Reviewer’ s report
Title: Classification of Gastrointestinal Symptom Patterns in Young Adults
Version: 2Date: 02 Sep 2020
Reviewer: Research Square Reviewer 1
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?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 furtherrevisions be made to make the work technically sound?Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:GENERAL COMMENTS: NOTE I HAVE DONE THIS REVIEW AS IF IT WERE A RE-
REVIEW AND HAVE RAD THE PRIOR REVIEWERS COMMENTS ALL OF THECATEGORIES OF A PRIMARY REVIEW OUTLINED ABOVE WILL BE EVIDENT IN MYREVIEW
HAVE THE AUTHORS RESPONDED ADEQUATELY TO EACH OF THE QUESTIONS YOU
RAISED IN YOUR COMMENTS
Yes the authors have addressed all the queries with arguments why some of the queries are not
possible nor appropriate. Several of the queries. Exposed further limitations of the analysis whichthe authors agree with and will add to the limitations section
HAVE THEY MADE THE APPROPRIATE CHANGES IN THE MANUSCRIPT
I believe that they have answered all the queries appropriately and made changes where needed .
When no changes were made, the authors appear to have justified their actions
WHAT IS YOUR OVERALL IMPRESSION OF THE REVISED MANUSCRIPT
I really like the idea of using this LCA to look at patterns of GI dysfunction ( FGIDs) rather than
isolated individual symptoms because this approach may be actually more meaningful. I wonderif the authors can evaluate race/ethnicity. In this study- though the bombers are small in eachmanor group, the numbers in non-Hispanic white, Non-Hispanic black and other Hispanic , andAsian where the numbers were possibly great enough to determine differences?
IN WHAT WAYS DOES IT NOT MEET BEST PRACTICE
I believe that this study does meet best practices
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL REVISIONS THE AUTHORS SHOULD MAKEAuthors please note my remarks are based on the page numbers and line numbers of the strikeout-redline version
1. Page 2 lines 28-29 you really should specify that all the participants were taking an introductory
psychology class. Just the fact that they were taking psychology may make them a somewhat
different biased group
2.page 2 line 37 though probably not needed for the audience who will read this, I still think youshould write out MANOV A3.Page 2 line 39 I would change the word "elevations" to one more appropriate and scientific likeincreases ( elevation refers to distance or height4. Page 2 line 43 and page 7 line 39 if you mean statistically significant the it should be worded assuch( you give no p value or other evidence of statistical significance5. Is there a category of symptomatology that is more symptomatic than "Moderate" if so werethese subjects deleted from analysis line 41 begs the question; you address this in the discussionbut it is not clear here6. Page 2 line 50 shouldn't this be worded "at least one GI symptom of a severity greater thannormative levels". ''This seems more scientific7. Page 4 line 31 define IBS8. Page 5 line 28 add " of FGID" at end of sentence9. Page 5 line 31. Define ACHA all abbreviations which are not common usage need to be definedthe first time they are used. This reviewer had no idea what ACHA stood for10. Page 5 line 39. The mean and the variance need to have the same number of significantvariables thus either 22.0+\-2.8 or 22 +\- 3
11. Page 7 line 14 do you GI motility. I assume so. Best to specify
12. Page 7 line 16 too many significant figures. Change to 20.9+\- 1.5 As with the percentages
NOTE Authors from now on I will change to your clean version and use the page numbers and
line numbers on that copy starting with the section in the BACKGROUND Titled ProblemStatement: Defining Patterns of GI Symptoms in Emerging Adults on page 7 of the clean copysorry I didn't see that clean copy when I started13.page 8 lines 30-33 over what period were these participant s enrolled also the final versionneeds to mention the University14. Page 9 line 7 did you specifically ask "gender" or "sex".
15. Page 10 lines 29-45 WELL DONE!!!!!!!
16. Page 12 line 27 round up to the tenths of a percentage17. Was any attempt to look at race/ethnicity? non-Hispanic white, Non-Hispanic black and otherHispanic , and Asian where the numbers were possibly great enough to determine differences? If.It why?
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 upon publication of the manuscript. If you have already registeredat Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review and update your profile as per yoursettings and their policy. If you are not registered with Publons, you will receive an email fromthem asking you to register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your newprofile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivative metadata for the benefit ofPublons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the sensitivity of such information. Forexample, 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
NoDeclaration 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 thismanuscript, 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 hasagreed to publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribution Licenseattributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review within aspecified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewerrecommendation.
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 manu-script is accepted for publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the publishedreport have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not be published.Ifyou are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the editorial office before completingthe review.If you wish, you can include your name in your published report. Please note you mustdecide whether to include your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision wheneverprompted. 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 publish my name with my report.
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?
YesAre the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?YesIs the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?YesIs the presentation of the work clear?Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free from apparent
manipulation?
