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.
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