Skip to main content
Frontiers in Endocrinology logoLink to Frontiers in Endocrinology
. 2026 Feb 5;17:1763989. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2026.1763989

Correction: From traditional metabolic markers to ensemble learning: comparative application of machine learning models for predicting NAFLD risk in adolescents

Chenming Zhang 1,†, Bin Niu 2,3,†, Rong Wang 2,3,†, Liaoyun Zhang 2,*
PMCID: PMC12917892  PMID: 41727689

There was a mistake in Tables 2–4 as published. Tables 2–4 contained a formatting/layout issue: in each table, an extra blank table appeared above the intended populated table.

Table 2.

Performance comparison of nine machine learning models for NAFLD prediction in the testing set.

Model AUC ACC SEN PRE F1 Score Kappa
ANN 0.715 0.778 0.470 0.285 0.355 0.230
DT 0.671 0.673 0.602 0.221 0.324 0.165
ET 0.784 0.808 0.651 0.365 0.468 0.361
GB 0.762 0.716 0.699 0.270 0.389 0.249
KNN 0.740 0.648 0.747 0.233 0.355 0.196
LightGBM 0.739 0.759 0.627 0.297 0.403 0.276
RF 0.760 0.844 0.530 0.419 0.468 0.378
SVM 0.788 0.747 0.723 0.302 0.426 0.297
XGBOOST 0.768 0.723 0.699 0.276 0.396 0.258

Models include ANN (artificial neural network), DT (decision tree), ET (extra trees), GB (gradient boosting), KNN (k-nearest neighbors), LightGBM (Light Gradient Boosting Machine), RF (random forest), SVM (support vector machine), and XGBoost (eXtreme Gradient Boosting). Metrics: AUC, area under the curve; ACC, accuracy; SEN, sensitivity; PRE, precision.

Table 4.

Performance comparison of the ET model and logistic regression models based on TYG and its derived indices in the testing set.

Model AUC ACC SEN PRE F1 Score Kappa
TYG 0.697 0.653 0.633 0.206 0.311 0.153
TYG+TYG.BMI 0.758 0.736 0.684 0.273 0.390 0.259
TYG+TYG.WC 0.767 0.791 0.658 0.327 0.437 0.326
TYG+TYG.BMI+TYG.WC 0.768 0.797 0.696 0.342 0.458 0.351
TYG.BMI+TYG.WC 0.767 0.786 0.734 0.333 0.458 0.348
ET 0.784 0.773 0.687 0.324 0.440 0.320

ET, extra trees; TyG, triglyceride-glucose index; BMI, body mass index; WC, waist circumference. Metrics as in Table 2.

Table 3.

Performance comparison between the ET model and TYG-based indicators in the testing set.

Model AUC ACC SEN PRE F1 Score Kappa
TYG 0.675 0.653 0.633 0.206 0.311 0.153
TYG.BMI 0.748 0.720 0.722 0.266 0.389 0.255
TYG.WC 0.760 0.714 0.823 0.278 0.415 0.283
ET 0.784 0.773 0.687 0.324 0.440 0.320

ET, extra trees; TyG, triglyceride-glucose index; BMI, body mass index; WC, waist circumference. Metrics as in Table 2.

The corrected Tables 2–4 appear below.

The original version of this article has been updated.

Footnotes

Edited by: Frontiers Editorial Office, Frontiers Media SA, Switzerland

Reviewed by: Bikash Sadhukhan, Techno International New Town, India

Maria Teofila Vicente Herrero, University of Balearic Islands, Spain

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.


Articles from Frontiers in Endocrinology are provided here courtesy of Frontiers Media SA

RESOURCES