Edited and reviewed by: Alfredo Berruti, University of Brescia, Italy
*Correspondence: Oluwaseun Adebayo Bamodu,
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.
In the published article, there was an error. The published article did not fully disclose the source of the human tissue samples or provide complete information about the relevant ethical approvals, including a noted non−compliance (NC) event.
A correction has been made to the section
“Bladder Cancer Tissue Samples
A total of 79 archived tissue specimens diagnosed with bladder urothelial carcinoma (UC) were retrieved from the Department of Pathology at Taipei Medical University–Shuang Ho Hospital. These samples were originally collected for routine clinical diagnostic purposes and subsequently preserved in the hospital’s pathology archives. As the research was retrospective and involved the analysis of previously collected, fully de−identified specimens, the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Taipei Medical University reviewed the protocol. It addressed a related non−compliance (NC) event. Upon review, the IRB concluded that the non−compliance of this study was appropriately managed and that corrective measures were implemented in accordance with ethical and regulatory standards governing human subject research.”
The ethics statement was erroneously given as “The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the Joint Institutional Review Board (JIRB) of Taipei Medical University. The procurement of the samples was strictly adherent to the approved IRB (No. N202102034) issued by the JIRB. Informed consent was waived because of the retrospective nature of the study. Written informed consent for participation was not required for this study in accordance with the national legislation and the institutional requirements.”
The correct ethics statement is “A total of 79 archived bladder urothelial carcinoma (UC) specimens were obtained from the Pathology Department of Taipei Medical University–Shuang Ho Hospital. These samples, originally collected for clinical diagnostics, were fully de−identified. The Institutional Review Board reviewed and addressed a related non−compliance (NC) event, confirming that appropriate corrective actions were taken in line with ethical and regulatory standards.”
The original version of this article has been updated.
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.