PCSY-D-24-00049

Long-range temporal correlation development in resting-state fMRI signal in preterm infants: scanned shortly after birth and at term-equivalent age

PLOS Complex Systems

Dear Dr. Weber,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Complex Systems. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Complex Systems'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 submit your revised manuscript within 60 days Aug 19 2024 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 complexsystems@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pcsy/ 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 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.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Pietro Hiram Guzzi

Section Editor

PLOS Complex Systems

Journal Requirements:

1. We ask that a manuscript source file is provided at Revision. Please upload your manuscript file as a .doc, .docx, .rtf or .tex.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Complex Systems’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn 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 (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. 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: Yes

--------------------

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Complex Systems 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: SPECIFIC COMMENTS

The paper is a an interesting paper that is about the Long-range temporal correlation development in resting-state fMRI signal in preterm infants. I like the study very much but I would have hoped for some suggestions about to control the outocomes that are the subject of the study.

Please see other points below.

GENERAL COMMENTS:

(1) The processes (Hurst exponent of fMRI) you investigate are largely non-linear. Non-linear models such as Convergent Cross Mapping or others (see Sugihara et al 2012, and Li and Convertino et al. 2021 for instance) can account for variable non-linear interactions (vs. simple correlation) even without considering time delays). These models are also able to capture spatial networks variability (such as brain networks on fMRI) to understand spatial dependencies that are important for the variable considered. I am not sure how your study can consider these non-linearities but it would be nice to see these networks and relate those to HE.

(2) To address the model/data Uncertainty-Sensitivity coupling, global sensitivity and uncertainty analysis (GSUA) should be done to identify key determinants of model/data indicator variability and universal determinants across geographies. The authors do not quite perform even a one-factor-at-a-time sensitivity analysis and then they are not capturing the variables' linear and non-linear interactions. See Pianosi et al. (2016) for an extensive discussion about this topic and how data should be used for GSUA using a simple variance-based approach. It is essentially looking into how much variability is contained in inputs for the variability of outputs (or even better into the co-predictability versus causality based on probability distribution functions, i.e. pdfs). This is important to identify the stability and source of uncertainty considering probability, noise around fitted patterns and deep uncertainty.

(3) How indicators/predicted variables (i.e. network dependent stability or HE) change over space and time is critical to understand site-/time-specific and universal (system invariant) shifts bure more importantly the shape of stress-response patterns. This can be related to how ecohydrology is shaped and this can be taken into account by considering the brain network that imposes physical constraints on ecosystems. Thus, indicator distributions (e.g., HE over the brain) can be analyzed as a function of the predictands. The stability of patterns (e.g. HE or functional patterns) over predictors' gradients is important to quantify because that can define potential stable states over which the predictors (networks and their flows) are changing.

RECOMMENDATION:

I suggest accepting the paper after Moderate or Major Revisions. The paper is interesting but I think it can be improved considering the above element to address more carefully the systemic network dependencies and/or HE. Also, the topic-related novelty should be mentioned.

REFERENCES:

Inferring ecosystem networks as information flows, Sci Rep

Jie Li & Matteo Convertino, 2021

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-86476-9

Pianosi et al. (2016)

Sensitivity analysis of environmental models: A systematic review with practical workflow

Environmental Modelling & Software

Volume 79, May 2016, Pages 214-232

Packages for GSUA

- https://www.safetoolbox.info/info-and-documentation/

Sugihara G et al (2012)

Detecting Causality in Complex Ecosystems

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1227079

Reviewer #2: This is a very good study, and the findings may be relevant to neurosciences. Please improve Figure 3, designating A. B, C, and D to each individual plots. CIs given in colour are very visible. It is very interesting to note the that neural networks in preterm infants brains move from "disorder" to "order" in some regions. This is a significant result, qualitatively speaking, for physicists, and has the potential to understand the role of randomness in bringing about the order. Figure 7 also is a significant result that should be followed through with more experiments using machine learning techniques. This is beyond the scope of this study.

--------------------

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.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

--------------------

[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.

Long-range temporal correlation development in resting-state fMRI signal in preterm infants: scanned shortly after birth and at term-equivalent age

PCSY-D-24-00049R1

Dear Dr. Weber,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Long-range temporal correlation development in resting-state fMRI signal in preterm infants: scanned shortly after birth and at term-equivalent age' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Complex Systems.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow-up email from a member of our team. 

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

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 complexsystems@plos.org.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Complex Systems.

Best regards,

Kosmas Kosmidis, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS Complex Systems

***********************************************************

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

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

**********

2. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Complex Systems's publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. 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

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Complex Systems 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

**********

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: I am happy about all modifications made by the authors. The paper can certainly be accepted for publication. This is a great contribution!

**********

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.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********