4 Matching Annotations
  1. Jul 2018
    1. On 2018 Jan 03, Thomas Hünig commented:

      Thank you for bringing this up in the Commons. Yes, it is unfortunate that somewhere in production process, the "µ" symbols were converted to "m", which sometimes happens when fonts are changed. Fortunately, the mistake becomes obvious by its sheer magnitude (1000x off), and the corresponding paper in Eur. J. Immunol. with the original, correct data is referenced. My apologies that we did not spot this mistake before publication.


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    2. On 2017 Dec 31, Mark Milton commented:

      The article includes several unfortunate typos in a vital piece of information. The article states that "These encouraging findings led to the design of a new healthy volunteer trial, which started at 0.1 mg/kg, i.e. a 1000- fold lower dose than the one applied in the ill-fated trial of 2006 (Clinical trials identifier: NCT01885624). After careful monitoring of each patient, the dose was gradually increased to a maximum of 7 mg/kg, still well below what had been applied in the first HV trial." The units listed for the dose are mg/kg but should have been µg/kg. The starting dose was 0.1 µg/kg and the highest dose evaluated was 7 µg/kg (Tabares et al 2014). The dose administered in the TGN1412 FIH study was 100 µg/kg. Although this typo does not detract from the overall conclusions from the study, it is sad to see that this error was not noticed by the authors or reviewers given the near tragic circumstances of the FIH clinical trial for TGN1412.


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

  2. Feb 2018
    1. On 2017 Dec 31, Mark Milton commented:

      The article includes several unfortunate typos in a vital piece of information. The article states that "These encouraging findings led to the design of a new healthy volunteer trial, which started at 0.1 mg/kg, i.e. a 1000- fold lower dose than the one applied in the ill-fated trial of 2006 (Clinical trials identifier: NCT01885624). After careful monitoring of each patient, the dose was gradually increased to a maximum of 7 mg/kg, still well below what had been applied in the first HV trial." The units listed for the dose are mg/kg but should have been µg/kg. The starting dose was 0.1 µg/kg and the highest dose evaluated was 7 µg/kg (Tabares et al 2014). The dose administered in the TGN1412 FIH study was 100 µg/kg. Although this typo does not detract from the overall conclusions from the study, it is sad to see that this error was not noticed by the authors or reviewers given the near tragic circumstances of the FIH clinical trial for TGN1412.


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    2. On 2018 Jan 03, Thomas Hünig commented:

      Thank you for bringing this up in the Commons. Yes, it is unfortunate that somewhere in production process, the "µ" symbols were converted to "m", which sometimes happens when fonts are changed. Fortunately, the mistake becomes obvious by its sheer magnitude (1000x off), and the corresponding paper in Eur. J. Immunol. with the original, correct data is referenced. My apologies that we did not spot this mistake before publication.


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.