Correction: External validation of risk prediction models for incident colorectal cancer using UK Biobank (British Journal of Cancer, (2018), 118, 5, (750-759), 10.1038/bjc.2017.463)

0Citations
Citations of this article
2Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Since the publication of this paper, the authors have identified an error in the code they used in Stata to compute the Wells risk score for men. With the correct code, the performance of the Wells risk score is improved. The correct values are included in the updated versions of Table 3, Fig. 1 (Fig. 1A), Fig. 2 (Fig. 2A) and Supplementary Table 3 provided here. The Wells risk score is now one of the best performing models in men as well as in women. This does not change the overall conclusions of the analysis but in all places in the paper where reference is made to the best performing models in men, the correct list is Tao, Drive, Ma and Wells.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Usher-Smith, J. A., Harshfield, A., Saunders, C. L., Sharp, S. J., Emery, J., Walter, F. M., … Griffin, S. J. (2020, May 12). Correction: External validation of risk prediction models for incident colorectal cancer using UK Biobank (British Journal of Cancer, (2018), 118, 5, (750-759), 10.1038/bjc.2017.463). British Journal of Cancer. Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-020-0767-0

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free