An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper

Emery, J

Griffin, SJ

Harshfield, A

Muir, K

Saunders, CL

Sharp, SJ

Usher-Smith, JA

Walter, FM

Apollo (Cambridge)

CORRECTIONCorrection: External validation of risk prediction modelsfor incident colorectal cancer using UK BiobankJ. A. Usher-Smith, A. Harshfield, C. L. Saunders, S. J. Sharp, J. Emery, F. M. Walter, K. Muir and S. J. GriffinBritish Journal of Cancer (2020) 122:1572–1575; https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-020-0767-0Correction to: British Journal of Cancer (2018) 118, 750–759; https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2017.463, published online 30 January 2018.Since the publication of this paper, the authors have identified anerror in the code they used in Stata to compute the Wells risk scorefor men. With the correct code, the performance of the Wells riskscore is improved. The correct values are included in the updatedversions of Table 3, Fig. 1 (Fig. 1A), Fig. 2 (Fig. 2A) andSupplementary Table 3 provided here. The Wells risk score is nowone of the best performing models in men as well as in women. Thisdoes not change the overall conclusions of the analysis but in allplaces in the paper where reference is made to the best performingmodels in men, the correct list is Tao, Drive, Ma and Wells.Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative CommonsAttribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing,adaptation, distribution and reproduction in anymedium or format, as long as you giveappropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the CreativeCommons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third partymaterial in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unlessindicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in thearticle’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutoryregulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directlyfrom the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.© The Author(s) 2020www.nature.com/bjcPublished online: 12 March 2020© The Author(s) 2020 Published by Springer Nature on behalf of Cancer Research UKTable3.Discriminatoryperformancemeasuresforeachoftheriskmodelsfor5yearriskofdevelopingcolorectalcancerinmen.ColditzDriverFreedmanGuesmiJohnsonMa(simple)Ma(Cox)QCancer10TaoWeiY-SWellsTotalnn=139,257n=167,762n=101,530n=168,825n=169,722n=150,386n=150,386n=158,024n=149,693n=160,256n=140,917IncidentCRCn=761n=946n=685n=961n=965n=830n=830n=884n=825n=898n=764Top10%Sensitivity13.820.221.511.112.222.524.724.926.414.528.7Specificity90.090.190.190.090.090.190.190.190.190.090.1LR+1.382.032.161.111.222.272.492.512.671.452.90LR-0.960.890.870.990.980.860.840.830.820.950.79PPV(%)0.81.11.40.60.71.21.41.41.50.81.6NPV(%)99.599.599.499.499.499.599.599.599.599.599.6Top20%Sensitivity25.838.535.329.923.240.042.842.841.323.345.3Specificity80.080.180.180.180.080.180.180.180.180.080.1LR+1.291.931.781.501.162.012.152.152.081.162.28LR-0.930.770.810.880.960.750.710.710.730.960.68PPV(%)0.71.11.20.80.71.11.21.21.10.71.2NPV(%)99.599.699.599.599.599.699.699.699.699.599.6Top80%Sensitivity86.295.290.796.171.497.096.797.195.684.297.1Specificity20.020.120.120.120.020.120.120.120.120.020.1LR+1.081.191.131.200.891.211.211.211.201.051.22LR-0.690.240.470.191.430.160.160.150.220.790.14PPV(%)0.60.70.80.70.50.70.70.70.70.60.7NPV(%)99.699.999.799.999.299.999.999.999.999.699.9Top90%Sensitivity94.398.096.699.182.798.899.099.197.591.499.1Specificity10.010.010.010.110.010.010.110.110.010.010.0LR+1.051.091.071.100.921.101.101.101.081.021.10LR-0.560.200.330.091.740.120.100.090.250.860.09PPV(%)0.60.60.70.60.50.60.60.60.60.60.6NPV(%)99.799.999.899.999.099.999.999.999.899.5100LR+positivelikelihoodratio;LR−negativelikelihoodratio;PPVpositivepredictivevalue;NPVnegativepredictivevalue.Correction: External validation of risk prediction models for incident. . .JA Usher-Smith et al.15731234567890();,:AColditz ColditzAUC (95% CI) AUC (95% CI)0.56 (0.54–0.58) 0.50 (0.48–0.53)0.59 (0.56–0.61)0.63 (0.62–0.64)0.50 (0.48–0.52)0.66 (0.64–0.68)0.64 (0.62–0.66)0.49 (0.47–0.51)0.65 (0.63–0.67)0.63 (0.61–0.65)0.64 (0.62–0.66)0.64 (0.62–0.66)0.67 (0.66–0.69)0.64 (0.61–0.66)0.65 (0.63–0.66)0.49 (0.47–0.51)0.68 (0.67–0.70)0.69 (0.68–0.71)0.70 (0.69–0.72)0.68 (0.66–0.70)0.51 (0.49–0.53)0.71 (0.69–0.72)DriverFreedmanFreedmanGuesmiGuesmiJohnsonJohnsonMa (simple)Ma (cox)QCancer10QCancer10TaoTaoWeiWei0.4 0.5Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC)0.6 0.7 0.8WellsWellsDriver*Ma (simple)*Ma (cox)*BArea under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC)0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8Fig. 1 Model discrimination. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the risk models in (A) men and (B) women. *Modelsoriginally only developed in men.Correction: External validation of risk prediction models for incident. . .JA Usher-Smith et al.15743215-year risk (%)5-year risk (%)5-year risk (%)5-year risk (%)5-year risk (%)5-year risk (%)5-year risk (%)5-year risk (%)02.521.510.502.521.510.502.521.510.502.521.510.502.521.510.502.521.510.5032105-year risk (%)3210Lowest Deciles of riskDriverMa (cox) QCancer10 WellsABFreedman Ma (simple)Freedman Ma (simple)*Driver*Ma (cox)* QCancer10 WellsHighest3215-year risk (%)0Lowest Deciles of risk HighestLowest Deciles of risk HighestLowest Deciles of risk Highest Lowest Deciles of risk Highest Lowest Deciles of risk HighestLowest Deciles of risk Highest Lowest Deciles of riskObservedPredicted assuming a doubling of risk every 5 yearsPredicted assuming constant risk over timeHighestLowest Deciles of risk Highest5-year risk (%)3210Lowest Deciles of risk HighestLowest Deciles of risk Highest5-year risk (%)3210Lowest Deciles of risk HighestObservedPredicted assuming a doubling of risk every 5 yearsPredicted assuming constant risk over timeFig. 2 Model calibration. Plots of observed and predicted 5-year risk of colorectal cancer for (A) men and (B) women. *Models originally onlydeveloped in men.Correction: External validation of risk prediction models for incident. . .JA Usher-Smith et al.1575

Correction: External validation of risk prediction models for incident colorectal cancer using UK Biobank.

https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/318717/41416_2020_Article_767.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y

Correction: External validation of risk prediction models for incident colorectal cancer using UK Biobank.

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Apollo (Cambridge)