Role of hematological parameters in the early detection of clinical cases for septicemia among neonates: A hospital-based study from Chennai, India

Jeivanth S.B.; Shreemathee Baskar; Mohammad Fareed; K. Santhosh Kumar; Osama Elshahat Mostafa; Amen Bawazir; Khalid I. AlQumaizi

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0318802

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 28, 2024
28 Nov 2024 Author Response https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318802.r001
23 Dec 2024 Decision Letter - Benjamin M. Liu, Editor PONE-D-24-54291Role of hematological parameters in the early detection of clinical cases for septicemia among neonates: A hospital-based study from Chennai, IndiaPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Fareed 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 Feb 06 2025 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, Benjamin M. Liu, MBBS, PhD, D(ABMM), MB(ASCP) 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. In the ethics statement in the Methods, you have specified that verbal consent was obtained. Please provide additional details regarding how this consent was documented and witnessed, and state whether this was approved by the IRB 3. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: “All relevant data are within the manuscript and in Supporting Information files” Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition). For example, authors should submit the following data: - The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported; - The values used to build graphs; - The points extracted from images for analysis. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study. If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them 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. If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access. 4. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process. 5. 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: Editor comments: Line 79-80 “Early-onset newborn infections of viral or fungal origin may also arise at seven days of life and must be differentiated from bacterial sepsis”: more references are needed. Please cite more references, with the following one as an example (citing is optional): Liu BM, Mulkey SB, Campos JM, DeBiasi RL. Laboratory diagnosis of CNS infections in children due to emerging and re-emerging neurotropic viruses. Pediatr Res. 2024 Jan;95(2):543-550. doi: 10.1038/s41390-023-02930-6. Epub 2023 Dec 2. PMID: 38042947. Line 87-88 “Blood culture still remains the gold standard for diagnosing sepsis, but it is tedious (at least 24-48 hours) and necessitates a well-equipped laboratory”: more references are needed. Please cite more references, with the following one as an example (citing is optional): Liu BM, Carlisle CP, Fisher MA, Shakir SM. The Brief Case: Capnocytophaga sputigena Bacteremia in a 94-Year-Old Male with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Pancytopenia, and Bronchopneumonia. J Clin Microbiol. 2021 Jun 18;59(7):e0247220. doi: 10.1128/JCM.02472-20. Epub 2021 Jun 18. PMID: 34142857; PMCID: PMC8218739. Line 88-89 “the diagnosis should be done as early as possible to start the treatment”: more references are needed. Please cite more references, with the following one as an example (citing is optional): Liu B, Forman M, Valsamakis A. Optimization and evaluation of a novel real-time RT-PCR test for detection of parechovirus in cerebrospinal fluid. J Virol Methods. 2019 Oct;272:113690. doi: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2019.113690. Epub 2019 Jul 5. PMID: 31283959. Line 372-374: “Advances in rapid diagnostic technologies, particularly molecular assays and point-of-care testing, show promise for enhancing diagnosis accuracy and accelerating treatment interventions in newborns”: more references are needed. Please cite more references, with the following one as an example (citing is optional): Liu BM. Epidemiological and clinical overview of the 2024 Oropouche virus disease outbreaks, an emerging/re-emerging neurotropic arboviral disease and global public health threat. J Med Virol. 2024 Sep;96(9):e29897. doi: 10.1002/jmv.29897. PMID: 39221481. Line 375- 376 “specialized research concentrating on host-response biomarkers and microbial genetics may further improve diagnostic algorithms and increase individualized treatment options”: more references are needed. Please cite more references, with the following ones as example (citing is optional): Liu BM, Li NL, Wang R, Li X, Li ZA, Marion TN, Li K. Key roles for phosphorylation and the Coiled-coil domain in TRIM56-mediated positive regulation of TLR3-TRIF-dependent innate immunity. J Biol Chem. 2024 May;300(5):107249. doi: 10.1016/j.jbc.2024.107249. Epub 2024 Mar 29. PMID: 38556084; PMCID: PMC11067339. Liu BM, Mulkey SB, Campos JM, DeBiasi RL. Laboratory diagnosis of CNS infections in children due to emerging and re-emerging neurotropic viruses. Pediatr Res. 2024 Jan;95(2):543-550. doi: 10.1038/s41390-023-02930-6. Epub 2023 Dec 2. PMID: 38042947. [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: I Don't Know ****** 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: Comments to Authors: Minor points 1- In Materials and Methods (136 line) and in results (202line); you wrote (2 times We)! The rule of manuscript writing is to avoid using (We). So you should delete (We) and use academic scientific words such as (This study or The current study or The present study). 2- In results, 211line; you wrote TLC!!! you should write the whole name of the term; total leukocyte count (TLC) not only the abbreviation to be obvious to the reader because here you used this term for the first time while in next sentences you can use the abbreviation only. 3- In discussion; 293line, 295line, 300line, 303line, 310line, 325line, 329line, 333line, 341line, 342line and 380 line in conclusion; you wrote (11 times Our)! The rule of manuscript writing is to avoid using (Our). So you should delete (Our) and use academic scientific words such as (This study or The current study or The present study). 4- In references, the old references are more than the new references!!! Why!!! Kindly solve this point. Kind regards Reviewer #2: 1/ Regarding background of abstract must be changed as the title is hematological changes in neonatal sepsis !!! why in the background highlighting blood culture , better to replaced by hematological finding or even start with pathogenesis of sepsis . 2/ Both table 6 & 7 should be rearranged based on gram positive isolates and gram negative isolates not mixing together ****** 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: khanda Abdullateef anwar ******** [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-24-54291.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318802.r002
Revision 1
7 Jan 2025 Author Response Editorial Comments: Comment 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 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf #Author’s response: The manuscript has been meticulously reformatted to adhere to the prescribed style and formatting requirements of PLOS ONE. Comment 2: In the ethics statement in the Methods, you have specified that verbal consent was obtained. Please provide additional details regarding how this consent was documented and witnessed, and state whether this was approved by the IRB. #Author’s response: As per your recommendation, the ethics statement in the Methods section has been elaborated upon to detail the procedures for obtaining and documenting verbal consent, along with the role of witnesses. Furthermore, approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) has been explicitly stated. Comment 3. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: “All relevant data are within the manuscript and in Supporting Information files” Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition). For example, authors should submit the following data: - The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported; - The values used to build graphs; - The points extracted from images for analysis. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study. If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them 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. If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access. #Author’s response: The Data Availability Statement has been amended to read as: ‘Public sharing of the data is restricted in accordance with the policies of the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) at Saveetha Medical College and Hospital. Permission for data usage has been granted by the hospital administration strictly for research purposes, adhering to institutional regulations and ethical standards.’ Comment 4: When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process. #Author’s response: We have not selected any option for this question, as sharing data is currently restricted by institutional policies. Comment 5: 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. #Author’s response: Since our manuscript does not include Supporting Information files, this requirement is not applicable. Additional Editor’s Comments: Comment 1: Line 79-80 “Early-onset newborn infections of viral or fungal origin may also arise at seven days of life and must be differentiated from bacterial sepsis”: more references are needed. Please cite more references, with the following one as an example (citing is optional): Liu BM, Mulkey SB, Campos JM, DeBiasi RL. Laboratory diagnosis of CNS infections in children due to emerging and re-emerging neurotropic viruses. Pediatr Res. 2024 Jan;95(2):543-550. doi: 10.1038/s41390-023-02930-6. Epub 2023 Dec 2. PMID: 38042947. #Author’s response: Suggested reference and its associated text content has been added in the revised manuscript. Comment 2: Line 87-88 “Blood culture still remains the gold standard for diagnosing sepsis, but it is tedious (at least 24-48 hours) and necessitates a well-equipped laboratory”: more references are needed. Please cite more references, with the following one as an example (citing is optional): Liu BM, Carlisle CP, Fisher MA, Shakir SM. The Brief Case: Capnocytophaga sputigena Bacteremia in a 94-Year-Old Male with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Pancytopenia, and Bronchopneumonia. J Clin Microbiol. 