{"paper_id":"001bfbae-f641-46df-abba-fdb662922c8c","body_text":"CORRECTION Open Access\n© The Author(s) 2024. Open Access  This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, \nsharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and \nthe source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this \narticle are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included \nin the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will \nneed to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The \nCreative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available \nin this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.\nFang et al. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology           (2024) 22:45 \nhttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-024-01218-6\nThe heading Correlations of clinical characteristics and \nlaboratory indicators with RIF outcomes, in this part of \nthe results, “95% CI = 0.865➔0.925” modified to“95% CI, \n0.865 ∼ 0.925” .\nThe heading Multivariate analysis of pregnancy assis -\ntance in the first cycle of RIF, in this part of the results, \n“95% CI, 0.597 ➔0.748” was modified to “95% CI, \n0.597 ∼ 0.748” .\nIn Fig.  3 caption, “0.895 (95% CI = 0.811–0.828)” was \nmodified to“95% CI, 0.865 ∼ 0.925” .\nIn Supplementary Material 1 caption, “95% CI: \n0.597?0.748” was modified to “95% CI, 0.597 ∼ 0.748” .\nIn author details, “Center for reproductive medicine \nand prenatal diagnosis ” was modified to “Center for \nReproduction and Genetics” .\nThe original article [1] has been updated.\nCorrection: Reprod Biol Endocrinol 22, 32 (2024)\nhttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-024-01203-z\nFollowing publication of the original article [ 1], the \nauthors reported an alignment error in Table 1 and typos \nfound under section headings Correlations of clinical \ncharacteristics and laboratory indicators with RIF out -\ncomes; Multivariate analysis of pregnancy assistance \nin the first cycle of RIF; Fig.  3 caption; Supplementary \nMaterial 1 caption and the author’s unit.\nThe heading Correlations of clinical characteristics and \nlaboratory indicators with RIF outcomes, in this part of \nthe results “95% CI, 0.870 to 0.929” was modified to“95% \nCI, 0.870 ∼ 0.929” .\nReproductive Biology \nand Endocrinology\n†Qunying Fang, Zonghui Qiao and Lei Luo contributed equally to \nthis work.\nThe online version of the original article can be found at https://doi.\norg/10.1186/s12958-024-01203-z.\n*Correspondence:\nLu Zong\nzonglu1989@163.com\nXian-hong Tong\nTong68xianhong@163.com\nLi-min Wu\nwlm@ustc.edu.cn\n1Center for Reproduction and Genetics, Division of Life Sciences and \nMedicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of USTC, University of Science and \nTechnology of China, Hefei 230026, Anhui, P . R. China\n2University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, Anhui, P . \nR. China\nCorrection: Predictive models of recurrent \nimplantation failure in patients receiving \nART treatment based on clinical features \nand routine laboratory data\nQunying Fang1,2†, Zonghui Qiao1†, Lei Luo1†, Shun Bai1, Min Chen1,2, Xiangjun Zhang1,2, Lu Zong1*, Xian-hong Tong1* \nand Li-min Wu1*\n\nPage 2 of 2\nFang et al. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology            (2024) 22:45 \nReferences\n1. Fang Q, Qiao Z, Luo L, et al. Predictive models of recurrent implantation fail-\nure in patients receiving ART treatment based on clinical features and routine \nlaboratory data. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2024;22:32. https://doi.org/10.1186/\ns12958-024-01203-z.\nPublisher’s Note\nSpringer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in \npublished maps and institutional affiliations. \nTable 1 General clinical data (Corrected)\nControl RIF t/X2 P\n(n = 4750) (n = 462)\nFemale\n Age (years) 31.00 ± 3.66 33.30 ± 4.14 6.07 0\n Duration of infertility (years) 2.70 ± 2.04 4.06 ± 2.79 5.721 0\n BMI (kg/m2) 22.92 ± 3.13 22.42 ± 3.02 1.677 0.094\n Type of infertility 29.408 0\n  Primary infertility 2590(54.53) 191(41.34)\n  Secondary infertility 2160(45.47) 271(58.66)\n Diagnosis of infertility\n  Tubal factor 3220(67.79) 272(58.87) 15.135 0\n  PCOS 513(10.08) 51(11.04) 0.25 0.875\n  DOR 290(6.11) 91(19.70) 84.697 0\n  Other ovarian factors 105(2.21) 7(1.52) 0.968 0.325\n  Ems 430(9.05) 76(16.45) 26.286 0\n Number of induced abortions 130.388 0\n  0 3315(69.79) 222(48.05)\n  1 1050(22.11) 137(29.65)\n  ≥2 385(8.10) 103(22.30)\nMale\n Age (years)(X ± S) 31.98 ± 4.37 34.56 ± 4.72 5.821 0\n Type of infertility 13.272 0\n  Primary infertility 2600(54.74) 212(45.89)\n  Secondary infertility 2150(45.26) 250(54.11)\n Teratozoospermia 175(3.68) 20(4.33) 0.486 0.486\n Sperm quality 192.875 0\n  Normal 2840(59.79) 136(29.44)\n  Mild or moderate asthenospermia 1025(21.58) 218(47.19)\n  Severe asthenospermia 320(6.74) 49(10.61)\n  Others 565(11.89) 59(12.76)\nThe data are presented as the mean ± SD or % (n). The data were analysed by ANOVA or the chi-square test and Fisher’s exact test\nBMI, body mass index; PCOS, polycystic ovarian syndrome; DOR, diminished ovarian reserve; EMs, endometriosis","source_license":"CC-BY-4.0","license_restricted":false}