A Mushroom Supplement Cites a Study: Check for Corrections and Retractions

By TopShelfMushrooms.com Editorial Team

If a label or web page leans on a study, you can check that paper’s current status in a few steps. You need its DOI or PubMed ID (PMID), the publisher’s page for the paper, and the paper’s PubMed record. This guide walks through each stop and a way to log what you find, using a real mushroom paper that received a correction.

One caution up front: a clean status check tells you that the sources you checked show no published correction or retraction linked to the paper. It does not tell you the findings are right, or that they apply to a bottle on a shelf.

Why a Paper’s Status Can Change After Publication

Journals fix and withdraw papers. The U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM) links PubMed citations for original articles to citations for retraction notices, erratum notices, expressions of concern, corrected and republished articles, and similar items, so readers can find what is attached to a paper (NLM: Errata, Retractions, and Other Linked Citations in PubMed).

Crossref, which maintains the metadata that publishers deposit for their DOIs, describes the usual practice. When a publisher makes a significant update, it typically does not edit the original. It issues a separate notice with its own DOI that explains the change (Crossref: Registering updates). So the paper you have open can look untouched while a separate notice sits somewhere else. That is why this check has several stops.

The DOI and PMID Version-Check Walkthrough

Before you start, copy the paper’s title, journal, year, and DOI or PMID exactly as the supplement page or label cites them. If the citation has neither identifier, search for the title and confirm the authors and journal match before you go further.

Step 1: Open the publisher’s page for the paper

Go to the paper through its DOI link (https://doi.org/ followed by the DOI). Look near the title for a notice or a Crossmark button. Crossref describes Crossmark as giving readers access to the current status of a piece of content, including corrections, retractions, or updates, and says publishers place the button close to the title (Crossref: Crossmark).

Write down what you see, including “no notice visible.”

Step 2: Read the Crossmark panel if there is one

If the button is there, open it. Crossref says it can show whether the content has changed, plus publisher-supplied details such as key publication dates and peer review information. The publisher chooses how much to provide.

Step 3: Open the paper’s PubMed record

Find the citation in PubMed and look for linked-citation phrases. NLM uses specific wording:

“Erratum in:” on the original article’s citation, and “Erratum for:” on the correction notice.
“Retraction in:” on the retracted article, and “Retraction of:” on the notice.
“Expression of concern in:” on the article, and “Expression of concern for:” on the editor’s notice.
“Corrected and republished in:” and “Retracted and republished in:” when a paper is reissued.

All of these phrases come from the NLM errata page. NLM also assigns publication types such as “Published Erratum” and “Retraction Notice” to the notices, and “Retracted Publication” to retracted articles.

Step 4: Open every linked notice and read it

A label such as “Erratum in” only tells you something exists. The notice says what changed. Read it before deciding what it means for the claim you are checking.

Step 5: Record what you checked and when

Statuses can change, so keep a short log. For each paper, note:

The title, journal, year, and DOI or PMID as cited.
The date you checked.
Which sources you checked: the publisher page, the Crossmark panel, the PubMed record.
What each showed, including “nothing found.”
The DOI or PMID of any linked notice, and a one-line summary of what it changed.

If you cite a paper to anyone, give the check date with it. “No notice found as of the date checked” is accurate. “This paper is fine” is not.

A Worked Example: A Mushroom Genome Paper With a Correction

This example is a neutral one. It has no supplement or product tie and no suggestion of misconduct.

In 2020, a research team published genome assemblies for the two main subspecies of the button mushroom, Agaricus bisporus, in Scientific Reports (DOI 10.1038/s41598-020-71043-5). On August 12, 2021, the journal published an Author Correction (DOI 10.1038/s41598-021-96123-y). The notice says the original Figure 4 had errors. The left and right panels for chromosome 1 were swapped, and some y-axis values on the chromosome 10 and 11 panels were wrong (Wageningen University & Research record of the correction).

Here is what the walkthrough turns up for this paper:

Step 1: The correction is its own published item with its own DOI, which matches Crossref’s description of how updates are usually issued.
Step 4: The notice is specific. It identifies the figure and the panels affected, so you can judge for yourself whether a particular claim depends on that figure.
Step 5: The log entry would record the original DOI, the correction DOI, the correction date (August 12, 2021), and one line on what changed.

A correction like this one fixes the record. It does not, on its own, say anything about the authors’ conduct. NLM treats corrections, corrigenda, addenda, and partial retractions all as errata, and it says it does not distinguish errors of publication process from errors of scientific logic or methodology. Even for full retractions, NLM does not separate honest error from misconduct. Read the notice itself to see what the journal says happened.

What This Check Can and Cannot Tell You

What it can establish

Whether the publisher and PubMed link any correction, retraction, or expression of concern to the paper as of the date you checked.
What the notice says changed.
Whether the paper you were handed is the one you think it is, by matching the title, authors, journal, and identifier.

What it cannot establish

That the study is sound. This check only looks for published notices. Finding none does not mean the paper has no flaws.
That no notice exists anywhere. NLM says it creates retraction links based on information published by the journal, so the journal’s own notices are the primary record.
That a missing badge means a problem. Crossref says the presence of Crossmark is itself not a guarantee. Crossref also describes cases where a notice points at an article with no Crossmark data, and Crossref then generates a stub record that can be retrieved through its API. So a missing button neither flags a defect nor proves nothing was issued.
That the study applies to a product. Whether the material, dose, or population in a paper matches what is in a bottle is a separate question that this check does not answer.

Information You May Still Be Missing

A supplement page may cite a paper only by a short title or author name. Without a DOI or PMID, you may not be able to confirm which paper is meant.
This walkthrough is built for journal articles. If the cited item is a preprint, a conference abstract, or a press summary, say so in your log; this article does not cover how those are tracked.
A correction may concern a figure that has nothing to do with the claim you care about, or it may touch the main result. Only the notice, read against the claim, tells you which.

Who Should Weigh In, and What to Do Next

For personal health decisions, a physician or pharmacist who knows your history is the right person to ask, especially if you take medication or have a medical condition. A paper’s status does not answer whether a supplement is appropriate for you.
For a product claim that worries you, contact the consumer protection or supplement regulator in your country. This article does not cover what any regulator allows.
For a cited paper you cannot place, ask the company or the page’s author for the full citation, and a librarian can help you track a paper down.
If you find a notice, read it, log it, and treat any claim built on the affected part of the paper as unsupported until you understand what changed.

Sources and Check Dates

The sources below were opened on October 6, 2026. The NLM page shows a last-reviewed date of February 10, 2026.

TopShelfMushrooms.com is an independent educational publication. It is not a clinic, laboratory, or research institution, and it has no affiliation with the journals, publishers, or databases named here. This article is general information, not medical advice.