section 4 Discussion, paragraph 2
The mistakes were the non-uniform writings of “vs.” and “P”.
“A meta-analysis showed that PCR had higher sensitivity for the diagnosis of IA in non-neutropenic patients such as COPD, solid tumors and autoimmune diseases with prolonged corticosteroid therapy, compared to those with HM and/or HSCT/SOT (88% vs. 68%, P < 0.001) (Han et al., 2023).”
The correct statements are “vs” and “P”.
“A meta-analysis showed that PCR had higher sensitivity for the diagnosis of IA in non-neutropenic patients such as COPD, solid tumors and autoimmune diseases with prolonged corticosteroid therapy, compared to those with HM and/or HSCT/SOT (88% vs 68%, P < 0.001) (Han et al., 2023).”
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
acute invasive aspergillosis, subacute invasive aspergillosis, non-neutropenic patients, Aspergillus IgG lateral flow assay, diagnosis
Citation
Lu Y, Zhong H, Wang Y, Sun C, Li Y, Cai Y, Cai X, Wang J, Zhong J and Su X (2025) Correction: Evaluation of a novel Aspergillus IgG lateral flow assay for the diagnosis of non-neutropenic patients with acute and subacute invasive aspergillosis. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 15:1659574. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2025.1659574
Received
04 July 2025
Accepted
07 July 2025
Published
25 July 2025
Approved by
Frontiers Editorial Office, Frontiers Media SA, Switzerland
Volume
15 - 2025
Updates
Copyright
© 2025 Lu, Zhong, Wang, Sun, Li, Cai, Cai, Wang, Zhong and Su.
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: Xin Su, suxinjs@163.com
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.