Reviewer’s report
Title: 
A study of the association of cognitive abilities and emotional function
with allergic disorders in young women
Version: 
0 
Date: 
16 Mar 2021
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS: 
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a
testable research question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear
objective)?
No - there are major issues
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols)
appropriate for the objective?
No - there are major issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor
to allow confidence in the results?
No - there are major issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results
reasonable and not overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work
technically sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically
sound?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS: 
GENERAL COMMENTS: 
This paper aims to present associations between neuropsychological function
and atopy. Although the paper examines cognitive function (and did not find any
associations) it was unclear as to the purpose of the paper. Part of the problem is
the misunderstanding perhaps as to what neuropsychology is? Why were they
interested in neuropsychological function for atopy? and what does the current
non-finding mean? The problem I feel is that the authors have placed all their
measures under this umbrella term- but measuring depression and anxiety is not
neuropsychology- this is more mental health or emotional function etc. This
needs to be thought out also. If the authors are able to improve the clarity of the
papers purpose, this could help them in forming the rest of the paper. They need
to perhaps explore the back ground literature in more detail.
REQUESTED REVISIONS: 
Objective: Make this clearer- why are you doing this study? The background
section did not feel cohesive. You need to give a little more information as to
what atopy is (as opposed to allergy). You need to also explain your study
group- is there any significance with culture etc. and why were you only
interested in females (this was not mentioned until your discussion).
Design & Execution: Was not provided. Was this a cross-sectional study?
Explain your population group. More detail should be provided for the section:
Phenotypic characterization of allergic conditions- What was done in order to
demonstrate that the person had atopy. What detail in their history? How was the
physical exam conducted? Did every participant undergo the same exam? The
reference provided ref 27 & 28 did not seem relevant for this. 
Waist to hip needs
abbreviation for first mention. You said that the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was
conducted- please provide the range for your results. How was your cut off for
anxiety and insomnia derived? and why were these variables chosen and not the
other ones in your study? 
Statistics: Please note that the result from a logistic regression is an odds ratio
which is not an estimate of risk but an estimate of odds. Why did you present
your results as subgroups? You should begin your analysis where you maximise
the power in your sample with atopy versus no atopy. Was there any significant
at the higher level of atopy versus no atopy to begin with? If there were, you can
do the subgroup analysis but give a reason (purpose) for breaking this down to
subgroups. How was the logistic regression conducted? it seems that your main
question (atopy versus no atopy) was used as a predictor in three univariate
logistic regressions, this seems odd, what was the reason for this? 
Interpretation: Needs work as some of the terms are misused. The term
Neuropsychological-refers to how the brain functions. So for the cognitive test
this is ok, but for the remainder of the tests, they may be emotional function,
sleep function etc, but not neuropsychological. Your discussion is too long, with
too much background information. You can shorten this. A lot of your
justifications and purposes can be found in the discussion, this needs to move
forward to the introduction (eg. why study sleep) or methods (eg. why look at
females)
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS: 
Needs edits for grammar and typographical errors
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this
review directly to Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would
like to take advantage of this service, please click on the “Yes” option below.
Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal,
and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted
to Publons after the final decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have
already registered at Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review
and update your profile 
as per your settings and their policy. If you are not
registered with Publons, you will receive an email from them asking you to
register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new
profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivative metadata
for the benefit of Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the
sensitivity of such information. For example, Publons may verify your record as
a reviewer by updating your profile published on its webservice if you have
registered for such service or help editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please
find the details of processing in Publons’ privacy policy
https://publons.com/about/terms
No
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing
interests, considering the following questions:
1
. 
Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or
salary from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially
from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
2
. 
Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way
gain or lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now
or in the future?
3
. 
Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the
content of the manuscript?
4
. 
Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organization that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of
the manuscript?
5
. 
Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6
. 
Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this
paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing
interests' below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square.
Reviewers with declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for
these reviews. This reviewer has agreed to publication of their comments online
under a Creative Commons Attribution License attributed to Research Square
and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review within a specified
timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer
recommendation.
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 I agree for my report to be made available
under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY License (
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the
editorial office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your
name in your published report. Please note you must decide whether to include
your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision whenever
prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your
name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please 
do not
 publish my name
with my report. (default)
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
No
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
No
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
No
Is the presentation of the work clear?
No
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes