Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Chronic Conditions in Women: The Development of an National Institutes
of Health Framework
Version: 
0 
Date: 
13 Feb 2023
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 minor issues
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols)
appropriate for the objective?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor
to allow confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results
reasonable and not overstated?
No - there are major 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?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS: 
GENERAL COMMENTS: A report of clinical and public health significance.
The authors provided an overview of responses to Congress on the topic of
chronic debilitating conditions in women, and also addressed the public health
needs, current research, and opportunities for future research to advance
knowledge on this research area. They proposed a future state where rigorous
evidence is created and available to improve the health of women.
In my opinion, the study is relevant, and the authors did fair justice to the
subject.
REQUESTED REVISIONS: 
L21-22: Definitions and Quotes are not appropriate in abstracts
Abstract: This is currently muddled up. The research aim and study is scattered
everywhere and even appeared in the last sentence of the abstract. There is need
for flow, from background/objectives to methods to results and to
implications/conclusions and recommendations. This must be rewritten.
L74: "…..where conditions can all be included" in what. This should be written
as a situation where an individual has any two or more conditions.
L79: is this two or more conditions comorbidity or multimorbidity?
L82…What are you comparing with men? The general population or women
population? Woman is missing in the sentence. 
L174: provide reference.
L176: how did you calculate or define YLL and YLD?
L288: This is not well written. What are the available and proposed opportunities
to advance women health via data science? In addition, this can be widened to
include the use of ML and AI in women health: prevention, diagnosis, treatment
L298: I do not understand the premise for this assertion, most studies on causes,
clustering, onset. etc. of multimorbidity are usually sex disaggregated.
L302: Why are you recommending "data science funding opportunities" rather
than how data science can be used?
L302: unclear statement --"targeted data science funding opportunities modeled
on other successful data science initiatives".
I had looked forward to discourse on the differential roles of sex and gender on
women health, but it didn't appear anywhere.
Table 1 is missing,
Figure 1: why did you use "three or more chronic conditions"? Is this from
definition of multimorbidity?
Figure 3: what is "Meet criteria Diagnosis X"?
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?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes
Web of Science Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification
of this review directly to a Web of Science researcher profile (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 Web of Science after the final
decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have already registered with
Web of Science for a 
Web of Science researcher profile (this service was
previously known as “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 Web of Science, 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. Web of Science may use the Review Data to generate derivative
metadata for the benefit of Web of Science and you as a reviewer, carefully
considering the sensitivity of such information. For example, Web of Science
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 Web of Science’s
privacy policy 
https://clarivate.com/privacy-center/notices-policies/privacy-
policy/
No