We found a mistake in the code used to compute the param-1 eters m, q, and σ int of the E p,i -L iso and E p,i -L coll correlations 2 reported in Tables 1,2, and 3. We verified to see whether the 3 essence of our results remains unaffected, and in fact the statis-4 tical evidence of our conclusions is even stronger than what was 5 reported in the Letter.6 For each burst in the sample, we recomputed the aforemen-7 tioned parameters and provide the correct values in Tables 1, 2, 8 and 3, which are meant to replace those reported in the Letter.We 9 also provide the amended version of Fig. 1.Not only do the gen-10 eral conclusions that we found remain valid, but the main result 11 shown in Sect.3.1 improved.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Maistrello et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: