Nat. Rev. Cardiol. 10, 243–244 (2013); published online 2 April 2013; doi:10.1038/nrcardio.2013.50

In the version of this article originally published, the sentence “The investigators also determined that the optimal number of genes to use in their GES was 19, which had a sensitivity of 84%...” should have been “The investigators also determined that the optimal GES threshold was 19, which had a sensitivity of 84%...”. The error has been corrected in the HTML and PDF versions of the article.