Abstract
The term “precursor-product ratio” used throughout the article would be more correctly called “product-precursor ratio.” Despite this name change, the ratio and the data and their interpretation remain correct.
In addition, inaccurate wording appears in the second sentence of the Results section of the abstract (page 1040). As published, the sentence reads: “Total n–3 PUFA intakes were 57–80% lower in non-fish-eaters than in fish-eaters, but status differences were considerably smaller.” Instead, the sentence should read as follows: “Total n–3 PUFA intakes in non-fish-eaters were 57–80% of those in fish-eaters, but status differences were considerably smaller.” These figures are referred to correctly in the second sentence of the Discussion section on page 1048.
In addition, inaccurate wording appears in the second sentence of the Results section of the abstract (page 1040). As published, the sentence reads: “Total n–3 PUFA intakes were 57–80% lower in non-fish-eaters than in fish-eaters, but status differences were considerably smaller.” Instead, the sentence should read as follows: “Total n–3 PUFA intakes in non-fish-eaters were 57–80% of those in fish-eaters, but status differences were considerably smaller.” These figures are referred to correctly in the second sentence of the Discussion section on page 1048.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 676 |
| Number of pages | 1 |
| Journal | American Journal of Clinical Nutrition |
| Volume | 93 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| DOIs |
|
| Publication status | Published - 1 Mar 2011 |
Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver