Relationship of sleep and activity, assessed via a wristwatch-type pulsimeter with an accelerometer, with health status in community-dwelling older adults: A preliminary study

Akiyo Sasaki-Otomaru; Kyoko Saito; Kotaro Yamasue; Osamu Tochikubo; Yuka Kanoya

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0317524

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 22, 2024
22 Jul 2024 Author Response https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317524.r001
2 Oct 2024 Decision Letter - Hidetaka Hamasaki, Editor PONE-D-24-27156Relationship of sleep and activity, assessed via a wrist-watch-type pulsimeter with an accelerometer, with health status in community-dwelling older adults: A preliminary studyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Sasaki-Otomaru, 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. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR: ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 16 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, Hidetaka Hamasaki 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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: This work was supported by the 31st Foundation for Total Health Promotion and the Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B), under Grant number. 17K17508 (KAKENHI). Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."" If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. In the online submission form, you indicated that the dataset generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly due to ethical considerations. The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval. 4. 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. [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: Partly ******** 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: The purpose of this descriptive study was to examine the relationship between sleep and activity data and health status among older adults. It appears that this research fills some gaps in the literature. The introduction concluded with an explicit purpose statement. The methods are complete except I would like you to find and use a scale to qualify the magnitude of associations. Someone could replicate this study based on the methods section. The results, discussion, and conclusion are consistent with the primary purpose. However, again, I would like to see more in the discussion about the limits of correlation analyses. Specific comments are made in the pdf. Reviewer #2: The title "Association of home blood pressure with sleep and physical and mental activity, assessed via a wristwatch-type pulsimeter with accelerometer in adults" is not compatible whith the content of this manuscript. How the sample size was calculated? What is the main research problem and what are the hypotheses? Dependent and independent variables need to be established. Why the authors did not collect information on the nutritional status, which could notably influence frailty. In male participants, physical activity duration correlated positively with bodily pain. Could the authors explain that? Multilinear regression analyses were conducted to explore the associations between demographic factors and body-movement duration. Why the autors chose so kind of variables for this analises? The results showed that body movement duration decreased in correlation with the higher risk of frailty in older adults after adjusting for sex. I dont understand this conclusion and it is not supraising probably. The conclusions are over-interpretation. ****** 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: 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-24-27156_reviewer_reviewer comments.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317524.r002
Revision 1
10 Dec 2024 Author Response Dear Dr. Hidetaka Hamasaki, Thank you for the thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript, “Relationship of sleep and activity, assessed via a wristwatch-type pulsimeter with an accelerometer, with health status in community-dwelling older adults: A preliminary study.” We have addressed the reviewer’s comments, and the revised sections are highlighted in yellow. We hereby resubmit our manuscript for a secondary evaluation. Thank you again for considering our paper. Sincerely, Akiyo SASAKI-OTOMRU Journal 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 Response Thank you for your valuable comment. We have revised our manuscript to comply with PLoS ONE’s style requirements, including to the title page, reference format, and placement of Table 2. 2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: This work was supported by the 31st Foundation for Total Health Promotion and the Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B), under Grant number. 17K17508 (KAKENHI). Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."" If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. Response Thank you for your insightful comment. In our study, the funders had no role. We have stated in our cover letter: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." 3. In the online submission form, you indicated that the dataset generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly due to ethical considerations. The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval. Response Thank you for your perceptive comment. This study has sensitive participant information and cannot be released publicly due to ethical and legal restrictions imposed by the Ethical Committee of Yokohama City University School of Medicine. All data supporting the findings of this study are available upon reasonable request to the Department of Medical Education (inamorim@yokohama-cu.ac.jp), Yokohama City University School of Medicine. This information is also described in the online submission form. 4. 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.　 Response Thank you for your important comment. We have replaced the reference to Jakicic et al. (2016) with Zhou et al. (2020) for reference number 12. Additionally, we have corrected the DOI for reference number 24, which is now listed as number 25 in the revised manuscript. We have revised males and females to men and women in Table 1. Furthermore, we have used “deep-sleep duration” and “body-movement duration” with hyphen to maintain consistency. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer #1: Please provide a scale that describes the relative strength of correlation. Response Thank you for your meaningful comment. We have added the relative strength of correlation in the Statistical analysis section (lines 137-139). Following the addition of reference number 22 in the revised manuscript, the subsequent reference numbers have been updated accordingly. Some items in the table are not aligned correctly which may simply be a function of the size of the table. Response Thank you for pointing this out. We have corrected the row formatting in Table 1. As noted earlier you have some statistically significant correlations that may not be that clinically meaningful. Response Thank you for your thoughtful comment. We have added the interpretation of correlations in the Results section (lines 155-163).　 “Strongest” but still may not be all that meaningful clinically. Response Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We have revised the relevant part in the Results section (lines 177-179). Prior to restarting the purpose of the study please also restate the main problem you are attempting to address and the need for this study Response We appreciate your attention to this matter. We have added the main problem and our hypothesis at the beginning of the Discussion section (lines 186-187) This statement “decreased in correlation” is too general/broad/vague. Response Your meaningful comment is duly noted. We have revised the text as suggested (lines 187-188). A major methodological limitation is that correlation and regression only looks at relationships and not cause/effect Response Your insightful comment is recognized. We have revised the limitations paragraph in the Discussion section in response to your comment (lines 233-241). Reviewer #2: The title "Association of home blood pressure with sleep and physical and mental activity, assessed via a wristwatch-type pulsimeter with accelerometer in adults" is not compatible whith the content of this manuscript. Response Thank you for highlighting the title. Our previous research focused on blood pressure; however, the present manuscript examines the relationship between sleep and activity data, assessed using a wristwatch, and health status. Therefore, we have titled it: “Relationship of sleep and activity, assessed via a wristwatch-type pulsimeter with accelerometer, with health status in community-dwelling older adults: A preliminary study.” How the sample size was calculated? Response Your insightful comment is appreciated. We have added an explanation of the power analysis for sample size calculation in the Discussion section (lines 235-238). What is the main research problem and what are the hypotheses? Dependent and independent variables need to be established. Response We appreciate your valuable question. To examine the nature of sleep-activity patterns in the older population, we utilized PS as the dependent variable. Independent variables were selected based on an extensive body of literature exploring factors influencing sleep and activity. We have added our hypothesis in the Introduction section (lines 69-71). Why the authors did not collect information on the nutritional status, which could notably influence frailty. Response We agree with your suggestion and have already included this information in the limitations section (lines 242-243). At the beginning of the study, we assessed nutritional status using the BDHQ (Brief-Type Self-Administered Diet History Questionnaire). However, because of the substantial burden of the BDHQ’s 80-item questionnaire on participants, and given that initial results indicated good nutritional status, we decided to discontinue its use. In male participants, physical activity duration correlated positively with bodily pain. Could the authors explain that? Response We appreciate your meaningful question. A higher bodily pain score indicates that activity is not interrupted by pain; therefore, we believe our results are consistent. Multilinear regression analyses were conducted to explore the associations between demographic factors and body-movement duration. Why the autors chose so kind of variables for this analises? Response You have raised an important question. Because of the limited number of subjects, we selected five to six variables. Based on previous research, we chose variables expected to be associated with activity duration. Therefore, we selected BMI, hypertension, PSQI, and KCL as predictor variables, with age and gender as covariates. These points have been added (lines 176-177). The results showed that body movement duration decreased in correlation with the higher risk of frailty in older adults after adjusting for sex. I dont understand this conclusion and it is not supraising probably. The conclusions are over-interpretation. Response Thank you for pointing this out. By clearly stating our hypothesis and revising the limitations, we believe our manuscript is now more understandable. In addition, we have revised the Conclusions section to avoid over-interpretation (lines 248-249). We hope you understand our rationale for these decisions. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: renamed_0e7ab.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317524.r003
30 Dec 2024 Decision Letter - Hidetaka Hamasaki, Editor Relationship of sleep and activity, assessed via a wrist-watch-type pulsimeter with an accelerometer, with health status in community-dwelling older adults: A preliminary study PONE-D-24-27156R1 Dear Dr. Sasaki-Otomaru, 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, Hidetaka Hamasaki 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 ******** 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 ****** 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? 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 ****** 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 ****** 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: My earlier questions/comments/suggestions were addressed. I do not have any further questions or comments. ****** 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 ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317524.r004
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Hidetaka Hamasaki, Editor PONE-D-24-27156R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Sasaki-Otomaru, 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. Hidetaka Hamasaki Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317524.r005

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 .