This article has been removed at the request of the Editors-in-Chief and the authors because informed patient consent was not obtained by the authors in accordance with journal policy prior to publication. The authors sincerely apologize for this oversight.
In addition, the authors have used a generative AI source in the writing process of the paper without disclosure, which, although not being the reason for the article removal, is a breach of journal policy. The journal regrets that this issue was not detected during the manuscript screening and evaluation process and apologies are offered to readers of the journal.
The journal regrets – Sure, the journal. Nobody assuming responsibility …
It's removed from Elsevier's site, but still available on PubMed Central: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11026926/#
The worse part is, if I recall correctly, articles are stored in PubMed Central if they received public funding (to ensure public access), which means that this rubbish was paid with public funds.
How did this make it past review? I guess case reports might not have a peer review process
Fun fact! In the Netherlands, Elsevier publishes a weekly magazine about politics, which is basically the written version of Fox News for that country. Very nice that those people control like 50% of all academic publishing.
They mistakenly sent the "final final paper.docx" file instead of the "final final final paper v3.docx". It could've happen to any of us.
Elsevier is such a fucking joke. Science should be free and open, anyways.
I won't even post to Hexbear without rereading my post and editing spelling/grammar errors, how do people submit research papers that will effect their professional reputation without doing it?
