Correction: CT-based radiomics integrated model for brain metastases in stage III/IV ALK-positive lung adenocarcinoma patients

Fen Wang¹Caiyun Li²Shuke Li³Teng Zhang⁴Tongfu Yu⁴Wei Zhang⁴Jing He³Mei Yuan⁴Wen Gao^3*

• ¹Department of Medical Imaging, The Affiliated Huai’an No.1 People’s Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Huaian, China
• ²Department of Radiology, First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, China
• ³Department of Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China
• ⁴Department of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China

Correction on: Wang F, Li C, Li S, Zhang T, Yu T, Zhang W, He J, Yuan M and Gao W (2025) CTbased radiomics integrated model for brain metastases in stage III/IV ALK-positive lung adenocarcinoma patients. Front. Oncol. 15:1585930. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2025.1585930In the published article, there was an error in the legend for Figure 7as published. The rad_score threshold was computed using the surv_cutpoint function not Xtile, which was mistakenly attributed to wrong reference. Upon rechecking the sources, I confirmed that this should instead cite the reference(Xi J, Yin J, Liang J, Zhan C, Jiang W, Lin The rad_score threshold (0.20) was computed by surv_cutpoint function for dividing patients into high-and low-risk groups (A). The Kaplan-Meier cumulative event curve for survival status shows that the patients in the low-risk group showed a significantly better PFS compared to those in the high-risk group in the training cohort (B) and validation cohort (C), whereas the survival difference between the low-and high-risk groups was not statistically significant in the external test cohort (D). But the longer medial survival was seen in the lowrisk group than those in the high-risk group in three cohorts.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.In the published article, the reference for [38] 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.In the published article, there was an error. The error in our manuscript originated from an oversight in referencing a key study. We deeply regret this oversight and have taken steps to ensure such errors do not occur in future work.A correction has been made to Materials and methods, PFS analysis, Paragraph 1. This sentence previously stated: "According to the cutoff of the Rad_score, participants were categorized into a high-risk group and a low risk group by Xtile (38)."The corrected sentence appears below: "According to the cutoff of the Rad_score, participants were categorized into a high-risk group and a low risk group using the surv_cutpoint function in R survminer package (38)."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.In the published article, there was an error. The error in our manuscript originated from an oversight in referencing a key study. The statistical approach for PFS analysis in our manuscript need to be added.