JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Comparison of factors associated with the occurrence of menstruation-related symptoms
in Japanese women without exercise habits and female soccer players: A cross-sectional study
Version: 1 Date: 24 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
Line 32: The methods section of the abstract do not mention the statistical analysis used.
Line 40: The results section of the abstract do not mention statistical data.
Line 61: The concept "menstruation-related-symptoms" is not defined.
Line 85: Review the redaction.
Line 93: Questionnarie must be annexed, referenced and its validity should be indicated aswell.
Lines 104 &111: The recruitment method should be referenced.
Lines 106 & 113: Explain the criteria used to determine a current illness, ther was a list of illness?
when is curret/former?
Lines 107 & 113: Explain the critera used to determine irregular menstruation.
Line 131: Add a reference associated to that symptoms selection.
Line 145: indicate the instruments that were used to measure high and weight
Line 151: Why is included the use of oral contraceptive in to the menstrual characteristics  if
it was an exlussion criteria?
Line 185: Should say "3.3 metabolic equivalents (METs)"
Line 198: Number of breakfast intakes per week should not be registered as  "Times", it should
be registered  as "times/week" like in the tables .
Line 247: Add the meaning of "METs"
Lines 289, 305, 317 &329: At the bottom of the tables is the meaning of the abbreviations,
including the "*" but there is no "*" in the tables (and should be there).  Besides, like all P values
are < 0.05, i suggest to separate them in <0.05, <0.01 and <0.001
Lines 386-388: Like it is a corss-sectional study, is not possible to affirm  that "PA can resolve
menstrual-related symptoms", at least write it in conditional, but eventhouth is not correct.
Title: Comparison of factors associated with the occurrence of menstruation-related symptoms
in Japanese women without exercise habits and female soccer players: A cross-sectional study
Version: 2 Date: 03 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
Congratulations for the work developed to generate the present paper. Thank you for responding
to every suggestion raised in the first review. To me, as reviewer 4, the manuscript is in condition
to be published.
Title: Modelling timing of sexual debut among women in Zimbabwe using a Geoadditive
Discrete- Time Survival approach
Version: 0 Date: 30 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for a well analysed manuscript.   In Zimbabwe sex with a minor (below 16yrs) is
reflected as Statutory Rape rather than consensual sex.
I would be grateful if you could reflect this definition somewhere in the manuscript so that it
does not go out in the public domain and appear as if the practice is not condoned.
Title: Modelling timing of sexual debut among women in Zimbabwe using a Geoadditive
Discrete- Time Survival approach
Version: 1 Date: 18 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed most of my concerns, and the manuscript is now much clearer –
thank you. However, there are still a few small things that require correction:
3rd line of introduction: What does “legally non-consensual” mean?
Page 4, 2nd-last line: The authors cite [13], which doesn’t look like the right reference.
In the line after eqn 1 the authors refer to “the conditional probability of early sexual debut in
the year interval [a_t,a_(t+1))”, but this is inconsistent with the previous definition of T, which
was for the interval [a_(t-1),a_t). I think they mean the latter interval?
Page 14, 2nd sentence: model fit, not fitness.
Table 2 still refers to the “convolutional model”, though the authors said in their response they
had removed reference to this.
Table 2: It’s still not clear to me what the random effect coefficients actually represent.
The second paragraph of discussion refers to a 9% higher odds of early sexual debut in rural
areas, but Table 2 shows ORs of 1.13-1.15.
Title: Modelling timing of sexual debut among women in Zimbabwe using a Geoadditive
Discrete- Time Survival approach
Version: 2 Date: 16 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this work. the authors have already done a great deal
to address previous reviewers. My comments are, consequently, quite brief.
The statistical analysis is presented clearly.  While i was not previously familiar with the
geoadditive approach, with a basic understanding of survival modeling i found it possible to
follow their work.  Only one very small question- on page 7, you cite that women who reached
18 without having sex were censored at 18, and that 1825 women who had never experienced
sex at the time of interview were censored at their current age. Are these two groups? or does one
include the other? And i assume the 1825 are women *under 18* who had never experienced
sex, correct?   The writing is just a little confusing.  If you have 1825 women 15-17 who havent
had sex, and then an additional # of 18 yr olds who haven't- then please also cite the size of the
18 yr old group. If the 1825 includes both- then just clarify. (minor point, but it tripped me up)
Secondly- is there a reason do you not control for union status? I believe DHS has married or
'in union as if married"- this seems highly relevant to a study of sexual debut. If you included it
and it did not improve the model- then say that. If you had a good reason for leaving it out (not
enough variance in the sample or something) then please say that too. But i feel like you need
to at least address the possibility that early marriage is correlated both with geography and early
sexual debut, and DHS is a well known dataset, so most will know you could have included it.
Third and last- i thought your discussion did a good job of teasing out some of the details
about why a geographic analysis is interesting/important in this context. But up until then-
i was reading the sophisticated statistical analysis and wondering what it actually added
to the understanding of early debut risk. On page 6 you basically say 'nobody has looked
at this before' (in first para) and 'it might be important because regions differ on a lot of
characteristics' (second para). But that could be true of hundreds of characteristics. Whats special
that it makes the extra work to do a regional analysis worthwhile? One reason i can think of
is that  policy and governance is also regional- so targeting interventions geographicaly aligns
with the preexisting infrastructure. But you also speak in your discussion about pre-existing
beliefs about drivers such as age cohort and religious affiliation- which fall away when you take
into account geographic variation. So, i think you could do more to explain the reasons that we
might want a geographic analysis (without having to completely re-create the discussion in the
opening- 2-3 sentences would be enough)
I give much credit to what i thought was a well described analysis (these models can be hard to
explain) and a  thoughtful discussion and conclusion. Nice work.
Title: SEVERE MENOPAUSAL SYMPTOMS AND ASSOCIATED FACTORS AMONG
POST- MENOPAUSAL WOMEN IN AMBO TOWN, WEST SHEWA, ETHIOPIA: A
CROSS- SECTIONAL STUDY
Version: 1 Date: 08 Sep 2024
Reviewer:  Awol Yemane Legesse
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for letting me review your paper.
The plagiarism score of the paper is 14%
The AI score is 11%
Though your study is mainly focused on the prevalence of severe menopausal symptoms and
associated factors in a specific area, further explanation of cultural and socio-economic factors
that may affect menopausal experiences can reveal a more comprehensive understanding of the
issue.
The manuscript can benefit from a discussion about a more in-depth exploration of the impact
of severe menopausal experiences on quality of life.
On the study's limitations, potential biases or constraints in data collection should be elaborated
to provide a more precise interpretation of findings for external validity and generalizability of
the data.
Title: SEVERE MENOPAUSAL SYMPTOMS AND ASSOCIATED FACTORS AMONG
POST- MENOPAUSAL WOMEN IN AMBO TOWN, WEST SHEWA, ETHIOPIA: A
CROSS- SECTIONAL STUDY
Version: 3 Date: 29 Sep 2024
Reviewer:  Awol Yemane Legesse
Reviewer's report:
Thank you, I am happy with the revised version.
Title: SEVERE MENOPAUSAL SYMPTOMS AND ASSOCIATED FACTORS AMONG
POST- MENOPAUSAL WOMEN IN AMBO TOWN, WEST SHEWA, ETHIOPIA: A
CROSS- SECTIONAL STUDY
Version: 5 Date: 18 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
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 sufficient 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 - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
No - manuscript has some fundamental flaw(s)
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have provided responses and made revisions in the
revised manuscript but i do not see these changes made in the original manuscripts either as
highlights or track changes to confirm if the changes were on the original version cover all
my comments. however, the major issues seem to be covered. there are still technical writing
issues that have not been addressed. the manuscript still does not confirm to the correct details
provided under the sub headings of the methodology as per the STROBE guidelines. Authors
provide details about the correct methodology after reviewers pick up the flaws. Example
sample size is calculated priori not after reviewers pick and comment the issue. The same
goes for questionnaire administration method interview versus self-administered. Questionnaire
translation and validation was not mentioned in the initial version. upon reviewer commenting
the authors provide a brief response, which is incomplete. If the authors translation, they should
provide details of questionnaire validation process and results of content, construct validity etc in
more detail. I still do not agree that selecting 3 Kebels from 6 of them by lottery random method
needs sample weights. this is not cluster sampling method. Cluster sampling considers each
Kebel's population size in samping methodology i..e probablity proportional to size. These are
main issues there still remain many other issues it is not possible to detail them as a commentary.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
as explained above all the major concerns that are oustanding.
Title: SEVERE MENOPAUSAL SYMPTOMS AND ASSOCIATED FACTORS AMONG
POST- MENOPAUSAL WOMEN IN AMBO TOWN, WEST SHEWA, ETHIOPIA: A
CROSS- SECTIONAL STUDY
Version: 7 Date: 25 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient 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?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have submitted R2 version of the manuscript and have
addressed the outstanding comments on the paper. The authors have also provided highlighted
version to view the sections of the manuscript where the changes were made.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
As the authors made changes in the text to most of the outstanding comments. It may be
important to present the reliability and validity of the translated version. If not, the authors need
to admit to this as a limitation. I leave this decision to the editor handling the manuscript.
Title: The prevalence of sexual dysfunction and its contributors among the women with multiple
sclerosis
Version: 1 Date: 23 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
1. The term "aerosol" is  not be included in the FSFI score; instead, the term "arousal" should
be used. This change should be made in all sections of the article (methods, results, tables  and
discussion).
2.I suggest clarifying the reasons for excluding males from this study. While it is true that
multiple sclerosis (MS) is more prevalent in women, men can also be affected by the condition
and subsequently experience sexual dysfunction. This decision could be addressed in the
introduction.
3. Discussion: The authors state, "We found that 80% of our study participants were diagnosed
with FDS, which was in accordance with a previously published study by Dehghan et al."
However, this finding is not reported upon in the results section. I recommend clarifying this
in the results.
4. In the discussion, the authors wrote, "Moreover, there are not enough public education and
awareness programs regarding sexual issues in Iran, and in such circumstances, women with
sexual dysfunction are less likely to receive appropriate treatments."  Here, I suggest expanding
on this argument with literature that addresses the underdiagnosis and undertreatment of this
condition. This will strengthen the argument.
5. Regarding the discussion of the FSFI and EDSS results, the authors describe, "Our findings
were supported by several previously published studies." I recommend to provide a deeper
explanation on this information to offer context for the reader and help them understand the
findings of prior studies. Additionally, they could discuss the mechanisms by which worse EDSS
scores might correlate with increased sexual dysfunction; I suggest reviewing the mechanisms
proposed by Foley and Iverson.
6. "The current study is one of the few that evaluated the contributing factors of sexual
dysfunction among women with MS in Iran." I suggest adding references to these few studies
and contrasting their results.
Title: The prevalence of sexual dysfunction and its contributors among the women with multiple
sclerosis
Version: 1 Date: 23 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an auto-immune disease affecting in a great measure young woman.
The authors of this paper rise an interesting problem of sexual disfunction in women with
MS. They evaluated 100 women with MS with 19-item Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI)
questionnaire. They found that Female Sexual Dysfunction (FDS) was present in more than 80%
of female patients with MS, similar to previous papers published for Iranian population.
A negative correlation was observed between EDSS and FDS, in patients with higher EDSS
score, FSFI was lower.
Also, a negative correlation was found between older age, less education, disease duration and
FSFI score.
Therapeutic strategies must be offered to women with MS an FDS, in order to improve their
quality of life.
Title: The prevalence of sexual dysfunction and its contributors among the women with multiple
sclerosis
Version: 2 Date: 17 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
All the comments were addresed.
I only have one more suggestion:
In introduction , please connect these sentences to the paragraph " The higher prevalence of MS
in women (female-to-male ratio of 3:1), sex-specific physiological differences affecting sexual
dysfunction, and the need to reduce heterogeneity for a focused analysis. Additionally, including
males would have required a larger sample size to maintain statistical power, which was beyond
the scope of this study. "
As it is unclear to the reader why you mentioned this. For example, you could clarify : the
reasons for excluding men were  the higher prevalence of MS in women (female-to-male ratio of
3:1), sex-specific physiological differences affecting sexual dysfunction, and the need to reduce
heterogeneity for a focused analysis. Additionally, including males would have required a larger
sample size to maintain statistical power, which was beyond the scope of this study."
Title: Prevalence and genotype distribution of HPV infection among women in 2021–2023 in
southern Iran: The rising trend of HPV infection among women 
Version: 0 Date: 06 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
1- Add the time of study in the title
2- Abstract:
- methods:  type of study, time and place of study, type of sampling and inclusion criteria need
to be added.
- results: add the statistical results  in the last sentence
3- Introduction has written well
4- Methods: type of sampling, how to calculate sample size, need to be added ,statistical
analysis : where was two way Anova  used?