Yes
Reviewer’ s report
Title: Classification of Gastrointestinal Symptom Patterns in Young Adults
Version: 2Date: 02 Sep 2020
Reviewer: Research Square Reviewer 1
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?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 furtherrevisions be made to make the work technically sound?Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:GENERAL COMMENTS: NOTE I HAVE DONE THIS REVIEW AS IF IT WERE A RE-
REVIEW AND HAVE RAD THE PRIOR REVIEWERS COMMENTS ALL OF THECATEGORIES OF A PRIMARY REVIEW OUTLINED ABOVE WILL BE EVIDENT IN MYREVIEW
HAVE THE AUTHORS RESPONDED ADEQUATELY TO EACH OF THE QUESTIONS YOU
RAISED IN YOUR COMMENTS
Yes the authors have addressed all the queries with arguments why some of the queries are not
possible nor appropriate. Several of the queries. Exposed further limitations of the analysis whichthe authors agree with and will add to the limitations section
HAVE THEY MADE THE APPROPRIATE CHANGES IN THE MANUSCRIPT
I believe that they have answered all the queries appropriately and made changes where needed .
When no changes were made, the authors appear to have justified their actions
WHAT IS YOUR OVERALL IMPRESSION OF THE REVISED MANUSCRIPT
I really like the idea of using this LCA to look at patterns of GI dysfunction ( FGIDs) rather than
isolated individual symptoms because this approach may be actually more meaningful. I wonderif the authors can evaluate race/ethnicity. In this study- though the bombers are small in eachmanor group, the numbers in non-Hispanic white, Non-Hispanic black and other Hispanic , andAsian where the numbers were possibly great enough to determine differences?
IN WHAT WAYS DOES IT NOT MEET BEST PRACTICE
I believe that this study does meet best practices
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL REVISIONS THE AUTHORS SHOULD MAKEAuthors please note my remarks are based on the page numbers and line numbers of the strikeout-redline version
1. Page 2 lines 28-29 you really should specify that all the participants were taking an introductory
psychology class. Just the fact that they were taking psychology may make them a somewhat
different biased group
2.page 2 line 37 though probably not needed for the audience who will read this, I still think youshould write out MANOV A3.Page 2 line 39 I would change the word "elevations" to one more appropriate and scientific likeincreases ( elevation refers to distance or height4. Page 2 line 43 and page 7 line 39 if you mean statistically significant the it should be worded assuch( you give no p value or other evidence of statistical significance5. Is there a category of symptomatology that is more symptomatic than "Moderate" if so werethese subjects deleted from analysis line 41 begs the question; you address this in the discussionbut it is not clear here6. Page 2 line 50 shouldn't this be worded "at least one GI symptom of a severity greater thannormative levels". ''This seems more scientific7. Page 4 line 31 define IBS8. Page 5 line 28 add " of FGID" at end of sentence9. Page 5 line 31. Define ACHA all abbreviations which are not common usage need to be definedthe first time they are used. This reviewer had no idea what ACHA stood for10. Page 5 line 39. The mean and the variance need to have the same number of significantvariables thus either 22.0+\-2.8 or 22 +\- 3
11. Page 7 line 14 do you GI motility. I assume so. Best to specify
12. Page 7 line 16 too many significant figures. Change to 20.9+\- 1.5 As with the percentages
NOTE Authors from now on I will change to your clean version and use the page numbers and
line numbers on that copy starting with the section in the BACKGROUND Titled ProblemStatement: Defining Patterns of GI Symptoms in Emerging Adults on page 7 of the clean copysorry I didn't see that clean copy when I started13.page 8 lines 30-33 over what period were these participant s enrolled also the final versionneeds to mention the University14. Page 9 line 7 did you specifically ask "gender" or "sex".
15. Page 10 lines 29-45 WELL DONE!!!!!!!
16. Page 12 line 27 round up to the tenths of a percentage17. Was any attempt to look at race/ethnicity? non-Hispanic white, Non-Hispanic black and otherHispanic , and Asian where the numbers were possibly great enough to determine differences? If.It why?
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 upon publication of the manuscript. If you have already registeredat Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review and update your profile as per yoursettings and their policy. If you are not registered with Publons, you will receive an email fromthem asking you to register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your newprofile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivative metadata for the benefit ofPublons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the sensitivity of such information. Forexample, 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
NoDeclaration 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 thismanuscript, 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 hasagreed to publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribution Licenseattributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review within aspecified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewerrecommendation.
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 manu-script is accepted for publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the publishedreport have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not be published.Ifyou are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the editorial office before completingthe review.If you wish, you can include your name in your published report. Please note you mustdecide whether to include your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision wheneverprompted. 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 publish my name with my report.
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?
YesAre the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?YesIs the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?YesIs the presentation of the work clear?Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free from apparent
manipulation?
