Correction to: Scientific Reports https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-84192-y, published online 17 March 2021
The original version of this Article contained errors in the text, where the RT-qPCR tests were incorrectly referred to as LAMP tests.
In the Introduction,
“In the case of the UIUC SHIELD program, results from the LAMP tests are being made available within 6 to 12 h for upwards of 10K daily tests.”
now reads:
“In the case of the UIUC SHIELD program, results from the RT-qPCR tests are being made available within 6 to 12 h for upwards of 10K daily tests.”
“The rapid saliva-based LAMP tests with an average turnaround time of 6–12 h (e.g., the testing mechanism of the UIUC SHIELD program) are ideally suited for this task.”
now reads:
“The rapid saliva-based tests with an average turnaround time of 6–12 h (e.g., the testing mechanism of the UIUC SHIELD program) are ideally suited for this task.”
In the Results and discussions section, under the subheading ‘Bulk testing capacity’,
“To make our simulations more realistic we assumed that the tests have a sensitivity of 0.92. See Wyllie et al.22,36 that reports the sensitivity of saliva-based LAMP tests to be between 0.90 and 0.95.”
now reads:
“To make our simulations more realistic we assumed that the tests have a sensitivity of 0.92. See Wyllie et al.22,36 that reports the sensitivity of saliva-based tests to be between 0.90 and 0.95.”
Under the subheading ‘Test sensitivities’,
“Our final study seeks to understand the impact of the sensitivity of tests on the infection mitigation strategy. Early reports22,36 claim saliva-based LAMP tests to have an average sensitivity of 92%, i.e., they are able to correctly detect 92% of the cases that are COVID-positive.”
now reads:
“Our final study seeks to understand the impact of the sensitivity of tests on the infection mitigation strategy. Early reports22,36 claim saliva-based RT-qPCR tests to have an average sensitivity of 92%, i.e., they are able to correctly detect 92% of the cases that are COVID-positive.”
The original Article has been corrected.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Mukherjee, U.K., Bose, S., Ivanov, A. et al. Author Correction: Evaluation of reopening strategies for educational institutions during COVID-19 through agent based simulation. Sci Rep 11, 20667 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-00201-0
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-00201-0
This article is cited by
-
Optimization of COVID-19 prevention and control measures during the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics: a model-based study
Infectious Diseases of Poverty (2022)
-
SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory pathogens are detected in continuous air samples from congregate settings
Nature Communications (2022)
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.