2021 Jun 18;59(7):e0247220. doi: 10.1128/JCM.02472-20. Epub 2021 Jun 18. PMID: 34142857; PMCID: PMC8218739. #Author’s response: Suggested reference and its associated text content has been added in the revised manuscript. Comment 3: Line 88-89 “the diagnosis should be done as early as possible to start the treatment”: more references are needed. Please cite more references, with the following one as an example (citing is optional): Liu B, Forman M, Valsamakis A. Optimization and evaluation of a novel real-time RT-PCR test for detection of parechovirus in cerebrospinal fluid. J Virol Methods. 2019 Oct;272:113690. doi: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2019.113690. Epub 2019 Jul 5. PMID: 31283959. #Author’s response: Suggested reference and its associated text content has been added in the revised manuscript. Comment 4: Line 372-374: “Advances in rapid diagnostic technologies, particularly molecular assays and point-of-care testing, show promise for enhancing diagnosis accuracy and accelerating treatment interventions in newborns”: more references are needed. Please cite more references, with the following one as an example (citing is optional): Liu BM. Epidemiological and clinical overview of the 2024 Oropouche virus disease outbreaks, an emerging/re-emerging neurotropic arboviral disease and global public health threat. J Med Virol. 2024 Sep;96(9):e29897. doi: 10.1002/jmv.29897. PMID: 39221481. #Author’s response: Suggested reference and its associated text content has been added in the revised manuscript. Comment 5: Line 375- 376 “specialized research concentrating on host-response biomarkers and microbial genetics may further improve diagnostic algorithms and increase individualized treatment options”: more references are needed. Please cite more references, with the following ones as example (citing is optional): Liu BM, Li NL, Wang R, Li X, Li ZA, Marion TN, Li K. Key roles for phosphorylation and the Coiled-coil domain in TRIM56-mediated positive regulation of TLR3-TRIF-dependent innate immunity. J Biol Chem. 2024 May;300(5):107249. doi: 10.1016/j.jbc.2024.107249. Epub 2024 Mar 29. PMID: 38556084; PMCID: PMC11067339. Liu BM, Mulkey SB, Campos JM, DeBiasi RL. Laboratory diagnosis of CNS infections in children due to emerging and re-emerging neurotropic viruses. Pediatr Res. 2024 Jan;95(2):543-550. doi: 10.1038/s41390-023-02930-6. Epub 2023 Dec 2. PMID: 38042947. #Author’s response: Suggested reference and its associated text content has been added in the revised manuscript. Reviewer’s Comments to the Author: Reviewer #1: Minor points: Comment 1: In Materials and Methods (136 line) and in results (202line); you wrote (2 times We)! The rule of manuscript writing is to avoid using (We). So you should delete (We) and use academic scientific words such as (This study or The current study or The present study). #Author’s response: We greatly appreciate this observation. The suggested revisions have been implemented, replacing "We" with formal expressions such as "This study" or "The present study." Comment 2: In results, 211 line; you wrote TLC!!! you should write the whole name of the term; total leukocyte count (TLC) not only the abbreviation to be obvious to the reader because here you used this term for the first time while in next sentences you can use the abbreviation only. #Author’s response: Thank you for highlighting this point. The correction has been made by explicitly defining "total leukocyte count (TLC)" at its first mention. Comment 3: In discussion; 293 line, 295line, 300line, 303line, 310line, 325line, 329line, 333line, 341line, 342line and 380 line in conclusion; you wrote (11 times Our)! The rule of manuscript writing is to avoid using (Our). So you should delete (Our) and use academic scientific words such as (This study or The current study or The present study). #Author’s response: We acknowledge this valuable suggestion. All instances of "Our" have been replaced with more formal alternatives, such as "This study" or "The present study." Comment 4: In references, the old references are more than the new references!!! Why!!! Kindly solve this point. #Author’s response: As suggested, older references have been replaced or supplemented with more recent citations, ensuring a balanced representation of current literature. Reviewer #2: Comment 1: Regarding background of abstract must be changed as the title is hematological changes in neonatal sepsis !!! why in the background highlighting blood culture , better to replaced by hematological finding or even start with pathogenesis of sepsis. #Author’s response: We greatly appreciate this insightful recommendation. The background section of the abstract has been revised accordingly in the updated manuscript. Comment 2: Both table 6 & 7 should be rearranged based on gram positive isolates and gram negative isolates not mixing together. #Author’s response: We greatly appreciate this insightful recommendation. The background section of the abstract has been revised accordingly in the updated manuscript. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Rebuttal letter- Plos One.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318802.r003
