Reviewer’s report
Title: 
RISK FACTORS FOR NATURAL MENOPAUSE BEFORE THE AGE
OF 45: EVIDENCE FROM TWO BRITISH POPULATION-BASED BIRTH
COHORT STUDIES
Version: 
0 
Date: 
21 Dec 2021
Reviewer's report:
This is a very well written manuscript investigating childhood, adolescence, and
early adulthood contributors to early menopause (<45 years of age). The authors
report a thorough review of the current literature and based on the review, have
extracted several potential contributors to an early menopause. The authors used
data from two large-scale longitudinal studies to answer their research question. 
Overall, I think this is a very well written manuscript which I enjoyed reading. I
think that 
Literature review:
- I like that you performed a thorough literature review. I think you should give
this part a different name, as it seems to be part of the background section but
reads as though a systematic review would follow. Please also explain the
purpose of this review in a few sentences. 
- You mention that you chose three key stages across the life course, but never
mention why you think that those are key stages. Please describe this in more
detail and provide some references. I think it makes sense, but you should
provide more information supporting this. 
Menopause status:
- If I see this correctly, there was no question on ablations. This could be
discussed as a limitation, as it is not possible to determine those women's
menopausal stage based on bleeding patterns.
Statistical analyses:
- Please provide a rationale for the chosen statistical analyses.
- Please also provide a summary of the missing data. How much was missing in
each dataset? How did you make sure the data was missing at random?
Methods in general:
- A lot of the information is in supplementary files, which is overall ok.
However, I would be glad to have more information regarding how the predictors
were collected and whether they were self- or parent report (for childhood
questions). How were things like childhood cognitive abilities assessed? You
might find a way to incorporate this information into the actual manuscript.
Discussion:
- You mention strong attrition rates in the two studies. Please provide a short
overview of the actual numbers. 
- Please elaborate more on the genetic programming argument.
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 interests.
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?
Yes
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