Dear Dr. Lai,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "The spatial-temporal distribution of soil-transmitted helminth infections in Guangdong Province, China: a geostatistical analysis of data derived from the three national parasitic surveys" for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic. Based on the reviews, we are likely to accept this manuscript for publication, providing that you modify the manuscript according to the review recommendations.

Three independent reviewers recommended accepting your manuscript after some revisions. Please see the comments and address the points.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 30 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email.

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to all review comments, and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Thank you again for your submission to our journal. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

jong-Yil Chai

Associate Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Mar Siles-Lucas

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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

Three independent reviewers recommended accepting your manuscript after some revisions. Please see the comments and address the points.

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following:

Methods

-Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?

Reviewer #1: Overall, I think the methods are reasonable. The only major concern I have is that when compared with Ref 29, are there any improvements in the methods, or the methods used here are exactly the same as in Ref 29 and the only difference is the input data?

Minor comments:

L80: "standardized prevalence rate" - how was it standardized?

L100: Why the infection rate (6.37%) is different from that presented on L98 (2.79%)?

L105-108: Is this true for the whole China too?

L117: Since Ref 29 was also conducted by the same research group, I suspect that you also have access to the nationwide data? Why only map Guangdong data in the current study?

L157: Could you be more specific about "according to the geographical location or natural environment" (i.e., east, middle, west? or plain and mountains?) and how many sectors there were?

L160: "thirdly, several sample units..." - How many sample units and how to determine the number of sample units for each county?

L161: "All samplings were randomized". - What do you mean here?

L175: For the land cover types, what about Grassland, village, and bare land? Are they included in "unclassified"?

Table1: The footnotes could be included as a column in the table.

L198: What do you mean by "all categorical variables are dumbed"?

L206: "Bernoulli distribution" - I think you mean "binomial distribution"? The outcome of a Bernoulli distribution is binary.

L209: "age groups k (k = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)" - What are the age ranges for each group?

L227: "less informative priors" - LESS compared with what? I think you mean weak priors or noninformative priors?

L233: Why not use continuous variables directly in the model?

L255: ps could also be written as 1 - (1-p_A)*(1 - p_r)*(1-p_h), which is easier to understand?

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: The study’s methodology was well built-up.

The objectives of the study was clearly stated with testable hypothesis.

Statistical analysis was correctly applied to support hypotheses and conclusions.

The surveys of were approved by the ethics committee, and a written consent form was obtained after oral explanation of objectives, procedures, and potential risks.

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

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?

Reviewer #1: L265: Maybe remove the commas in the number of individuals since commas are used both in the numbers and between numbers, which is confusing, or you could just remove this sentence, since the numbers are presented in table 2.

Figs S2-10: Putting the age groups as the panel title could be easier for the readers to get the differences between panels

S11 Text: Are these results based on the training or validating samples?

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: The result presented clearly following the intended plan.

The risk maps appropriately denote the regions with higher STH prevalence with calculated standard deviation.

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

Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: The conclusions drawn by the survey seem to play an essential role in implementing control programs.

The limitations of the study are clearly described.

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

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Please modify the minor points in your manuscript as mentioned below.

Lines 105 – ‘spatial targeted’ to ‘spatially targeted’ or ‘spatial-targeted.’

Lines 228 – It might be better to explain why the authors applied less informative prior distributions for Bayesian models.

Lines 398 – ‘uses’ to ‘used.’

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

Summary and General Comments

Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed.

Reviewer #1: This manuscript use environmental and socio-economic factors to interpolate the point STHs prevalence survey data in Guangzhou to a raster layer. The methods and results are well-presented and easy to follow. Although the results might be valuable for understanding the spatial distribution and its changes across time in Guangdong, there is not much novelty in the methods if it is exactly the same as in Ref 29.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: This original article is about “The spatial-temporal distribution of soil-transmitted helminth infections in Guangdong Province, China: a geostatistical analysis of data derived from the three national parasitic surveys.” The paper is well written in describing the distribution of STH infections in Guandong Province. The study’s methodology was well built-up, and the map drawn by the survey seems to play an essential role in implementing control programs.

There are some suggestions for authors,

1. If the survey data are not available, sharing R-codes with the public by data repositories like GitHub will be a good alternative.

2. How about presenting the ‘probability prevalence exceeds threshold map’? The threshold can impose the overall prevalence of China or the Province, indicating the regions require control programs in priority.

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

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: No

Reviewer #3: No

Figure 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. 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 us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

References

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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: STH spatial Kenya.pdf

Dear Dr. Lai,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'The spatial-temporal distribution of soil-transmitted helminth infections in Guangdong Province, China: a geostatistical analysis of data derived from the three national parasitic surveys' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

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

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.

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Best regards,

Jong-Yil Chai

Associate Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Mar Siles-Lucas

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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

Your revised manuscript has been reviewed by three reviewers. All of them recommended accepting it, and I concur. Thank you for your kind cooperation.

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following:

Methods

-Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: The study design was appropriate to describe the spatio-temporal distribution of STH infections in Guangdong

Province.

Explanatory analyses clearly articulated the target population, and the population was approprate for the hypothesis being tested.

The study included a total of 90931 individuals and 205 survey areas. The sample size seems to be sufficient to address the hypothesis being tested.

The authors used Bayesian method to estimate posterior inference, and handle uncertainty of the data, which seems appropriate in the setting of the study.

**********

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: The authors showed the results of bayesian variable selection, which are consistent with previous studies with similar environmental settings.

The risk maps of estimated infection prevalence clearly presents the regions which require control programs in priority.

**********

Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: The conclusion is appropriate that the study can provide valuable information to assist control and prevention strategies for the province.

**********

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

Summary and General Comments

Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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: No

Reviewer #3: No