Correction to: Hepatology International https://doi.org/10.1007/s12072-022-10406-8

The Figs. 2 and 3 were erroneously labeled in the original publication of the article. ‘ALF score’ should be corrected as ‘mALF score’. The Figs. 2 and 3 should have appeared as shown below.

Fig. 2
figure 2

The PFS and OS according to the mALF score in the training set. a The median PFS according to the mALF scores was as follows: 0 points (n = 101), 9.5 months (95% CI 7.3–not applicable); 1 point (n = 109), 6.6 months (95% CI 6.0–8.0); and 2 points (n = 45), 3.8 months (95% CI 3.0–5.2); this amounted to a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001, concordance index 0.630). b The 1-year OS rates in patients with mALF scores of 0, 1, and 2 points were 82.7% (95% CI 68.9–90.8), 61.7% (95% CI 44.5–74.9), and 24.6% (95% CI 9.0–44.3), respectively, which amounted to a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001, concordance index 0.675). CI confidence interval, mALF score modified albumin–bilirubin grade and α-fetoprotein score, OS overall survival, PFS progression-free survival

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

The PFS and OS according to the mALF scores in the validation set. a The median PFS according to the mALF scores was as follows: 0 points (n = 60), 9.3 months (95% CI 5.8–not applicable); 1 point (n = 77), 6.7 months (95% CI 3.8–9.0); and 2 points (n = 34), 4.7 months (95% CI 2.9–6.4). b The 1-year OS rate was highest in patients with a mALF score of 0 points (94.2%, 95% CI 78.5–98.5%), followed by patients with 1 point (61.7%, 95% CI 44.5–74.9) and 2 points (46.3%, 95% CI 19.6–69.4). The PFS and survival curve were well stratified by the mALF score (PFS, p < 0.018 concordance index 0.579: OS, p < 0.001 concordance index 0.602). CI confidence interval, mALF score modified albumin–bilirubin grade and α-fetoprotein score, OS overall survival, PFS progression-free survival

Full size image