In “A Machine Learning–Based Model to Predict Overactive Bladder Risk Among US Women: Evidence From the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2011-2018” [1], the authors noted the following corrections in response to the letter to the editor, authors’ reply, and a full rereview of the published article and the analysis code conducted by the authors.
First, the Figure 2B caption has been corrected from the following:
The caption now reads:
Second, the Figure 4 caption has been clarified from the following:
The caption now reads:
Third, the sentence reporting the significant predictors in the Results section of the Abstract has been corrected to state the selection criterion. The sentence has been revised from the following:
The sentence now reads:
Fourth, the sentence reporting the top 3 Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) contributors in the Abstract has been corrected from the following:
The sentence now reads:
Fifth, the description of Figure 4A in the Results has been corrected from the following:
The sentence now reads:
Sixth, the Methods statement on the variables investigated in the dose-response analysis has been corrected from the following:
The sentence now reads:
Seventh, the statement in the Dose-Response Relationship section on the variables analyzed has been corrected from the following:
The statement now reads:
Eighth, the last sentence of the Conclusions has been corrected from the following:
The sentence now reads:
Ninth, the Conclusions section of the Abstract has been corrected from the following:
The Conclusions section now reads:
Tenth, two statements in the Discussion section were overstating model performance.
The first statement was revised from the following:
This statement now reads:
The second statement was revised from the following:
This statement now reads:
Eleventh, in the OAB Assessment section of the Methods, a statement has been amended to describe the outcome as symptom-defined overactive bladder (OAB). The following sentence was revised:
This section now reads:
Twelfth, the following sentence in the Methods section of the Abstract has been corrected to reflect the stated selection criterion:
This sentence now reads:
Thirteenth, a sentence reporting the SHAP-based global importance ranking of all 14 variables, with the corresponding mean absolute SHAP values, has been added to the Results section, immediately after the sentence starting “As depicted in the SHAP beeswarm plot (Figure 4A)...”
The following sentence was added:
Fourteenth, the classification of the BMI threshold in the Discussion section has been corrected from the following:
The sentence now reads:
Fifteenth, a sentence in the Discussion on health care costs has been corrected from the following:
The sentence now reads:
Sixteenth, the units for the complete blood count variables in Table 1 have been corrected from the following:
The units now read:
Seventeenth, the units for the complete blood count variables in Table 2 have been corrected from the following:
The units now read:
Eighteenth, the sentence summarizing the age difference between groups in the Results has been corrected from the following:
The statement now reads:
Nineteenth, the Methods statement on laboratory variables has been amended to clarify that neutrophil count was collected and processed, and was entered into the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression as one of the 23 candidate variables, and that its coefficient was shrunk to zero at the selected λ so that it was not retained among the 14 variables selected for model construction.
The following statement was revised:
The statement now reads:
Twentieth, the header of the vaginal deliveries row in Table 2 has been corrected from the following:
The row header now reads:
Twenty-first, a sentence in the Methods describing the SHAP values has been corrected from the following:
The sentence now reads:
Twenty-second, the description of the correlation analysis in the Data Preprocessing section of the Methods has been corrected to reflect the analysis actually performed. The following sentences were revised:
The sentences now read:
Twenty-third, the number of candidate variables stated in the Figure 2A caption has been corrected, and the axis description has been aligned with the axis label. The caption was revised from the following:
The caption now reads:
The underlying analyses are unchanged; the corrections concern the reporting and interpretation of the results. The LASSO regression was performed on 23 candidate variables; 14 variables were retained at a λ of 0.00550 (minimum binomial deviance), and every reported metric derives from them. Neutrophil count was among the 23 candidates but was not retained.
The correction will appear in the online version of the paper on the JMIR Publications website together with the publication of this correction notice. Because this was made after submission to PubMed, PubMed Central, and other full-text repositories, the corrected article has also been resubmitted to those repositories.