Corrigendum: Prognostic impact of nutritional indicators based on Lasso-Cox regression for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer

Junjiang YeYandong XieBiao RanPing Han^*

• West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China

Incorrect Supplementary Material In the published article, there was an error in Supplementary Figure2. When generating the ten-fold cross-validation plot for lasso regression, we employed an incorrect methodology, resulting in error in the final visualization: Supplementary Figures 2. LASSO Regression with 10-Fold Cross-Validation on RFS (A), TTF (B) and PFS (C). RFS: Recurrence-free survival; TTF: Time to BCG failure; PFS: Progression-free survival. The correct material statement appears below:Supplementary Figure 2. Lasso-Cox Regression with 10-Fold Cross-Validation on RFS (A), TTF (B) and PFS (C). RFS: Recurrence-free survival; TTF: Time to BCG failure; PFS: Progression-free survival; lamda.min: Minimum Lambda; lamda.1se: Lambda within 1 Standard Error of the Minimum.In the published article, there was an error in the subheadings for Supplementary Figure. the subheadings for Supplementary Figure 1, Supplementary Figure 2, Supplementary Figure 3, Supplementary Figure 4, Supplementary Figure 5 were incorrectly written as “1.1 Supplementary Figures 1”, “1.2 Supplementary Figures 2”, “1.3 Supplementary Figures 3”, “1.4 Supplementary Figures 4” and“1.5 Supplementary Figures 5”. The correct material statement appears below:“1.1 Supplementary Figure 1”, “1.2 Supplementary Figure 2”, “1.3 Supplementary Figure 3”, “1.4 Supplementary Figure 4”, “1.5 Supplementary Figure 5”.The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.Text CorrectionIn the published article, there was an error. There were inadvertent mislabelings of Figure 1 and Figure 2 in the published manuscript. The errors are localized in Section 3.2 and Section 3.3.A correction has been made to Section 3.2, The correlations between tumor prognosis and the EAU2021, Paragraph 1. This sentence previously stated:“Univariable Cox regression showed EAU risk stratification significantly related to RFSand TTF, but not PFS (Figure 1).”The corrected sentence appears below:“Univariable Cox regression showed EAU risk stratification significantly related to RFSand TTF, but not PFS (Figure 2).”And another correction has been made to Section 3.3, The correlations between tumor recurrence and NRITR, PNI, GNRI, and NPS, Paragraph 1. This sentence previously stated:“Kaplan–Meier and log-rank tests confirmed significantly higher RFS for higher PNI, GNRI, and lower NRITR and NPS (Figure 2). Univariable and multivariable Cox regression analysis revealed NRITR (p < 0.001, HR = 0.38, 95%CI = 0.28–0.53), GNRI (p < 0.001, HR = 1.93, 95%CI = 1.38–2.70), NPS (p = 0.001, HR = 0.58, 95%CI = 0.42–0.80) and PNI (p = 0.009, HR = 1.62, 95%CI = 1.13–2.33) as independent predictors (Figure 1; Supplementary Figure 5).”The corrected sentence appears below:“Kaplan–Meier and log-rank tests confirmed significantly higher RFS for higher PNI, GNRI, and lower NRITR and NPS (Figure 1). Univariable and multivariable Cox regression analysis revealed NRITR (p < 0.001, HR = 0.38, 95%CI = 0.28–0.53), GNRI (p < 0.001, HR = 1.93, 95%CI = 1.38–2.70), NPS (p = 0.001, HR = 0.58, 95%CI = 0.42–0.80) and PNI (p = 0.009, HR = 1.62, 95%CI = 1.13–2.33) as independent predictors (Figure 2; Supplementary Figure 5).”The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.