A Metabolomic Severity Score for Airflow Obstruction and Emphysema
, Wassim W. Labaki 2, Katherine A. Pratte 3, Andrew Hill 3, Matthew Moll 4,5, Annette T. Hastie 6, Stephen P. Peters 7, Andrew Gregory 5, Victor E. Ortega 8, Dawn DeMeo 4,5, Michael H. Cho 4,5, Surya P. Bhatt 9, J. Michael Wells 10, Igor Barjaktarevic 11, Kathleen A. Stringer 2,12, Alejandro Comellas 13, Wanda O’Neal 14, Katerina Kechris 1 and Russell P. Bowler 3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper suggests the metSS using adaLASSO . It is the metabolite severity score.
Various analysis results related to this were shown. It was a very interesting subject and showed good research results.
Reviewer 2 Report
An interesting contribution. The design is justifiable, the rationale is clear, the Introduction is useful. Materials and methods are well described. Data and results are clearly provided. The interpretations and implications are well founded.
Reviewer 3 Report
This is an interesting and quite important paper as it opens many new questions in the field and offers new tools to explore the pathophysiology and progression of the COPD. The conclusion are in line with the presented data. I recommend that the manuscript is published in it's current form.
What is the main question addressed by the research? Can we add metabolomic fingerprint in a shape of a simple index to the assess the COPD phenotype.
Is it relevant and interesting? This question is relevant for the COPD research and it is interesting from the standpoint of readers.
How original is the topic? The topic is original as it is a new approach in including metabolic profile into the assessment of COPD.
What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material? It adds integration to the approach of whole metabolome assessment or single metabolite assessment as biomarkers.
Is the paper well written? The paper is well written, easy to read and understand the methodology used.
Is the text clear and easy to read? Yes.
Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? The conclusions are consistent with the evidence.
Do they address the main question posed? And they address the main question posed by the authors.
