All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
The authors have addressed all the comments carefully.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vladimir Uversky, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The authors have addressed all the comments.
no comment
no comment
no comment
The authors are suggested to fix typo errors and include descriptive methodology and results sections.
As pointed out of by the reviewers, a clear rationale for the current study and elaborated discussion is highly recommended.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. #]
I request the authors to take another look at the manuscript for grammatical and typographical errors:
1) It would be helpful if the authors mentioned all the points presented from lines 77-84 as a paragraph instead of bullet points.
2) Typographical errors: Space is missing in line 74, in the term ‘onlyand’. In figure 1, VOUS is mentioned as VOUs. Please correct it.
No comment
No comment
For the benefit of the readers, here are my additional comments for further improvement of this manuscript.
1) The sample size is very small. With this sample size, there were very few instances of abnormal findings in pregnancies. I request the authors to comment on this aspect in more detail in the discussion section.
2) This is a retrospective cross-sectional study and I request the authors to talk more about this in the discussion section.
3) The authors have used the word ‘pathogenic’ throughout this manuscript. However, the abnormalities which they are studying in this manuscript are not caused by any pathogens. Hence, I request the authors to replace all instances of this term in the manuscript.
4) The term ‘local control individuals’ in the abstract is confusing. I request the authors to replace it with another term.
5) It is difficult to see the beginning of each sub-sections. For e.g., ‘Karyotype Analysis’, ‘CMA Analysis’, ‘Prenatal diagnostic karyotyping data’, etc. are just a few examples of subsection headings. I request the authors to format the headings of each subsection for better readability.
No comment
No comment
No comment
The following comments must be addressed.
1. More updates are needed for background information. It is necessary to include a clear hypothesis in the introduction
2. The methodology section needs to be rewritten
3. A clear description of sample collection is needed
4. Result descriptions were inadequate. It needs to be rewritten.
5. The discussion part should be rewritten in accordance with the hypothesis
6. The reference format should be consistent
No comment
No comment
No comment
This is an interesting manuscript in which the authors compared the karyotyping with CMA and shown that CMA elevated the diagnostic yield of clinically relevant anomalies in fetuses conceived by ART compared to karyotyping. It is very well written; I suggest describing the isolated and non-isolated ART at line 126 (even though it is mentioned in the figure) for the benefit of readers.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.