Reviewer’s report
Title: 
A study of the association of cognitive abilities and emotional function
with allergic disorders in young women
Version: 
0 
Date: 
12 Feb 2021
Reviewer's report:
The aim of this paper was to assess the association between neuropsychological
function tests and quality of life with the presence of allergic diseases in women.
As a general comment I have questions about definitions used to define allergic
disorders, in the section of methods it is stated "by an expert allergist", was it the
same allergist that examined all participants? And what criteria was used.
Moreover I have some concern about selection bias. In total 181 women were
included but how many were eligible? Were the once that were included in any
way differ compared to the not included?
Specific comments
Abstract: Words missing in the aim.
Methods/Study design.
How was the women recruited? Did the women that were included differ in
regards of background characteristics compared to the not included woman 
Statistical analyses: The authors performed logistic regression analyses to
estimate the odds (not the risk) of the differ outcomes. Was the analyses adjusted
for any possible confounding factors and if so what factors and why?
Definitions of health outcomes: I miss some information about how allergic
disorder was defined. What definitions was used and did the same allergist
examined all participants? Please clarify
Results: 
When you present results with Odds Ratio and 95% Confidence intervals you do
not need to present the p-value. So please remove the p-values
The authors perform a lot of analyses (presented in table 2 and 3). Please
comment about the risk of multiple testing. 
Discussion:
In the first paragraph of the section I expect to find information of the main
results and the study design used.
The discussion is very long. I suggest that the authors work throw the section
again and try to shorten . In this section you do not need to present data in
numbers 
The authors have referred to 78 references, for me it seems to be a lot. However,
I presume this is in accordnacd with the journal's instructions. 
Conclusion: Is this conclusion really supported by your results? Please comment 
Minor comments: Please put key words in alphabetical order.
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
Yes
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.
I declare that I have no competing interest
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?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes