Front. Rehabil. Sci.Frontiers in Rehabilitation SciencesFront. Rehabil. Sci.2673-6861Frontiers Media S.A.10.3389/fresc.2023.1219395Rehabilitation SciencesCorrectionCorrigendum: Estimation of subjective quality of life in schizophrenic patients using speech featuresShibataYuko1*†VictorinoJohn Noel1†NatsuyamaTomoya2†OkamotoNaomichi2†YoshimuraReiji2†ShibataTomohiro1†Department of Life Science and System Engineering, Graduate School of Life Science and Systems Engineering, Kyushu Institute of Technology, Kitakyushu, JapanDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Kitakyushu, Japan
Edited and Reviewed by: Corneliu Bolbocean, University of Oxford, United Kingdom
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
quality of lifeschizophreniaspeech analysismachine learningmodel developmentsection-at-acceptanceDisability, Rehabilitation, and InclusionA Corrigendum on Estimation of subjective quality of life in schizophrenic patients using speech features By Shibata Y, Victorino JN, Natsuyama T, Okamoto N, Yoshimura R and Shibata T. (2023) Estimation of subjective quality of life in schizophrenic patients using speech features. Front. Rehabil. Sci. 4:1121034. doi: 10.3389/fresc.2023.1121034
In the published article, there was an error in Table 9. The Mean values were listed as 9.940, 6.433, and 11.008 from the top, but the correct values are 9.607, 4.767, and 9.508. The standard deviation values were listed as 6.584, 7.054, and 8.575 from the top, but the correct values are 6.226, 3.990, and 5.734. The Variance values were listed from the top as 36.122, 41.470, 61.277, but the correct values are 38.757, 15.924, 32.883. In Range, “Motivation and Energy” is listed as “0.140–19.060”, but the correct range is “0.140–9.060”. In Range, “Symptoms and Side-effects” is listed as “2.770–26.050”, but the correct value is “2.770–17.050”. The correct Table 9 appears below.
RMSE and MAE scores for each scale on longitudinal measurements.
Scale
Mean
Std. Dev.
Variance
Median
Range
Psychosocial
9.607
6.226
38.757
10.085
2.030–17.000
Motivation and Energy
4.767
3.990
15.924
5.020
0.140–9.060
Symptoms and Side-effects
9.508
5.734
32.883
8.465
2.770–17.050
In the published article, there was an error in Table 10. The notations were listed as “Ground truth” and “Estimated value,” but the correct terms are “First measurement” and “Second measurement”. The second measurement score (right side) for Fold 2 was listed as 62.000, 64.000, 56.000, which is corrected to 60.000, 54.000, 47.000. The RMSE and MAE for Fold 2 were listed as “20.540”, but the correct value is “13.540”. The correct table appears below.
First and second measurements (ground truth), and estimation scoresa from longitudinal measurements.
Fold
First measurement
Second measurement
RMSE
MAE
Psychosocial
Motivation and Energy
Symptoms and Side-effects
Psychosocial
Motivation and Energy
Symptoms and Side-effects
1
30.000
50.000
13.000
37.000 (+7)
36.000 (+14)
22.000 (+9)
7.380
7.380
2
62.000
61.000
44.000
60.000 (−2)
54.000 (−7)
47.000 (+3)
13.540
13.540
3
47.000
57.000
34.000
40.000 (−7)
54.000 (−3)
25.000 (−9)
4.577
4.577
4
52.000
50.000
31.000
35.000 (−17)
46.000 (−4)
28.000 (−3)
6.513
6.513
5
55.000
61.000
22.000
58.000 (+3)
43.000 (−18)
16.000 (−6)
8.360
8.360
6
45.000
36.000
9.000
47.000 (+2)
43.000 (+7)
3.000 (−6)
7.393
7.393
Median
50.000
54.000
27.000
44.000
45.000
24.000
aRMSE and MAE are calculated from the ground truth and estimated values of the second measurement.
Text Correction
In the published article, there was an error.
A correction has been made to 3. Results, 3.4. Model comparison on test set for longitudinal measurement, Paragraph Number 1. This sentence previously stated:
“The RMSE and MAE for each subscale were 9.94 for the “Psychosocial” subscale, 6.433 for the “Motivation and Energy” subscale, and 11.008 for the “Symptoms and Side-effects” subscale (Table 9). The minimum and maximum values of RMSE and MAE for the “Symptoms and Side-effects” subscale were 2.770 and 26.050, respectively, which were larger than the other scales.”
The corrected sentence appears below:
“The RMSE and MAE for each subscale were 9.607 for the “Psychosocial” subscale, 4.767 for the “Motivation and Energy” subscale, and 9.508 for the “Symptoms and Side-effects” subscale (Table 9). The minimum and maximum values of RMSE and MAE for the “Psychosocial” subscale were 2.030 and 17.000, respectively, which were larger than the other scales.”
A correction has been made to 3. Results, 3.4. Model comparison on test set for longitudinal measurement, Paragraph Number 2. This sentence previously stated:
“Fold 3 had the lowest RMSE and MAE at 4.557 and fold 2 had the highest at 20.540.”
The corrected sentence appears below:
“Fold 3 had the lowest RMSE and MAE at 4.557 and fold 2 had the highest at 13.540.”
A correction has been made to 4. Discussion, 4.2. Estimation of scale scores by longitudinal measurement, Paragraph Number 1. This sentence previously stated:
“However, the RMSE and MAE for the model with longitudinal measures were less than 10 for “Psychosocial” at 9.940 and “Motivation and Energy” at 6.4334.”
The corrected sentence appears below:
“However, the RMSE and MAE for the model with longitudinal measures were less than 10 for “Psychosocial” at 9.607, “Motivation and Energy” at 4.767, and "Symptoms and Side-effects” at 9.508.”
The authors apologize for these errors and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.