5- Results: standard deviation of age needs to be added, the results are repeated in text, table
and figures . avoid repeating results
6- Discussion: please add the reference  in second paragraph relate the text after
reference[23,28-30] , in 3rd paragraph comparison to other studies' results needs to be added
7- The numbers of tables and figures  are many
8- limitation of the study must be mentioned
Title: Construction and validation of a novel nomogram for prediction of lymph node metastasis
in HER2-positive breast cancer: based on the optimal number of examined lymph nodes for
accurate nodal staging
Version: 0 Date: 06 Jun 2024
Reviewer's report:
1. Would recommend including the ratio of allocation between training and validation cohorts
in the abstract (80:20, 75:25, etc)
2. Would recommend including more data in the Results of the abstract- example: what were
the calibration, ROC, etc values?
3. In the methods, please more clearly define “radical resection”- did the patients all undergo
modified radical mastectomy?
4. Please also more clearly define the exclusion criteria in the Methods, what defines insufficient
clinical information?
5. Please also confirm whether clinically positive lymph node disease was an inclusion criteria.
6. Is the staging data included clinical or pathological? This is an important distinction as many
patients who undergo modified radical mastectomy will have already received neoadjuvant
therapy.
7. How were patients who received neoadjuvant therapy handled? Presumably, this would
change the number of positive lymph nodes identified during surgery.
8. My main concern with this manuscript is the clinical relevance of it. There have been
numerous, high-powered studies which demonstrate that all lymph nodes in Levels 1 and 2
should be removed when performing an axillary dissection for breast cancer. This is true
regardless of whether the patient is Her2 positive or not. Thus, if a provider performed an
axillary dissection and only obtained 10 lymph nodes, would this change their next course in
management? All of these patients regardless will go on to get adjuvant radiation. Furthermore,
more and more randomized controlled trials are coming out which overall suggest that less is
more when it comes to breast surgery, and in some cases, when there is clinical response to
neoadjuvant therapy in a patient with initially clinically positive lymph nodes, a sentinel lymph
node biopsy is sufficient and does not impact long-term outcomes and thus axillary dissection
is not needed.
Title: Construction and validation of a novel nomogram for prediction of lymph node metastasis
in HER2-positive breast cancer: based on the optimal number of examined lymph nodes for
accurate nodal staging
Version: 2 Date: 25 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
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 minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: I greatly appreciate the authors for providing a comprehensive
response to my previous comments. In general, my concerns have been sufficiently addressed.
However, one issue remains that requires further clarification from the authors. Below, I provide
my detailed comments.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Regarding my previous Comment 7: “The manuscript should provide the formula underlying the
nomogram to ensure transparency and enable reproducibility,” the authors have only provided
the general expression of the logistic regression instead of the actual coefficients (#1, #2, #3,
etc.) derived from the current study. To ensure full transparency and reproducibility, the actual
regression coefficients should be provided.
Title: The life experiences of Chinese women after late-life remarriage
Version: 2 Date: 28 Jun 2024
Reviewer's report:
This study explores 16 Chinese women’s life experiences who are remarried in later life.
Although I found the findings interesting, the writing dampened my enthusiasm for the study. It
seems that the manuscript's content was directly translated into English from its Chinese version
without thorough language editing. I provide the following comments for the authors.
Introduction
The study rationale should be strengthened to show the value of conducting the current study.
On page 7, the authors stated that “research on the real-life experiences of Chinese women after
late-life remarriage is still limited.” Researchers applying phenomenological research designs
usually pay attention to people’s subjective life experiences rather than “real-life experiences.”
The authors should clearly state the research questions and illustrate the study framework.
Method
Phenomenological research is a type of qualitative research but I do not think it is "a method."
Regarding the exclusion criteria of sampling, how did the authors make sure that the participants
are not with "a diagnosis of terminal illness or severe mental illness"?
Please specify the steps in which the authors analyzed the data. For example, did the authors read
the transcripts once or twice to get familiar with the data? How did they locate the statements
related to late-life remarriage, what are the criteria that they used to determine whether a
statement is related or not? What are the meanings, categories, theme clusters, and themes
referring to and how were they developed?
Results
The themes were primarily descriptive and informative for readers to get an impression of the
life experiences of women in late-life remarriage. Given that the authors did not provide a
study framework for their current investigation, I could not tell how these themes contribute to
academia.
Discussion
I recommend the authors discuss the theoretical and practical implications coherently before or
after discussing the study limitations.