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.
Based on the feedback from both reviewers, it appears that the revised manuscript has addressed the concerns raised in the initial review. Reviewer 1 has provided positive feedback on various aspects of the manuscript, including the incorporation of changes, the experimental design, and the interpretation of results. Reviewer 2, while not offering specific comments, does not raise any additional concerns.
Regarding the suggestions from Reviewer 2 about correcting the references in lines 104 and 302, these are minor issues that can be easily rectified.
Therefore, I recommend accepting the manuscript for publication with minor revisions. The authors should make the suggested corrections to the references, as pointed out by Reviewer 2, before finalizing the manuscript for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Celine Gallagher, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Although the Academic and Section Editors are happy to accept your article as being scientifically sound, a final check of the manuscript shows that it would benefit from further editing. Therefore, please identify necessary edits and address these while in proof stage.
The authors have incorporated all changes in the revised manuscript. The manuscript encompasses all parameters for a well written manuscript.
Hypothesis was genuine and well worked.
the methodology was well designed and executed.
results are well written and interpreted.
the ROC curves have been added.
conclusion is revised.
no comment
no comment
no comment
I have few suggestions
In line 104, it should be Hois R, et al., (in et al. t is missing)
In line 302, Gastaldi G et al., 2022 (year is different than Reference 35). need to check it.
Both reviewers seem to acknowledge the well-structured and executed nature of the manuscript. However, they have highlighted the need for improvements in the language quality and accuracy of the content. Additionally, there is a unanimous call for updating the references to encompass the year 2023. Specific points of concern are the missing information about OD reading, clarification of technical terms, elaboration on certain aspects of Table 2, and the need for more coherent conclusions across the manuscript.
Addressing these suggestions should enhance the overall quality and comprehensibility of the manuscript, leading to a more robust and impactful presentation of the research findings.
**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.
**Language 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). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
1. Manuscipt is well designed, executed and easy to understand.
2. The English language could be further improved. Typing error should be avoided. For example, in Sample Collection line "then the sera and plasma were collected off the top fraction without disturbing the cell layer." is repeated twice.
3. The article structure is ok. Raw data shared.
4. July 2023 is almost ending, but no references of 2023 were added. Literature should be updated.
well designed and executed.
Appropriate statistical methods were used.
results are described well.
ROC curve graphs should be provided.
The conclusion of abstract and main text should be matching.
The article is well written. The language of the manuscript needs to improve a bit and also can be updated as no reference of 2023 is mentioned.
The method part is well-designed. However, I have a few comments
1. In line 167, at which OD reading was taken is missing.
2. Explain regression and allele frequency analysis.
1. In table 2 ACR also significantly differs so also explain about it
2. In table 2 abbreviation of FIB is missing
3. In line 246-249, improve sentence language.
4. In 244, did not mention about DPN
5. In line 250, Furthermore………… add about four groups
6. In line 251-252, not clear about quartiles (Q1……Q4). Explain a bit more about it and add figure related to it.
7. In line 255, add a reference.
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.