Corrigendum: Relationship Between Cognitive and Clinical Insight at Different Durations of Untreated Attenuated Psychotic Symptoms in High-Risk Individuals(Front. Psychiatry, (2021), 12, (753130), 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.753130)

There is an error in the title of the original article. The Title was incorrectly given as ‘Relationship Between Cognitive and Clinical Insight at Different Durations of Untreated Attentional Psychotic Symptoms in High-Risk Individuals.’ The correct Title is ‘Relationship Between Cognitive and Clinical Insight at Different Durations of Untreated Attenuated Psychotic Symptoms in High-Risk Individuals.’ There is an error in the Funding statement. ‘Shanghai Municipal Science and TechnologyMajor Project (2018SHZDZX01) and ZJLab’ was written twice. An author name was incorrectly spelled as ‘ShuQing Wang’. The correct spelling is ‘ShuQinWang’. In the original article, the reference for ‘Sagayadevan V, Jeyagurunathan A, Lau YW, Shafie S, Chang S, Ong HL, et al. Cognitive insight and quality of life among psychiatric outpatients. BMC Psychiatry. (2019) 19:201. doi: 10.1186/s12888-019-2163-y’ was incorrectly cited. It should be deleted. The reference for citation 35, ‘Xu Z, Guo Z, Fu Z, Wang N, Zhang Y. Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the schidule for assessment of insight (in Chinese). Chinese J Behav Med Brain Sci. (2013) 22:752–4. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1674-6554.2013.08.024’ was incorrectly written. It should be ‘35. Xu Z, Guo Z, Fu Z, Wang N, Zhang Y. Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the schedule for assessment of insight (in Chinese). Chinese J Behav Med Brain Sci. (2013) 22:752–4. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1674-6554.2013.08.024.’In the original article, there was an error. The original article stated that “Sagayadevan et al. (55) also reported that psychiatric outpatients with higher self-reflectiveness scored higher on the environment domain but lower on the social relationships domain of quality of life.”, but this reference reported that higher self-certainty, not lower self-reflectiveness, was associated with lower on the social relationships domain of quality of life. A correction has therefore been made to the Discussion, fourth paragraph: ‘This study revealed that self-certainty was positively correlated with positive symptoms at the earliest period (0–3 months) after the onset of high-risk symptoms, but not at later periods. We propose that during the initial period, the higher self-certainty APS individuals have, the more obvious the symptoms they report; and the more severe the positive symptoms are, the more convinced the patients are of the symptoms. However, because APS individuals still have partial or intact reality-testing ability (20, 22, 47) and realize the unreality of the symptoms in a later period, the correlation between the degree of self-certainty and the severity of positive symptoms possibly weakened or disappeared. Moreover, the results on the relationships between self-reflectiveness/composite index and negative symptoms are consistent with previous studies. Several studies have reported that self-reflectiveness was closely associated with negative affect, such as depression and anxiety (43, 46, 48–51), which have strong associations with negative symptoms (52–54). In addition, clinical insight, which is closely related to self-reflectiveness, has also been reported to be positively associated with depression (55) and negative symptoms (56). This study further revealed that positive correlations between self-reflectiveness/composite index and negative symptoms existed in the APS subgroup with DUAPS longer than 12 months, but not in the other APS subgroups. It is inferred that self-reflectiveness/composite index may have an indirect effect on negative symptoms through clinical insight or negative affect; thus, the potential correlations was observed at a later period.’ The authors apologize for these errors and state that they do not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.