Review History


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.

View examples of open peer review.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on February 11th, 2025 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on June 17th, 2025.
  • The first revision was submitted on July 9th, 2025 and was reviewed by 1 reviewer and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on August 22nd, 2025.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Aug 22, 2025 · Academic Editor

Accept

Dear authors,

After a thorough review of the manuscript, the reviewers have no further comments. Therefore, your manuscript is ready for publication.

[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Celine Gallagher, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

I received for review a revised version of the original research article entitled "Diagnostic Accuracy of the Atherogenic Index of Plasma in Patients with Metabolic Syndrome: A Diagnostic Meta-Analysis", prepared by Yuge Gao, which was submitted to PeerJ. The paper has been improved. I have no further critical comments.

Experimental design

-

Validity of the findings

-

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Jun 17, 2025 · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.

·

Basic reporting

Diagnostic accuracy of the atherogenic index of plasma in patients with metabolic syndrome: a diagnostic meta-analysis
Manuscript
The article ‘Diagnostic accuracy of the atherogenic index of plasma in patients with metabolic syndrome: a diagnostic meta-analysis’
This research aims to assess and determine the diagnostic performance of the atherogenic index of plasma (AIP) in estimating the risk of metabolic syndrome (MetS) among adults across various geographic regions.
This is an interesting and remarkable study that aims to assess and determine the diagnostic performance of the atherogenic index of plasma (AIP) in estimating the risk of metabolic syndrome (MetS) among adults across various geographic regions. I believe it will be a better text after the corrections I suggested.
Comments to the author(s)
1- This study demonstrated that the AIP is relatively accurate in the detection of MetS, promoting the prevention of MetS and reducing the risk of associated chronic diseases. With this inference, should there be a difference in the treatment approach to these patients? My humble suggestion would be to briefly state your opinions on this matter.
2- What do you think your study brings new to the literature?
3- Spelling errors in the article should be corrected and spelling rules should be observed.

Experimental design

This research aims to assess and determine the diagnostic performance of the atherogenic index of plasma (AIP) in estimating the risk of metabolic syndrome (MetS) among adults across various geographic regions.
This is an interesting and remarkable study that aims to assess and determine the diagnostic performance of the atherogenic index of plasma (AIP) in estimating the risk of metabolic syndrome (MetS) among adults across various geographic regions. I believe it will be a better text after the corrections I suggested.

Validity of the findings

This is an interesting and remarkable study that aims to assess and determine the diagnostic performance of the atherogenic index of plasma (AIP) in estimating the risk of metabolic syndrome (MetS) among adults across various geographic regions. I believe it will be a better text after the corrections I suggested.
This study demonstrated that the AIP is relatively accurate in the detection of MetS, promoting the prevention of MetS and reducing the risk of associated chronic diseases.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

I received for review an original research article entitled "Diagnostic Accuracy of the Atherogenic Index of Plasma in Patients with Metabolic Syndrome: A Diagnostic Meta-Analysis", prepared by Yuge Gao, which was submitted to the PeerJ. Cardiometabolic disorders are one of the most important challenges for public health in the modern world. Metabolic syndrome is a set of disorders contributing to increased cardiovascular risk and the development of overt cardiovascular disease. Cardiovascular diseases, especially in the course of atherosclerosis, are the main cause of morbidity and mortality in many countries of the world. Developing diagnostic methods that will better identify patients at increased risk of cardiometabolic diseases is therefore extremely important. In my opinion, the manuscript presents a certain scientific value. However, some significant changes are necessary, which may contribute to increasing the value and attractiveness of the presented manuscript.

1) The introduction is written quite well. The authors draw attention to how big a problem metabolic syndrome is, as well as to the difficulties associated with the existing controversies on this topic. At the beginning of the introduction, the authors also draw attention to the most important complications of metabolic syndrome, such as heart-related diseases, type 2 diabetes, and various cancers. I propose to mention here that obesity and metabolic syndrome are also associated with increased oxidative stress, which may play a significant role in the pathogenesis of the diseases mentioned. I also propose to replace the term "heart-related diseases" with the term "cardiovascular diseases".

2) The following formulation appears in the discussion: "a biomarker reflecting the degree of plasma atherosclerosis". This should be corrected. There is no such thing as "plasma atherosclerosis". I assume it should be "atherogenicity".

3) In another place in the discussion, the phrase "AIP has the maximum sensitivity in anticipating acute coronary events" appears. In my opinion, this formulation is not correct. It would be more appropriate to say "AIP has a high sensitivity in anticipating acute coronary events".

4) Not only limitations but also strengths of the study should be discussed.

Experimental design

No additional comments.

Validity of the findings

No additional comments.

Additional comments

No additional comments.

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.