Abstract
After publication of the article entitled, “Why Our Long-Term Functional Prognosis Tools Are a Valuable Contribution to the Traumatic Brain Injury Outcome Literature: Response to Foks et al. (DOI: 10.1089/neu.2018.5979),” by Walker, W.C. et al., J. Neurotrauma 36, pp. 1384–1385 the authors reported inadvertent errors in the following sentences on page 1384: “One criticism of Dr. Foks and colleagues was our exclusion of death and vegetative outcomes, which occur at very low frequency in our cohort.” (p. 1384, col. 1, para. 3) “Further, among the few patients with dead or vegetative outcomes, most (76%, 65%, and 58% at Years 1, 2, and 5, respectively) have high PTA durations and would end up in the terminal node with the poorest outcomes such that their inclusion would not add significant information to the model.” (p. 1384, col. 2, para. 1)
The corrected text as it should have appeared is noted below: “One criticism of Dr. Foks and colleagues was our exclusion of death and vegetative outcomes. “Further, among the patients with dead or vegetative outcomes, would end up in a terminal node with the poorest outcomes such that their inclusion would not add significant information to the model.”
The online version of this article has been corrected.
The authors regret these errors.