Irruption of Network Analysis to Explain Dietary, Psychological and Nutritional Patterns and Metabolic Health Status in Metabolically Healthy and Unhealthy Overweight and Obese University Students: Ecuadorian Case

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for submitting to Nutrients. Gaussian graph was applied. However, there seems to be no new facts that were not revealed in previous studies. The difference between MHO and MUO is a natural result (table 2). Although Figures 1 and 2 are new forms of figures, I do not know what they mean.

abstract

Lines 11-14: This is the background of the study. However, the main words related to the subject of this study are not mentioned here even once (e.g., Dietary, Psychological and Nutritional Patterns and Metabolic Health Status). Please include the purpose of the study that the author intended.

The research method is mentioned, but the results and conclusions are too little. I hope that the author sufficiently explains what he wants to argue through this study. Also, the last sentence is too broad. Please write specifically about what part of public health policy he hopes will be helpful based on the results of this study.

Introduction

The introduction lacks systematicity and logic.

I have a question for the author. Is the purpose of this study a new analysis method? Or is it obesity and metabolism? The beginning of the introduction should contain more important content. If the purpose is a new analysis method, it should be rewritten entirely. And the direction of this study should focus on statistics and analytics. If it is obesity and metabolism, I recommend the following:

“The importance of obesity and metabolism / Current phenomenon in Ecuador / Various research trends and results / However, previous studies have had limitations in analysis / Therefore, there is a need for a new analysis method.”

Lines 57-90: I recommend moving this part to the beginning of the introduction.

Reduce the current length of the introduction by about 30%.

The author’s research purpose is unclear. Is the purpose of this study a “multidisciplinary analysis”?

Research Methods

Divide into several sections.

(e.g. 2.1. Design and Participants / 2.2. Data Acquisition / 2.3. Obesity and Metabolism / 2.4. Data Analysis)

Specifically, organize the Data Analysis section to provide statistical descriptions. This will help you organize your work.

Line 126: Statistical descriptions should be in the “Data Analysis” section.

Results

Table 1

Is Id. absolutely necessary?

W. should have 3 decimal places.

Is it meaningful to show both mean and median?

Conclusion

The conclusion is too long. Please concisely state what the researcher wants to say based on the results of more research.

Lines 873-882: This part cannot be concluded.

Appendix table should be supplementary data. Please delete it from the main text.

Discussion

There should be sufficient explanation and basis to convince you of the limitations of the existing analysis.

It should be revealed what advantages this analysis method has and how it is superior to the existing analysis.

In addition, studies that have conducted similar analyses should be cited to convince you of their academic superiority.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, I respectfully enclose herewith the reply to the observations made.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

-        Introduction: There are many very short paragraphs. Please elaborate in longer but fewer paragraphs.

-        Introduction: The background starts with information about the complexity of data and graphical models. I suggest to start with the relevance of the topic and then explain the challenges in data analysis.

-        Line 126: “Cross-sectional” is mentioned twice.

-        Results: Why did you distinguish the blood pressure in such small groups? It can also be treated as a continuous variable.

-        The results with the network are too detailed. I do not see the benefit for the reader. Can it be described more concise? You can add single network graphs in the appendix.

-        I am missing a limitations section.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, I respectfully enclose herewith the reply to the observations made.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I do not have any comment. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The quality of the manuscript has improved. I do have no additional comments.

However, "cross-sectional" is still mentioned twice in line 113.