Morphometric evaluation of the anterior cranial fossa during the prenatal stage in humans and its clinical implications

Wojciech Derkowski; Alicja Kędzia; Krzysztof Dudek; Michał Glonek

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0309184

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 10, 2024
16 Sep 2024 Decision Letter - Ryota Tamura, Editor PONE-D-24-32641Morphometric evaluation of the anterior cranial fossa during the prenatal stage in humans and its clinical implications.PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Derkowski, 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 submit your revised manuscript by Oct 31 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 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, Ryota Tamura 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. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript 3. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. Additional Editor Comments : Major revision is needed. [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: Yes ****** 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: This is an interesting, multi-centre anatomical study using unique research material. Due to the uniqueness of the material and the high relevance of the research problem, the work is worthy of evaluation and analysis by receivers. Regarding the details of the work ABSTRACT: The abstract provides a detailed and thorough summary of the study, showcasing the use of innovative techniques and the clinical relevance of the findings. However, it would benefit from greater conciseness, clearer structure, and a more explicit presentation of the hypothesis and conclusions. Reducing some of the technical details and focusing on the most significant results and their implications would make the abstract more impactful and accessible. Strengths: 1. Comprehensive Scope: 2. Innovative Techniques: 3. Clear Objectives and Methodology: 4. Clinical Relevance: 5. Detailed Findings: Areas for Improvement: 1. Overly Detailed 2. Lack of Hypothesis or Research Question: 3. Technical Jargon: 4. Structure and Flow: 5. Conclusion and Implications: The recommended modification of the abstract will make the paper more visible and increase the chances of the authors' results being of interest to the scientific world. The perfect abstract is the key to success. Introduction The introduction is thorough and provides a strong foundation for the research study, particularly in its detailed exploration of relevant congenital defects and developmental processes. However, it would benefit from some condensation and reorganization to enhance clarity and readability. My Recommendation: Make it shorter! Additionally, simplifying some of the technical language could make the introduction more accessible to a broader audience without losing its scientific rigor. Methods: “material characteristics” I looked at the material with great interest. It came from a collection deposited in the anatomical unit . It would be useful to anonymise the data more: not to give the exact name of the unit and just describe it as a ‘local anatomical museum’. I would also see more detailed information about this collection. I typed myself in pubmed with the keyword: ‘anatomical collections wroclaw’ and found 2-3 very good quality papers that refer to anatomical collections in wroclaw. I would recommend referring to these works. Describe this material and include papers confirming the quality of the material published in recent years, avoiding self-citation. The most interesting papers are those of Domanski J et al. Other aspects of the methodology are very interesting and should arouse the interest of the readers. In the results, I particularly like subsection 3. Relating observations related to skull growth to the drop shape reservoir is a very interesting way of analysing the data. Attempts to explain the mechanistic way in which the human skull develops are very interesting. I only have a formal question whether some of the sentences placed in this subsection should not be placed in the discussion chapter. Discussion: I would love to see a more detailed analysis for these sentences: In contrast, the smaller wings themselves form an angle in space without lying in the horizontal plane. Previous studies suggest that the size of this angle remains unchanged during fetal development23. However, both the Korean authors' study and others27 28 29 30 were conducted using measurements on radiographs of fetal skulls, which affected their accuracy. Modifications of these methods have included studies using computed tomography31 32 or magnetic resonance imaging of formalin-fixed fetal cadavers33. It would be interesting, but I do not know whether it would be possible to assess whether the observed fetuses individually have any abnormalities of cranial growth, which could theoretically lead sequentially to the clinical pathologies described in the discussion. This part of the discussion concerning the clinical elements related to the anatomical analysis carried out needs to be somewhat revised and made more attractive. Reviewer #2: Dear Authors Thank you very much for submitting this highly interesting manuscript. In their manuscript, the authors describe a morphometric study of the neurocranium of 77 human foetus specimens. A dissection of the fixed skulls and a surface scan using a video camera and image analysis software were performed. The following measurements were taken: Measurement features characterising the fetus, obtained from anthropometric measurements. Distances between specified measurement points in the anterior cranial fossa and other cranial fossae, obtained using computer image analysis programs. Derived features