Yes
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer’ s report
Title: Classification of Gastrointestinal Symptom Patterns in Young Adults
Version: 2Date: 02 Sep 2020
Reviewer: Research Square Reviewer 1
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?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 furtherrevisions be made to make the work technically sound?Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:GENERAL COMMENTS: NOTE I HAVE DONE THIS REVIEW AS IF IT WERE A RE-
REVIEW AND HAVE RAD THE PRIOR REVIEWERS COMMENTS ALL OF THECATEGORIES OF A PRIMARY REVIEW OUTLINED ABOVE WILL BE EVIDENT IN MYREVIEW
HAVE THE AUTHORS RESPONDED ADEQUATELY TO EACH OF THE QUESTIONS YOU
RAISED IN YOUR COMMENTS
Yes the authors have addressed all the queries with arguments why some of the queries are not
possible nor appropriate. Several of the queries. Exposed further limitations of the analysis whichthe authors agree with and will add to the limitations section
HAVE THEY MADE THE APPROPRIATE CHANGES IN THE MANUSCRIPT
I believe that they have answered all the queries appropriately and made changes where needed .
When no changes were made, the authors appear to have justified their actions
WHAT IS YOUR OVERALL IMPRESSION OF THE REVISED MANUSCRIPT
I really like the idea of using this LCA to look at patterns of GI dysfunction ( FGIDs) rather than
isolated individual symptoms because this approach may be actually more meaningful. I wonderif the authors can evaluate race/ethnicity. In this study- though the bombers are small in eachmanor group, the numbers in non-Hispanic white, Non-Hispanic black and other Hispanic , andAsian where the numbers were possibly great enough to determine differences?
IN WHAT WAYS DOES IT NOT MEET BEST PRACTICE
I believe that this study does meet best practices
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL REVISIONS THE AUTHORS SHOULD MAKEAuthors please note my remarks are based on the page numbers and line numbers of the strikeout-redline version
1. Page 2 lines 28-29 you really should specify that all the participants were taking an introductory
psychology class. Just the fact that they were taking psychology may make them a somewhat
different biased group
2.page 2 line 37 though probably not needed for the audience who will read this, I still think youshould write out MANOV A3.Page 2 line 39 I would change the word "elevations" to one more appropriate and scientific likeincreases ( elevation refers to distance or height4. Page 2 line 43 and page 7 line 39 if you mean statistically significant the it should be worded assuch( you give no p value or other evidence of statistical significance5. Is there a category of symptomatology that is more symptomatic than "Moderate" if so werethese subjects deleted from analysis line 41 begs the question; you address this in the discussionbut it is not clear here6. Page 2 line 50 shouldn't this be worded "at least one GI symptom of a severity greater thannormative levels". ''This seems more scientific7. Page 4 line 31 define IBS8. Page 5 line 28 add " of FGID" at end of sentence9. Page 5 line 31. Define ACHA all abbreviations which are not common usage need to be definedthe first time they are used. This reviewer had no idea what ACHA stood for10. Page 5 line 39. The mean and the variance need to have the same number of significantvariables thus either 22.0+\-2.8 or 22 +\- 3
11. Page 7 line 14 do you GI motility. I assume so. Best to specify
12. Page 7 line 16 too many significant figures. Change to 20.9+\- 1.5 As with the percentages
NOTE Authors from now on I will change to your clean version and use the page numbers and
line numbers on that copy starting with the section in the BACKGROUND Titled ProblemStatement: Defining Patterns of GI Symptoms in Emerging Adults on page 7 of the clean copysorry I didn't see that clean copy when I started13.page 8 lines 30-33 over what period were these participant s enrolled also the final versionneeds to mention the University14. Page 9 line 7 did you specifically ask "gender" or "sex".
15. Page 10 lines 29-45 WELL DONE!!!!!!!
16. Page 12 line 27 round up to the tenths of a percentage17. Was any attempt to look at race/ethnicity? non-Hispanic white, Non-Hispanic black and otherHispanic , and Asian where the numbers were possibly great enough to determine differences? If.It why?
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 upon publication of the manuscript. If you have already registeredat Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review and update your profile as per yoursettings and their policy. If you are not registered with Publons, you will receive an email fromthem asking you to register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your newprofile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivative metadata for the benefit ofPublons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the sensitivity of such information. Forexample, 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
NoDeclaration 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 thismanuscript, 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 hasagreed to publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribution Licenseattributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review within aspecified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewerrecommendation.
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 manu-script is accepted for publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the publishedreport have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not be published.Ifyou are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the editorial office before completingthe review.If you wish, you can include your name in your published report. Please note you mustdecide whether to include your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision wheneverprompted. 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 publish my name with my report.
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?
YesAre the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?YesIs the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?YesIs the presentation of the work clear?Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free from apparent
manipulation?
Yes
assistant