This paper presents an approach to enhancing undergraduate Electrical Engineering (EE) education through research collaboration and hands-on project-based learning. The study focuses on the design, simulation, and optimization of an 8 − 12 GHz MMIC RF power amplifier, reinforcing foundational EE concepts while introducing students to advanced industry-standard tools. Through the use of Candence AWR Microwave Office™ and Smith chart analysis for impedance matching, students gain practical experience that extends beyond traditional coursework. By integrating simulation, optimization, and fabrication preparation, this project bridges the gap between theoretical instruction and real-world RF engineering practices.

Correction to: Scientific Reports, published online 27 September 2022 The original version of this Article contained errors in the dataset, where one participant was incorrectly labelled as Western immigrant and should have been labelled as Native Dutch. Another participant was incorrectly labelled as Western immigrant and should have been labelled as Non-Western immigrant. As a result, in the Abstract, “Anxiety was not influenced by empathy or information (Stai-state: p = 0.295; p = 0.390, VAS p = 0.399; p = 0.823).” now reads: “Anxiety was not influenced by empathy or information (Stai-state: p = 0.281; p = 0.410, VAS p = 0.387; p = 0.838).” In addition, in the Results section, under the subheading ‘Main and interaction effects of nocebo information and empathy’, under the subheading “Nocebo information”, “As demonstrated in Table 4, in controlled models the nocebo explanation did not influence APs’ anxiety levels (Stai-state: p = 0.390, VAS p = 0.823), or their feelings of satisfaction, trust, and self-efficacy (p > 0.05).” now reads: “As demonstrated in Table 4, in controlled models the nocebo explanation did not influence APs’ anxiety levels (Stai-state: p = 0.410, VAS p = 0.838), or their feelings of satisfaction, trust, and self-efficacy (p > 0.05).” Also in the Results section, under the subheading ‘Main and interaction effects of nocebo information and empathy’, under the subheading “Empathy”, “As demonstrated in Table 4, in controlled models reassurance of continuing support did not influence anxiety levels (Stai-state: p = 0.295, VAS p = 0.399) but did increase feelings of satisfaction, trust, and self-efficacy (p < 0.001).” now reads: “As demonstrated in Table 4, in controlled models reassurance of continuing support did not influence anxiety levels (Stai-state: p = 0.281, VAS p = 0.387) but did increase feelings of satisfaction, trust, and self-efficacy (p < 0.001).” Table 3 contained errors in mean (SD) values for “Migrant background,” “Native Dutch,” “Western immigrant,” “Non-Western immigrant”. Incorrect: (Table presented.) Variables Information−Empathy− N = 43 Information+Empathy+ N = 42 Total N = 160 Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) F (df); (p) Migrant background (Fisher Exact) p = 0.76 Native Dutch 38 (88.4) 33 (78.6) 129 (80.6) Western immigrant 3 (7.0) 5 (11.9) 16 (10.0) Non-Western immigrant 2 (4.7) 4 (9.5) 15 (9.4) Correct: (Table presented.) Variables Information−Empathy− N = 43 Information+Empathy+ N = 42 Total N = 160 Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) F (df); (p) Migrant background (Fisher Exact) p = 0.80 Native Dutch 38 (88.4) 34 (81.0) 130 (81.3) Western immigrant 2 (4.7) 4 (9.5) 14 (8.8) Non-Western immigrant 3 (7.0) 4 (9.5) 16 (10.0) Table 4 contained errors for the “Western migrant vs native Dutch” and “non-Western migrant vs native Dutch”. Adjustments have been made in Table 4. The original Table 4 and accompanying legend appear below. (Table presented.) Main and interaction effects of nocebo information and empathy. Model 1—uncontrolled main effects (+ interaction effect if significant) Nocebo information Empathy Nocebo information × Empathy B p B p B p Anxiety (Stai_state) 0.09 0.260 − 0.03 0.694 Anxiety (VAS) 0.05 0.575 − 0.02 0.816 Probability of specific − 0.06 0.420 − 0.25 Intensity of specific 0.05 0.516 − 0.24 Coping of specific 0.20 0.011 0.03 0.680 0.20 Probability of non-specific − 0.02 0.765 − 0.16 Intensity of non-specific 0.05 0.531 − 0.20 Coping of non-specific 0.09 0.273 0.15 0.057 Probability of partial 0.06 0.426 − 0.17 Intensity of partial 0.09 0.289 − 0.19 Coping of partial 0.12 0.133 0.08 0.295 Satisfaction (VAS)^ − 0.06 0.462 0.26 Trust^ − 0.05 0.492 0.25 Self-efficacy − 0.08 0.324 0.32 Model 2—controlled main effects (+ interaction effect if significant) Nocebo information Empathy Nocebo information x Empathy Migrant background (Western migrant vs native Dutch) Migrant background (non-Western migrant vs native Dutch) Trait anxiety Treatment information need B p B p B p B p B p B p B p Anxiety (Stai_state) 0.06 0.390 − 0.8 0.295 0.13 0.065 − 0.06 0.385 − 0.46 0.01 0.941 Anxiety (VAS) 0.02 0.823 − 0.06 0.399 0.18 0.100 − 0.06 0.379 − 0.46 0.01 0.867 Probability of specific − 0.06 0.459 − 0.22 0.21 0.779 0.10 0.194 0.09 0.263 0.20 0.012 Intensity of specific 0.04 0.591 − 0.23 0.08 0.325 0.14 0.075 − 0.02 0.828 0.13 0.100 Coping of specific 0.20 0.05 0.537 0.19 0.03 0.667 − 0.13 0.109 − 0.14 0.065 0.16 Probability of non-specific − 0.02 0.760 − 0.13 0.092 0.03 0.729 0.19 0.20 0.09 0.256 Intensity of non-specific 0.03 0.669 − 0.19 0.11 0.158 0.30 0.15 0.054 0.03 0.715 Coping of non-specific 0.08 0.329 0.15 0.059 0.08 0.291 − 0.05 0.521 − 0.18 0.09 0.276 Probability of partial 0.07 0.404 − 0.14 0.082 − 0.003 0.968 0.17 0.08 0.319 0.18 Intensity of partial 0.07 0.339 − 0.17 0.10 0.203 0.21 0.07 0.370 0.14 0.069 Coping of partial 0.12 0.122 0.09 0.248 0.03 0.722 − 0.15 0.068 − 0.20 0.13 0.093 Satisfaction (VAS)^ − 0.04 0.612 0.30 − 0.07 0.365 − 0.02 0.781 0.02 0.807 0.21 Trust^ − 0.04 0.604 0.28 − 0.10 0.203 0.01 0.950 − 0.04 0.606 0.17 Self-efficacy − 0.07 0.336 0.33 − 0.04 0.642 0.07 0.387 − 0.03 0.667 0.08 0.316 Significant values are in [bold]. B = standardized beta *p < 0.01 **p < 0.05 (trend significance). Transformation of these negatively skewed variables did not alter the effects, so the non-transformed variables were maintained. The original Article has been corrected.

To alleviate anti-cancer treatment burden in advanced breast cancer, patient-clinician communication strategies based on nocebo-effect mechanisms are promising. We assessed distinct/combined effects on psychological outcomes (e.g. anxiety; main outcome) and side-effect expectations of (1) nocebo information about the (non)pharmacological origin of side effects, and (2) clinician-expressed empathy through reassurance of continuing support. Furthermore, we explored whether information and empathy effects on side-effect expectations were mediated by decreased anxiety. In a two-by-two experimental video-vignette design, 160 cancer patients/survivors and healthy women watched one of four videos differing in level of nocebo information (±) and empathy (±). Regression and mediation analysis were used to determine effects of information/empathy and explore anxiety's mediating role. Anxiety was not influenced by empathy or information (Stai-state: p = 0.295; p = 0.390, VAS p = 0.399; p = 0.823). Information improved (specific) side-effect coping expectations (p < 0.01). Empathy improved side-effect intensity expectations (p < 0.01 = specific; p < 0.05 = non-specific/partial) and specific side-effect probability expectations (p < 0.01), and increased satisfaction, trust, and self-efficacy (p < 0.001). No mediating effects were found of anxiety on expectations. Mainly empathy, but also nocebo information improved psychological outcomes and-mainly specific-side-effect expectations. Exploring the power of these communication elements in clinical practice is essential to diminish the anti-cancer treatment burden in advanced breast cancer.