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.
In the published article, there was an error. Wrong numbers have been used for the data train/validation/test split.
A correction has been made to the section
“The train/validation/test split was set to be 60% (2,290 cases)/20% (764 cases)/20% (764 cases). By computing the MSE with decreasing training size, we noticed that similar results can also be achieved with fewer samples (e.g., 1,603) and, therefore, we may deduce that a training size of 2,290 is sufficient.”
The corrected sentence appears below:
“The train/validation/test split was set to be 60% (2,248 cases)/20% (750 cases)/20% (750 cases). By computing the MSE with decreasing training size, we noticed that similar results can be achieved with fewer samples (e.g., 1,603) and, therefore, we may deduce that a training size of 2,248 is sufficient.”
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.
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.