Correction: Analysis and validation of novel biomarkers related to palmitoylation in adenomyosis

Hongyu Zhang¹Yufeng Li¹Huijuan Cao¹Yiling Zhao¹Hongwen Zhu^2*Tiansheng Qin^1*

• ¹Department of Gynecology, The Second Hospital & Clinical Medical School, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China
• ²Cuiying Biomedical Research Center, The Second Hospital & Clinical Medical School, Lanzhou University,, lanzhou, China

Correction on: Analysis and validation of novel biomarkers related to palmitoylation in adenomyosis. by Zhang H, Li Y, Cao H, Zhao Y, Zhu H andQin T(2025) Front. Genet. 16:1614573. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2025.1614573 In the published article, there is an error. In Sections 2.1, 2.2, and 3.1, the published manuscript incorrectly states "25 adenomyosis patients and 23 controls". This description conflicts with the content of the subsequent sections (3.1), the figures (Figure6and 8A), and the 53 data in the original dataset. The study included a total of 53 samples: 28 adenomyosis cases and 25 controls.Due to an oversight in proofreading, we were unable to detect and correct this error, resulting in an internal inconsistency and possible confusion for readers. We sincerely apologize for this error. Therefore, "25 adenomyosis" should be corrected to '28' and "23 controls" should be corrected to "25 ". 1. A correction has been made to 2. Materials and methods, 2.1 Data set collection and processing. This sentence previously stated: "The GSE244236 dataset contains the expression profiles of 25 patients with adenomyosis and 23 normal controls. "The corrected sentence appears below: "The GSE244236 dataset contains the expression profiles of 28 patients with adenomyosis and 25 normal controls." 2. A correction has been made to 2. Materials and methods, 2.2 Identification and functional enrichment analysis of differentially expressed genes. This sentence previously stated: "The Limma package was then employed to identify DEGs between 25 women with adenomyosis and 23 healthy controls, using the threshold for significant differences at p < 0.05 and |log2(FC)| ≥ 1, which resulted in the identification of 549 DEGs (Figure 2A)."The corrected sentence appears below: "The Limma package was then employed to identify DEGs between 28 women with adenomyosis and 25 healthy controls, using the threshold for significant differences at adjusted p-values< 0.05 and |log2(FC)| ≥ 1, which resulted in the identification of 549 DEGs (Figure 2A)." 3. A correction has been made to 3. Results, 3.1 Screening and visualization of differentially expressed genes. This sentence previously stated: "Differential analysis was performed with the limma package to compare 28 adenomyosis patients with 23 normal controls, identifying 549 DEGs with p-values <0.05 and |log2(FC)| ≥ 1, visualized through volcano plots (Figure 2A)."The corrected sentence appears below: "Differential analysis was performed with the limma package to compare 28 adenomyosis patients with 25 normal controls, identifying 549 DEGs with adjusted p-values<0.05 and |log2(FC)| ≥ 1, visualized through volcano plots (Figure 2A)."In the published article, there were two errors. The text in the Results and sections 3.6, the word "seven" is inconsistent with the main text and should be updated to "three." 1. A correction has been made to the Abstract, Results, Lines 3 to 4. This sentence previously stated: "Using LASSO, RF and SVM-RFE algorithms, seven potential diagnostic genes were finally screened: LIPH, CYP2E1 and CHRNE."The corrected sentence appears below: "Using LASSO, RF and SVM-RFE algorithms, three potential diagnostic genes were finally screened: LIPH, CYP2E1 and CHRNE." 2. A correction has been made to 3. Results, 3.6 Validation of diagnostic biomarkers. This sentence previously stated: "In the GSE190580 dataset (Figure 7A), the AUC values for these seven genes were 0.58, 0.91,