In the original article, there was a mistake in Table 6 as published. The first column title was “NC vs. MCI” and it should be “MCI vs. MCIc.” The corrected Table 6 appears below.
TABLE 6.
Entorhinal cortex texture and volume in classifying MCI vs. MCIc.
| MCI vs. MCIc | ROC analysis AUC | 95% CI | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entorhinal cortex | |||
| Texture features | |||
| ASM | 0.565 | 0.494–0.637 | 0.85 |
| Contrast | 0.583 | 0.510–0.657 | 0.028 |
| Corelation | 0.580 | 0.505–0.654 | 0.038 |
| Variance | 0.531 | 0.458–0.604 | 0.037 |
| Sum average | 0.591 | 0.520–0.662 | 0.036 |
| Sum variance | 0.527 | 0.451–0.603 | 0.475 |
| Entropy | 0.593 | 0.522–0.662 | 0.014 |
| Cluster shade | 0.696 | 0.632–0.759 | 0.032 |
| Volume and thickness | |||
| Erc. volume | 0.642 | 0.573–0.711 | <0.001 |
| Erc. thickness | 0.670 | 0.603–0.737 | <0.001 |
| Features combination | |||
| Texture (ASM, correlation, variance, sum average, and cluster shade) | 0.730 | 0.665–0.795 | <0.001 |
| Texture & Erc. volume | 0.756 | 0.692–0.820 | <0.001 |
| Hippocampus | |||
| Hippocampal volume | 0.685 | 0.617–0.753 | <0.001 |
MCIc, mild cognitive impairment converter; ROC, receiver operating characteristic; AUC, area under curve; CI, confidence interval; ASM, angular second moment; Erc, entorhinal cortex.
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.