from measured distances, particularly values of specified angles characterising skull geometry. The authors were able to show the different temporal growth stages of the anterior cranial fossa, the differences in sex-dependent development and the relationship to symmetry in body development. Furthermore, the group of authors assumes that their results can be used to better explain and possibly predict congenital malformations. They see clinical relevance with regard to the effects of surgical interventions in the area of the anterior skull base. Overall, this is a clearly structured manuscript. The objectives are clearly formulated and the methodology is described comprehensively and comprehensibly. The results are adequately documented and supported and illustrated by meaningful images. The discussion is comprehensive and takes into account the current literature. It would be desirable to present an even clearer reference to clinical relevance, as this is a very theoretical anatomical question. What concrete benefits does the clinician derive from these results? ****** 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: Kai Johannes Lorenz ******** [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.0309184.r001
Revision 1
19 Oct 2024 Author Response Opole, October 14, 2024 Dear Reviewers, We would like to thank you very much for the work you put into reading our manuscript and for your very valuable comments that helped us improve it. Here are the answers to each point of the each review. Reviewer #1: "ABSTRACT: The abstract provides a detailed and thorough summary of the study, showcasing the use of innovative techniques and the clinical relevance of the findings. However, it would benefit from greater conciseness, clearer structure, and a more explicit presentation of the hypothesis and conclusions." We have improved the structure of the abstract. Presentation of the hypothesis now is in its lines 3-6 and conclusions in lines 14-20. Because of point 5 beneath we decided maintain the lines 16-20. "Reducing some of the technical details and focusing on the most significant results and their implications would make the abstract more impactful and accessible." We have reduced significantly technical details in the abstract. "Strengths: 1. Comprehensive Scope: 2. Innovative Techniques: 3. Clear Objectives and Methodology: 4. Clinical Relevance: 5. Detailed Findings" We tried to maintain these points in the new version, so we decided maintain the lines 16-20. "Areas for Improvement: 1. Overly Detailed" We have reduced significantly technical details in the abstract. "2. Lack of Hypothesis or Research Question" Presentation of the hypothesis now is in its lines 3-6. "3. Technical Jargon" We have reduced significantly technical jargon. "4. Structure and Flow" We have improved the structure and flow of the abstract. "5. Conclusion and Implications" Conclusions is now in lines 14-20. Because of point 5 above we decided maintain the lines 16-20. "Introduction The introduction is thorough and provides a strong foundation for the research study, particularly in its detailed exploration of relevant congenital defects and developmental processes. However, it would benefit from some condensation and reorganization to enhance clarity and readability." We have shortened and reorganized significant parts of the introduction to make it more clear and legible. "My Recommendation: Make it shorter! Additionally, simplifying some of the technical language could make the introduction more accessible to a broader audience without losing its scientific rigor." We have reduced significantly technical language and shortened whole introduction without, we believe, losing its scientific rigor. "Methods: “material characteristics” I looked at the material with great interest. It came from a collection deposited in the anatomical unit. It would be useful to anonymise the data more: not to give the exact name of the unit and just describe it as a ‘local anatomical museum’." We changed the name of the unit to ‘local anatomical museum’. "I would also see more detailed information about this collection. I typed myself in pubmed with the keyword: ‘anatomical collections wroclaw’ and found 2-3 very good quality papers that refer to anatomical collections in wroclaw. I would recommend referring to these works. Describe this material and include papers confirming the quality of the material published in recent years, avoiding self-citation. The most interesting papers are those of Domanski J et al." We have cited these articles (references 24 and 25): Domański J, Domagala Z, Simmons JE, Wanat M. Terra Incognita in anatomical museology - A literature review from the perspective of evidence-based care. Ann Anat. 2023 Jan;245:152013. doi: 10.1016/j.aanat.2022.152013. Epub 2022 Oct 17. PMID: 36257492. Domański J, Janczura A, Wanat M, Wiglusz K, Grajzer M, Simmons JE, Domagała Z, Szepietowski JC. Preservation fluids of heritage anatomical specimens - a challenge for modern science. Studies of the origin, composition and microbiological contamination of old museum collections. J Anat. 2023 Jul;243(1):148-166. doi: 10.1111/joa.13854. Epub 2023 Apr 6. PMID: 37024147; PMCID: PMC10273345. "Other aspects of the methodology are very interesting and should arouse the interest of the readers." We agree that research on the collection of fetuses from the Wrocław Department of Anatomy is very interesting, as our Department has been operating for over 100 years. However, it is not possible for us to discuss them even briefly - there are simply a huge number of these preparations. Our own photographic documentation from the autopsies of 77 fetuses alone includes over 30,000 photos (or rather frames from autopsy films, loaded into a computer and digitized). Therefore, we only allowed ourselves a mention at the beginning of the discussion chapter, with appropriate citations of articles on this topic. "In the results, I particularly like subsection 3. Relating observations related to skull growth to the drop shape reservoir is a very interesting way of analysing the data. Attempts to explain the mechanistic way in which the human skull develops are very interesting. I only have a formal question whether some of the sentences placed in this subsection should not be placed in the discussion chapter." We moved some of the sentences on human skull mechanics to the discussion chapter. "Discussion: I would love to see a more detailed analysis for these sentences: In contrast, the smaller wings themselves form an angle in space without lying in the horizontal plane. Previous studies suggest that the size of this angle remains unchanged during fetal development23. However, both the Korean authors' study and others27 28 29 30 were conducted using measurements on radiographs of fetal skulls, which affected their accuracy. Modifications of these methods have included studies using computed tomography31 32 or magnetic resonance imaging of formalin-fixed fetal cadavers33." We added short explanation in the end of 3rd paragraph of the discussion chapter. "It would be interesting, but I do not know whether it would be possible to assess whether the observed fetuses individually have any abnormalities of cranial growth, which could theoretically lead sequentially to the clinical pathologies described in the discussion." In the next paragraph, beneath fig.21 we described abnormalities leading to clinical pathologies from our study (we published it earlier - reference 45). "This part of the discussion concerning the clinical elements related to the anatomical analysis carried out needs to be somewhat revised and made more attractive." We changed some parts of the discussion for the new ones- especially last two paragraphs. Reviewer #2: "In their manuscript, the authors describe a morphometric study of the neurocranium of 77 human foetus specimens. A dissection of the fixed skulls and a surface scan using a video camera and image analysis software were performed. The following measurements were taken: Measurement features characterising the fetus, obtained from anthropometric measurements. Distances between specified measurement points in the anterior cranial fossa and other cranial fossae, obtained using computer image analysis programs. Derived features from measured distances, particularly values of specified angles characterising skull geometry. The authors were able to show the different temporal growth stages of the anterior cranial fossa, the differences in sex-dependent development and the relationship to symmetry in body development. Furthermore, the group of authors assumes that their results can be used to better explain and possibly predict congenital malformations. They see clinical relevance with regard to the effects of surgical interventions in the area of the anterior skull base. Overall, this is a clearly structured manuscript. The objectives are clearly formulated and the methodology is described comprehensively and comprehensibly. The results are adequately documented and supported and illustrated by meaningful images. The discussion is comprehensive and takes into account the current literature. It would be desirable to present an even clearer reference to clinical relevance, as this is a very theoretical anatomical question. What concrete benefits does the clinician derive from these results?" We have changed the last two paragraphs of the discussion to show the specific benefits that patients have already gained and may gain in the future from thoroughly understanding and describing in detail the development of the human anterior cranial fossa during the fetal period. We hope that the corrections we have made will be sufficient. Kind regards Wojciech Derkowski Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309184.r002
4 Nov 2024 Decision Letter - Ryota Tamura, Editor Morphometric evaluation of the anterior cranial fossa during the prenatal stage in humans and its clinical implications. PONE-D-24-32641R1 Dear Dr. Derkowski, 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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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, Ryota Tamura Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): 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: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 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: Yes ****** 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: 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 fully satisfied with your very good quality answers! In my opinion that paper meets with PLOS ONE criteria for good publication! Reviewer #2: Dear Authors, alls remarks had been taken to account, thanks alot for your work. It is a very technical paper focused on a very specific topic, but it gives , for some specialist, some new informations. ****** 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: Kai Johannes Lorenz ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309184.r003
Formally Accepted
8 Nov 2024 Acceptance Letter - Ryota Tamura, Editor PONE-D-24-32641R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Derkowski, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, 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 customercare@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 Dr. Ryota Tamura Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309184.r004

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 .