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 satisfactorily addressed all the concerns raised, so that the manuscript can be published in the present form.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Sonia Oliveira, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
the manuscript is clear in expression, and professional English used throughout, with sufficient literature references, and with professional article structure.
The research question was well defined, with relative regorous investigation.
Most underlying data have been provided, with well stated conclusions.
The authors are thorough in the feild of the study.
Please address all the concerns raised by the reviewers.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Multiple reviewers have commented on the sample size, so you should be sure to address these comments in your revision #]
1.a. Language: needs a revision. for instance ln 43: "....help predict outcomes in TAI pregnant woman"
1.b. Intro-context-literature=ok
1.c. Structure=ok
1.d/e. Figs/Data=ok
2.a. Scope=ok
2.b. Res Ques=ok
2.c/d. Investigation and methods are somewhat problematic. The authors have assessed 92 metabolites [why 92?] in 56 subjects (26 patients and 30 subjects serving as controls). They acknowledge that their sample size is small but this is not enough. There is no sample size calculation and/or any attained power calculation.
Taking into account point 2.c/d. this reviewer's opinion is that the paper's validity is compromised.
Dear Authors,
This study presents a very interesting work on serum metabolite profiles of thyroid autoimmunity patients in early pregnancy. The authors made a well structured presentation of used method and data presentation, as well as the detailed discussion on each question of importance. I consider your work an interesting contribution of the topic that should be accepted for the publication.
No comment
No comment
No comment
No comment
No comment
The sample size is relatively small, which may affect the generalizability of the findings. Consider expanding the study to a larger sample and including different geographical locations to increase the representativeness of the results. Provide a more detailed explanation of the data filtering and normalization processes to allow for a better understanding of the analytical techniques and to minimize potential sources of error. The results are consistent with previous research and provide useful insights into the pathogenesis of TAI. Pathway analysis offers valuable information about the biochemical processes associated with TAI. The identified pathways are relevant for understanding the pathophysiology of the disease. Propose concrete steps for future research, including possible mechanisms of biomarker action and longitudinal studies that would allow for monitoring changes throughout the entire pregnancy. The authors have adequately recognized the study's limitations, such as the sample size and regional specificity. The study makes a significant contribution to understanding metabolomic changes in TAI patients during early pregnancy. The suggested changes and additional research directions could enhance the quality and applicability of the research, as well as contribute to a better understanding and management of TAI during pregnancy.
The manuscript was well prepared, with clear language, sufficient references and professional article organization.
The experiments of the manuscript were well designed, except lacking a necessaray evaluation on the adverse effects of relative small sample size. Please see the additional comments below.
The validity of the findings is affected by the realtvie small sample size.
Although the authors have declared the relative sample size as a shortcoming of the study, a statistical evaluation is necessary to evaluate to which extent the sample size could coutribute to the potential bias of the major findings.
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.