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 third reviewer has not responded to my invitation to re-review the manuscript. After carefully checking, I consider that the authors have responded to all reviewer's questions very well.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jafri Abdullah, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
First, the authors have carefully corrected the grammatical errors in the article and have professionally touched up the article, which will help the article to be read by a wider range of physicians.
Secondly, the authors have answered some questions about the study protocol and ethics, and the authors have acknowledged the limitations of the study protocol, but I do not think it affects the acceptance and publication of this manuscript.
The data on which the conclusions are based must be provided or made available in an acceptable discipline-specific repository. The data should be robust, statistically sound, and controlled.
Finally, I hope that the author's team will carry out further research in this area
No comment.
No comment.
No comment.
Please answer the Reviewers' Comments, carefully.
[# 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. #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
This manuscript is clearly structured and generally conveys the authors' view that elevated serum β2-microglobulin is a predictive biomarker of cognitive dysfunction after spinal cord injury.
However, it should be noted that serum β2-microglobulin is expressed in many cognitive disorders, such as Alzheimer's disease, and that serum β2-microglobulin does not appear to be specific for cognitive impairment after spinal cord injury. In addition, there are some issues in the manuscript that need to be carefully revised by the authors for better reading.
The English language should be improved to ensure that an international audience can clearly understand your text. I suggest you have a colleague who is proficient in English and familiar with the subject matter review your manuscript, or contact a professional editing service.
The study methodology was too simple and flawed, only testing for differential expression of serum β2-microglobulin levels and MoCA scores in the control population and in patients with spinal cord injury. The MoCA scale was completed within 48 hours for subjects in the manuscript, implying that cognitive impairment due to spinal cord injury was present within 48 hours for patients in this study? How do the authors explain this phenomenon. It seems unacceptable that patients with spinal cord injury that may have resulted in cognitive impairment after more than 48 hours would appear to have been affected under this study protocol. What is the association between TG, LDL, FBG, SBP, DBP and FBG indicators in the clinical baseline data of the study, and serum β2-microglobulin? If not, what is the significance of testing these indicators? Simply to derive the correlation between serum β2-microglobulin and cognitive impairment in the final regression analysis?
There is no doubt that the authors' team seems to have conducted some preliminary studies on cognitive dysfunction in spinal cord injury, possibly involving the involvement of factors such as oxidative stress and inflammation. However, the authors in this manuscript do not discuss in depth through which mechanism serum β2-microglobulin contributes to cognitive dysfunction after spinal cord injury or what are the causes of elevated serum β2-microglobulin due to spinal cord injury? A manuscript should contain the author's insights into the content of the study and an in-depth discussion of the reasons why. Therefore, it is recommended that the author focus on the above mentioned elements for better understanding by the reader.
It is recommended that authors should provide a brief description of the current status, epidemiology, and characteristic presentation of cognitive impairment associated with spinal cord injury patients to add to the completeness of the article.
Cognitive impairment after SCI is a common clinical complication, affecting patients' quality of life and prognosis. This manuscript compared baseline data, cognitive scales, and the levels of beta 2-Microglobulin in SCI patients and normal controls, and the results suggested that beta 2-Microglobulin might be a potential biomarker, which has certain clinical implications.In general, the design of this paper is reasonable and ethical. It is a simple case-control study.
The design of this article is basically reasonable, with no obvious flaws. But there are some problems:
1.The inclusion and exclusion criteria are vague. Please redescribe them.
2.Beta-2-microglobulin levels are associated with renal function, so why didn't baseline data include indicators of renal function?
3.Why wasn't cerebrospinal fluid beta 2-Microglobulin detected?
4.The language needs polishing.
1.The authors need more centers and populations to further test their conclusions.
2.In vitro and in vivo experiments are necessary to explore the underlying mechanisms.
Some abbreviations should be spelled in full when they first appear. There are two "3.2" in the results part.
no comment
the inclusion and exclusion criteria of patients in the two groups were not rigorous.
Statistical Analysis （t test）was not correct to analysis four group results.
This study sought to determine whether there was any connection between cognitive decline and serum ³2-Microglobulin levels in SCI patients. the authors dound that patients with SCI had higher serum levels of ³2-Microglobulin. however, this sutdy had some mayor flaw. The inclusion and exclusion criteria of patients in the two groups were not rigorous. there was not enough evidence to support the relationship between cognitive decline and SCI patients. the result was simple and the discussion need to improve.
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.