10 Jan 2025 Decision Letter - Benjamin M. Liu, Editor PONE-D-24-54291R1Role of hematological parameters in the early detection of clinical cases for septicemia among neonates: A hospital-based study from Chennai, India PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Fareed, 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. Editor’s comments: 1.Old version of clean manuscript is included in the re-submission. Please make sure an updated, clean manuscript is uploaded to keep consistent with track-change manuscript. 2.Ref4 and Ref41 in the track-change manuscript are redundant references. 3.Table 4, Table 5 in the track-change manuscript: dots “.” are used in Std. Dev. What do these dots mean? They should be replaced with numbers. 4. Additional Editor’s comment 2 from last round review: the authors indicated “Suggested reference and its associated text content has been added in the revised manuscript.” But line 90-94 in the track-change manuscript: “Blood culture remains the gold standard for diagnosing sepsis, providing definitive microbiological evidence to guide targeted treatment. However, it is a time-consuming process, requiring 24–48 hours or more for results, and necessitates a well-equipped laboratory with appropriate technical expertise. The delay in obtaining results can lead to significant challenges in clinical management, particularly in...” There are still no references. More references are needed, with PMID: 34142857as an example (citing this reference is optional) Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 24 2025 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, Benjamin M. Liu, MBBS, PhD, D(ABMM), MB(ASCP) Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 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.] [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.0318802.r004
Revision 2
21 Jan 2025 Author Response # Editor’s comments 1: Old version of clean manuscript is included in the re-submission. Please make sure an updated, clean manuscript is uploaded to keep consistent with track-change manuscript. Author's response: As suggested, clean manuscript, consistent with track-change manuscript has been uploaded. # Editor’s comments 2: Ref4 and Ref41 in the track-change manuscript are redundant references. Author's response: As suggested, repeated reference number 41 has been deleted. # Editor’s comments 3: Table 4, Table 5 in the track-change manuscript: dots “.” are used in Std. Dev. What do these dots mean? They should be replaced with numbers. Author's response: In Table 4 and Table 5, for the variables in which only 1 case is there, we mentioned the standard deviation as zero (0.00) by removing dot (.) # Additional Editor’s comment 2 from last round review: The authors indicated “Suggested reference and its associated text content has been added in the revised manuscript.” But line 90-94 in the track-change manuscript: “Blood culture remains the gold standard for diagnosing sepsis, providing definitive microbiological evidence to guide targeted treatment. However, it is a time-consuming process, requiring 24–48 hours or more for results, and necessitates a well-equipped laboratory with appropriate technical expertise. The delay in obtaining results can lead to significant challenges in clinical management, particularly in...” There are still no references. More references are needed, with PMID: 34142857 as an example (citing this reference is optional) Author's response: The reference is already added after this content. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Rebuttal_letter-_Plos_One_auresp_2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318802.r005
22 Jan 2025 Decision Letter - Benjamin M. Liu, Editor Role of hematological parameters in the early detection of clinical cases for septicemia among neonates: A hospital-based study from Chennai, India PONE-D-24-54291R2 Dear Dr. Fareed, 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, Benjamin M. Liu, MBBS, PhD, D(ABMM), MB(ASCP) Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318802.r006
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Benjamin Liu, Editor PONE-D-24-54291R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Fareed, 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. Benjamin M. Liu Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318802.r007

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 .