Determining the timing of pubertal onset via a multicohort analysis of growth

Essi Syrjälä; Harri Niinikoski; Helena E. Virtanen; Jorma Ilonen; Mikael Knip; Nina Hutri-Kähönen; Katja Pahkala; Olli T. Raitakari; Wiwat Rodprasert; Jorma Toppari; Suvi M. Virtanen; Riitta Veijola; Jaakko Peltonen; Jaakko Nevalainen

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0260137

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 20, 2021
13 Sep 2021 Decision Letter - Sajid Bashir Soofi, Editor PONE-D-21-15712Determining the timing of pubertal onset via a multicohort analysis of growth PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Essi Syrjälä, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. ============================== This is professionally written article, but it needs minor revision following review by subject's reviewers. The review comments can be found at the end of this email, together with any comments from the Editorial Office regarding formatting changes or additional information required to meet the journal’s policies at this time. Please note that your revision may be subject to further review and that this initial decision does not guarantee acceptance. I am sorry that we cannot be more positive on this occasion but hope that you appreciate the reasons for this decision. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by October 15, 2021. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Prof Sajid Soofi Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf. 2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. 4. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): Please review the comments of reviewers and revise the paper. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The authors present SITAR analysis of growth relative to pubertal analysis using three Finnish cohort studies—the Type 1 Diabetes Prediction and Prevention (DIPP) Study, the Special Turku Coronary Risk Factor Intervention Project (STRIP), and the Boy cohort. The authors conclude that their novel modeling approach provides an opportunity to evaluate Tanner breast/genital stage–based pubertal onset timing in cohort studies including longitudinal data on growth but lacking pubertal follow-up. The study represents an important contribution to puberty research but the authors may have overstated the importance of their findings on line 458 and 159 as 'immediate clinical relevance and applicability'. Replication of these results is other dataset is warranted before such a generalization can be made. Perhaps they could suggest that this method is promising and with replication in other cohorts ... Reviewer #2: Good manuscript takes up available data and utilizes models to draw conclusions well written but if the models used like SITAR can be explained a bit it would be good for the average reader Also the data has not been released due to privacy restrictions can that be explained more ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes:** Khadija Nuzhat Humayun [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260137.r001
Revision 1
24 Sep 2021 Author Response Response to Reviewers Reviewer #1: The authors present SITAR analysis of growth relative to pubertal analysis using three Finnish cohort studies—the Type 1 Diabetes Prediction and Prevention (DIPP) Study, the Special Turku Coronary Risk Factor Intervention Project (STRIP), and the Boy cohort. The authors conclude that their novel modeling approach provides an opportunity to evaluate Tanner breast/genital stage–based pubertal onset timing in cohort studies including longitudinal data on growth but lacking pubertal follow-up. The study represents an important contribution to puberty research but the authors may have overstated the importance of their findings on line 458 and 459 as 'immediate clinical relevance and applicability'. Replication of these results is other dataset is warranted before such a generalization can be made. Perhaps they could suggest that this method is promising and with replication in other cohorts ... Thank you for the essential remark. We changed the sentence on lines 477-479 (in a manuscript with tracked changes) as “The determination of pubertal onset timing based on pubertal growth markers is promising method to facilitate the determination of the timing in adolescent cohort studies, and with replication in other cohorts this may have immediate clinical relevance and applicability.” Reviewer #2: Good manuscript takes up available data and utilizes models to draw conclusions well written but if the models used like SITAR can be explained a bit it would be good for the average reader. Also the data has not been released due to privacy restrictions can that be explained more. Thank you for the relevant comment. We have now clarified the SITAR modeling in the “First stage: Super-Imposition by Translation And Rotation (SITAR) growth curve model” section. We also added a reference to the Supporting S1 File in the end of the SITAR model section and in the end of the “Second stage: Time-to-pubertal onset model” section. S1 File includes the full technical details of the modeling. We also revised our Data Availability statement as “The dataset supporting the conclusions of this article were obtained from the DIPP, STRIP and Boy cohort studies. The dataset comprises health related participant data and their use is therefore restricted under the regulations on professional secrecy (Act on the Openness of Government Activities, 612/1999) and on sensitive personal data (Personal Data Act, 523/1999, implementing the EU data protection directive 95/46/EC). Due to these legal restrictions, the data from this study cannot be stored in public repositories or otherwise made publicly available. However, data access may be permitted on a case by case basis upon request only. Data sharing outside the research groups is done in collaboration with DIPP, STRIP and Boy cohort groups and requires a group-specific data transfer agreements (DTA). Investigators can submit an expression of interest to the chairman of the DIPP steering committee (Prof Riitta Veijola, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland. Email: riitta.veijola@oulu.fi), to the chairman of the STRIP steering group (Prof Olli Raitakari, University of Turku, Turku, Finland. Email: olli.raitakari@utu.fi) and to the chairman of the Boy cohort steering group (Prof Jorma Toppari, University of Turku, Turku, Finland. Email: jorma.toppari@utu.fi).”. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260137.r002
15 Oct 2021 Decision Letter - Sajid Bashir Soofi, Editor PONE-D-21-15712R1Determining the timing of pubertal onset via a multicohort analysis of growthPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Essi Syrjälä Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. ============================== Please address minor comments from one of the reviewers ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 29 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Prof Sajid Bashir Soofi Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments: Please address the blow comments by one of the reviewers "The authors present SITAR analysis of growth relative to pubertal analysis using three Finnish cohort studies—the Type 1 Diabetes Prediction and Prevention (DIPP) Study, the Special Turku Coronary Risk Factor Intervention Project (STRIP), and the Boy cohort. The authors conclude that their novel modeling approach provides an opportunity to evaluate Tanner breast/genital stage–based pubertal onset timing in cohort studies including longitudinal data on growth but lacking pubertal follow-up. The study represents an important contribution to puberty research, but the authors may have overstated the importance of their findings on line 458 and 159 as 'immediate clinical relevance and applicability'. Replication of these results is other dataset is warranted before such a generalization can be made. Perhaps they could suggest that this method is promising and with replication in other cohorts" [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The additional revisions made by the authors have further improved the paper, and I believe that it is acceptable for publication. Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes:** Khadija Nuzhat Humayun [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260137.r003
Revision 2
18 Oct 2021 Author Response Reviewer comment: The authors present SITAR analysis of growth relative to pubertal analysis using three Finnish cohort studies—the Type 1 Diabetes Prediction and Prevention (DIPP) Study, the Special Turku Coronary Risk Factor Intervention Project (STRIP), and the Boy cohort. The authors conclude that their novel modeling approach provides an opportunity to evaluate Tanner breast/genital stage–based pubertal onset timing in cohort studies including longitudinal data on growth but lacking pubertal follow-up. The study represents an important contribution to puberty research but the authors may have overstated the importance of their findings on line 458 and 459 as 'immediate clinical relevance and applicability'. Replication of these results is other dataset is warranted before such a generalization can be made. Perhaps they could suggest that this method is promising and with replication in other cohorts ... Answer: Thank you for bringing this up again. We have now re-changed the sentence on lines 477-480 (in a manuscript with tracked changes) as “The determination of pubertal onset timing based on pubertal growth markers is promising method and with replication in other cohorts it could facilitate the determination of the timing in adolescent cohort studies more generally.” Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260137.r004
4 Nov 2021 Decision Letter - Sajid Bashir Soofi, Editor Determining the timing of pubertal onset via a multicohort analysis of growth PONE-D-21-15712R2 Dear Dr. Essi Syriala We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter, and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up to date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Prof Sajid Soofi Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260137.r005
Formally Accepted
9 Nov 2021 Acceptance Letter - Sajid Bashir Soofi, Editor PONE-D-21-15712R2 Determining the timing of pubertal onset via a multicohort analysis of growth Dear Dr. Syrjälä: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Professor Sajid Bashir Soofi Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260137.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .