PONE-D-24-22661Spatial distribution and determinants of micronutrient intake status among children aged 6-23 months in Ethiopia: A Multi-scale Geographical Weighted Regression AnalysisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zemariam,

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.

The reviewers' comments are as follows;

Reviewer 1

1. Need to provide more information about the location (coordinates) geo-scrambling/dithering; why it’s necessary, how it affects your analysis and how you mitigated for it in the analysis
2. You need a summary section of all the methods which may be interconnected with a clear simple figure, to show what feeds where and why all the methods are necessary. It seems hotspot analysis, SaTScan analysis and spatial prediction(kriging) all point towards the same message. Therefore this summary paragraph early on will be useful for the readers.
3. Also, note that the values of zero indicate perfect randomness.
4. Likewise, provide a preamble to local Getis Ord statistics for the reader
5. On Spatial interpolation, need to use a variogram to test the spatial dependence for micronutrients intake including details of practical range.
6. What covariates were used for spatial prediction of short birth interval? These need to be specified and included. Also, put down the equation for easier comprehension. State-of-the-art model-based geostatistics would be a better fit to fully exploit the posterior samples than kriging. Therefore justify your choice of the modelling approach
7. Multilevel modelling should maybe come in before the spatial prediction so that the covariates are included during spatial prediction for robust results
8. On Statistical analysis, the statement “Finally, the mixed effect model, which included both fixed and random effect variables were fitted. To include the variable in the model p-value.”; seems to be incomplete and in the wrong place
9. On SaTScan analysis, please state the unit of analysis. Does the SaTScan analysis and hotspot analysis provide similar insights? Why was it important to have these two in the paper?
10. On Multilevel binary logistic analysis, why was clustering considered only at the cluster level? Need to account for the fact that individuals are within households, households within clusters and clusters within a region
11. The discussion has a big section which reads like a repetition of the results section. Please edit this section to include details on what this study means to Ethiopia and the global community in terms of policy and actions that can be taken
12. Given the importance of subnational targeting, why were districts and/or region-level estimates not presented? These would align with units of decision-making and can be obtained by aggregating results of spatial prediction. The single national value masks heterogeneity while the pixel map is not used as a policy actionable unit
13. Under limitations- include geo-scrambling of coordinates if not accounted for in the analysis
14. The document needs language edition
15. You have published with other method of analysis? So would you think that it will provides another insights? I need a clear answer. Unless biased.

Reviewer 2

Introduction

The introduction effectively highlights the global and national impact of micronutrient (MN) deficiency, particularly among children in Ethiopia. However, it could be improved by refining its structure, enhancing clarity, and avoiding repetition. Here are some suggestions:

1. It would be better to add a specialized definition of malnutrition at the beginning of the introduction.

2. For improving the coherence and clarity of the introduction section, you can proceed based on the following breakdown and provide an explanation.

a. In the first paragraph, you can briefly explain the following topics mentioned in the introduction: MN deficiency as a global public health concern, the importance of the first 1,000 days of a child's life, global scale of malnutrition, and vulnerability in Low- and middle-income countries.

b. In the second paragraph, you can discuss the importance of adequate micronutrient intake, provide definitions and classifications of micronutrients, and address other related issues concerning the mentioned micronutrients.

c. In the third paragraph, discuss strategies related to reducing malnutrition, the recommendations from the World Health Organization, the effectiveness of supplementation programs, and factors influencing malnutrition.

d. Finally, identify the existing gaps, and state your objective

Method

The methods section is thorough and detailed but could benefit from improved organization. Here are some suggestions:

1. Divide the methods section into subsections such as "Data Source," "Study Population," "Variables and Measurements," "Data Processing and Analysis," and "Model Evaluation" for better readability.

2. Use a reporting guideline suited to your article to better organize headings and enhance clarity and order.

3. Depending on the authors' preferences, explain why specific techniques, like Multi-Scale Geographically Weighted Regression (MGWR), were chosen over others, such as Geographically Weighted Regression (GWR). Providing a rationale for the superiority of MGWR could help clarify its advantages.

Results

The results section offers a detailed and data-rich summary but could be improved for clarity and precision:

1. Amend the grammatical error in the first line from "More than one-third (34.5%) of the female children were had taken foods rich in micronutrient" to "More than one-third (34.5%) of the female children had consumed foods rich in micronutrients."

2. It might be beneficial to summarize key findings more clearly. For instance, explicitly state the regions with the highest and lowest micronutrient intake before discussing the methods used.

Discussion

The discussion is generally well-structured and comprehensive but could be enhanced by improving clarity, conciseness, and emphasis:

1. Shorten long sentences for better clarity. For example, sentence 33 starting with "Addressing socioeconomic inequalities..." could be split into two sentences.

2. Avoid repeating explanations about previously discussed points, such as the role of wealth in influencing micronutrient intake. Consolidate these discussions for brevity.

Limitations

1. While limitations are acknowledged, they could be expanded to address potential confounders or biases not controlled for in the study. Discuss factors like seasonal variations in food availability or regional economic disparities as additional limitations.

Reviewer 3

• The manuscript details an interesting piece of research, and seems technically sound. "Hidden hunger" is a key public and global health concern, especially in infants in lower-income countries, and in light of climate change pressurizing the situation. The statistical analysis is complex and thorough, and appropriate to answer the research questions. The conclusions are the same key messages that the reader draws from the data. There are a few clarifications that I would like the authors to make, as well as some grammatical areas I have highlighted and commented on the attachment. All of my comments can be read on the PDF. Overall, a very good study and clearly written paper.

Reviewer 5

This relevant work aimed to assess the spatial distribution and factors influencing the intake of foods rich in MN among children aged 6–23 months in Ethiopia. The study has national representativeness and a robust statistical analysis.

Below are some minor and major comments:

Minor comments:

The text does not define the meaning of ANC, nor how the wealth index variable is constructed

Regarding table 1:

Why not evaluate age as a continuous variable?

Sex of the household? (word “head” is missing)

Family size is repeated

To include AIC in the second part of Table 4? If I understand correctly, the AIC is a criterion to select between more than one model, what would be the use of adding it in isolation?

Major comments:

Some variables of nutritional status in the infant. Is it correct to assume that infants who have not consumed MN in the last 24 hours have MN deficiency? I think that is not an adequate assumption, it could be possible that they do not have MN deficiency even if they have not consumed MN in the previous 24 hours. Did you take any consideration regarding breastfeeding? Breastfeeding could also provide NM to the infant. If you do not have access to this information, you could at least develop this point in the discussion.

Nutrient intake was assessed by 24-hour recall, and the day of the week was indicated. If this survey was conducted on a Monday, it is possible that the previous day is not representative of usual dietary behaviour. This is an important limitation that should be addressed in the discussion.

I think the discussion could include something about the validation of the method to assess NM intake, perhaps how close the questionnaire is to the gold standard (serum measurement) this argument would give strength to the discussion.

The discussion is developed around the purchasing power of families and therefore the ability to acquire foods rich in NM. However, there is a lack of information about the food environment in the centre of urban areas, and how this could be promoting or not the consumption of foods rich in NM (commercial determinants of nutrition).

I think the study includes many results and some of them evaluate the same associations, not all the results are discussed, you should consider sending some to supplementary material.

You could mention in the introduction or discussion how spatial distribution studies have been useful in planning public health and nutrition intervention projects.

An important issue to consider in the discussion is the possible reverse causality in children who consume MN supplements since they usually do so when they already have a diagnosis of deficiency.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 18 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,

Samuel Kofi Tchum, Ph.D.

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. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

3. We note that [Figures 1,4,5,6 and 7] in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1,4,5,6 and 7 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

Additional Editor Comments:

Reviewer 1

1. Need to provide more information about the location (coordinates) geo-scrambling/dithering; why it’s necessary, how it affects your analysis and how you mitigated for it in the analysis

2. You need a summary section of all the methods which may be interconnected with a clear simple figure, to show what feeds where and why all the methods are necessary. It seems hotspot analysis, SaTScan analysis and spatial prediction(kriging) all point towards the same message. Therefore this summary paragraph early on will be useful for the readers.

3. Also, note that the values of zero indicate perfect randomness.

4. Likewise, provide a preamble to local Getis Ord statistics for the reader

5. On Spatial interpolation, need to use a variogram to test the spatial dependence for micronutrients intake including details of practical range.

6. What covariates were used for spatial prediction of short birth interval? These need to be specified and included. Also, put down the equation for easier comprehension. State-of-the-art model-based geostatistics would be a better fit to fully exploit the posterior samples than kriging. Therefore justify your choice of the modelling approach

7. Multilevel modelling should maybe come in before the spatial prediction so that the covariates are included during spatial prediction for robust results

8. On Statistical analysis, the statement “Finally, the mixed effect model, which included both fixed and random effect variables were fitted. To include the variable in the model p-value.”; seems to be incomplete and in the wrong place

9. On SaTScan analysis, please state the unit of analysis. Does the SaTScan analysis and hotspot analysis provide similar insights? Why was it important to have these two in the paper?

10. On Multilevel binary logistic analysis, why was clustering considered only at the cluster level? Need to account for the fact that individuals are within households, households within clusters and clusters within a region

11. The discussion has a big section which reads like a repetition of the results section. Please edit this section to include details on what this study means to Ethiopia and the global community in terms of policy and actions that can be taken

12. Given the importance of subnational targeting, why were districts and/or region-level estimates not presented? These would align with units of decision-making and can be obtained by aggregating results of spatial prediction. The single national value masks heterogeneity while the pixel map is not used as a policy actionable unit

13. Under limitations- include geo-scrambling of coordinates if not accounted for in the analysis

14. The document needs language edition

15. You have published with other method of analysis? So would you think that it will provides another insights? I need a clear answer. Unless biased.

Reviewer 2

Introduction

The introduction effectively highlights the global and national impact of micronutrient (MN) deficiency, particularly among children in Ethiopia. However, it could be improved by refining its structure, enhancing clarity, and avoiding repetition. Here are some suggestions:

1. It would be better to add a specialized definition of malnutrition at the beginning of the introduction.

2. For improving the coherence and clarity of the introduction section, you can proceed based on the following breakdown and provide an explanation.

a. In the first paragraph, you can briefly explain the following topics mentioned in the introduction: MN deficiency as a global public health concern, the importance of the first 1,000 days of a child's life, global scale of malnutrition, and vulnerability in Low- and middle-income countries.

b. In the second paragraph, you can discuss the importance of adequate micronutrient intake, provide definitions and classifications of micronutrients, and address other related issues concerning the mentioned micronutrients.

c. In the third paragraph, discuss strategies related to reducing malnutrition, the recommendations from the World Health Organization, the effectiveness of supplementation programs, and factors influencing malnutrition.

d. Finally, identify the existing gaps, and state your objective

Method

The methods section is thorough and detailed but could benefit from improved organization. Here are some suggestions:

1. Divide the methods section into subsections such as "Data Source," "Study Population," "Variables and Measurements," "Data Processing and Analysis," and "Model Evaluation" for better readability.

2. Use a reporting guideline suited to your article to better organize headings and enhance clarity and order.

3. Depending on the authors' preferences, explain why specific techniques, like Multi-Scale Geographically Weighted Regression (MGWR), were chosen over others, such as Geographically Weighted Regression (GWR). Providing a rationale for the superiority of MGWR could help clarify its advantages.

Results

The results section offers a detailed and data-rich summary but could be improved for clarity and precision:

1. Amend the grammatical error in the first line from "More than one-third (34.5%) of the female children were had taken foods rich in micronutrient" to "More than one-third (34.5%) of the female children had consumed foods rich in micronutrients."

2. It might be beneficial to summarize key findings more clearly. For instance, explicitly state the regions with the highest and lowest micronutrient intake before discussing the methods used.

Discussion

The discussion is generally well-structured and comprehensive but could be enhanced by improving clarity, conciseness, and emphasis:

1. Shorten long sentences for better clarity. For example, sentence 33 starting with "Addressing socioeconomic inequalities..." could be split into two sentences.

2. Avoid repeating explanations about previously discussed points, such as the role of wealth in influencing micronutrient intake. Consolidate these discussions for brevity.

Limitations

1. While limitations are acknowledged, they could be expanded to address potential confounders or biases not controlled for in the study. Discuss factors like seasonal variations in food availability or regional economic disparities as additional limitations.

Reviewer 3

• The manuscript details an interesting piece of research, and seems technically sound. "Hidden hunger" is a key public and global health concern, especially in infants in lower-income countries, and in light of climate change pressurizing the situation. The statistical analysis is complex and thorough, and appropriate to answer the research questions. The conclusions are the same key messages that the reader draws from the data. There are a few clarifications that I would like the authors to make, as well as some grammatical areas I have highlighted and commented on the attachment. All of my comments can be read on the PDF. Overall, a very good study and clearly written paper.

Reviewer 4

• Not Submitted

Reviewer 5

This relevant work aimed to assess the spatial distribution and factors influencing the intake of foods rich in MN among children aged 6–23 months in Ethiopia. The study has national representativeness and a robust statistical analysis.

Below are some minor and major comments:

Minor comments:

The text does not define the meaning of ANC, nor how the wealth index variable is constructed

Regarding table 1:

Why not evaluate age as a continuous variable?

Sex of the household? (word “head” is missing)

Family size is repeated

To include AIC in the second part of Table 4? If I understand correctly, the AIC is a criterion to select between more than one model, what would be the use of adding it in isolation?

Major comments:

Some variables of nutritional status in the infant. Is it correct to assume that infants who have not consumed MN in the last 24 hours have MN deficiency? I think that is not an adequate assumption, it could be possible that they do not have MN deficiency even if they have not consumed MN in the previous 24 hours. Did you take any consideration regarding breastfeeding? Breastfeeding could also provide NM to the infant. If you do not have access to this information, you could at least develop this point in the discussion.

Nutrient intake was assessed by 24-hour recall, and the day of the week was indicated. If this survey was conducted on a Monday, it is possible that the previous day is not representative of usual dietary behaviour. This is an important limitation that should be addressed in the discussion.

I think the discussion could include something about the validation of the method to assess NM intake, perhaps how close the questionnaire is to the gold standard (serum measurement) this argument would give strength to the discussion.

The discussion is developed around the purchasing power of families and therefore the ability to acquire foods rich in NM. However, there is a lack of information about the food environment in the centre of urban areas, and how this could be promoting or not the consumption of foods rich in NM (commercial determinants of nutrition).

I think the study includes many results and some of them evaluate the same associations, not all the results are discussed, you should consider sending some to supplementary material.

You could mention in the introduction or discussion how spatial distribution studies have been useful in planning public health and nutrition intervention projects.

An important issue to consider in the discussion is the possible reverse causality in children who consume MN supplements since they usually do so when they already have a diagnosis of deficiency.

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: 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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: 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: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: 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: 1. Need to provide more information about the location (coordinates) geo-scrambling/dithering; why it’s necessary, how it affects your analysis and how you mitigated for it in the analysis

2. You need a summary section of all the methods which may be interconnected with a clear simple figure, to show what feeds where and why all the methods are necessary. It seems hotspot analysis, SaTScan analysis and spatial prediction(kriging) all point towards the same message. Therefore this summary paragraph early on will be useful for the readers.

3. Also, note that the values of zero indicate perfect randomness.

4. Likewise, provide a preamble to local Getis Ord statistics for the reader

5. On Spatial interpolation, need to use a variogram to test the spatial dependence for micronutrients intake including details of practical range.

6. What covariates were used for spatial prediction of short birth interval? These need to be specified and included. Also, put down the equation for easier comprehension. State-of-the-art model-based geostatistics would be a better fit to fully exploit the posterior samples than kriging. Therefore justify your choice of the modelling approach

7. Multilevel modelling should maybe come in before the spatial prediction so that the covariates are included during spatial prediction for robust results

8. On Statistical analysis, the statement “Finally, the mixed effect model, which included both fixed and random effect variables were fitted. To include the variable in the model p-value.”; seems to be incomplete and in the wrong place

9. On SaTScan analysis, please state the unit of analysis. Does the SaTScan analysis and hotspot analysis provide similar insights? Why was it important to have these two in the paper?

10. On Multilevel binary logistic analysis, why was clustering considered only at the cluster level? Need to account for the fact that individuals are within households, households within clusters and clusters within a region

11 The discussion has a big section which reads like a repetition of the results section. Please edit this section to include details on what this study means to Ethiopia and the global community in terms of policy and actions that can be taken

12. Given the importance of subnational targeting, why were districts and/or region-level estimates not presented? These would align with units of decision-making and can be obtained by aggregating results of spatial prediction. The single national value masks heterogeneity while the pixel map is not used as a policy actionable unit

13. Under limitations- include geo-scrambling of coordinates if not accounted for in the analysis

14. The document needs language edition

15. You have published with other method of analysis? So would you think that it will provides another insights? I need a clear answer. Unless biased.

Reviewer #2: Introduction

The introduction effectively highlights the global and national impact of micronutrient (MN) deficiency, particularly among children in Ethiopia. However, it could be improved by refining its structure, enhancing clarity, and avoiding repetition. Here are some suggestions:

1. It would be better to add a specialized definition of malnutrition at the beginning of the introduction.

2. For improving the coherence and clarity of the introduction section, you can proceed based on the following breakdown and provide an explanation.

a. In the first paragraph, you can briefly explain the following topics mentioned in the introduction: MN deficiency as a global public health concern, the importance of the first 1,000 days of a child's life, global scale of malnutrition, and vulnerability in Low- and middle-income countries.

b. In the second paragraph, you can discuss the importance of adequate micronutrient intake, provide definitions and classifications of micronutrients, and address other related issues concerning the mentioned micronutrients.

c. In the third paragraph, discuss strategies related to reducing malnutrition, the recommendations from the World Health Organization, the effectiveness of supplementation programs, and factors influencing malnutrition.

d. Finally, identify the existing gaps, and state your objective

Method

The methods section is thorough and detailed but could benefit from improved organization. Here are some suggestions:

1. Divide the methods section into subsections such as "Data Source," "Study Population," "Variables and Measurements," "Data Processing and Analysis," and "Model Evaluation" for better readability.

2. Use a reporting guideline suited to your article to better organize headings and enhance clarity and order.

3. Depending on the authors' preferences, explain why specific techniques, like Multi-Scale Geographically Weighted Regression (MGWR), were chosen over others, such as Geographically Weighted Regression (GWR). Providing a rationale for the superiority of MGWR could help clarify its advantages.

Results

The results section offers a detailed and data-rich summary but could be improved for clarity and precision:

1. Amend the grammatical error in the first line from "More than one-third (34.5%) of the female children were had taken foods rich in micronutrient" to "More than one-third (34.5%) of the female children had consumed foods rich in micronutrients."

2. It might be beneficial to summarize key findings more clearly. For instance, explicitly state the regions with the highest and lowest micronutrient intake before discussing the methods used.

Discussion

The discussion is generally well-structured and comprehensive but could be enhanced by improving clarity, conciseness, and emphasis:

1. Shorten long sentences for better clarity. For example, sentence 33 starting with "Addressing socioeconomic inequalities..." could be split into two sentences.

2. Avoid repeating explanations about previously discussed points, such as the role of wealth in influencing micronutrient intake. Consolidate these discussions for brevity.

Limitations

1. While limitations are acknowledged, they could be expanded to address potential confounders or biases not controlled for in the study. Discuss factors like seasonal variations in food availability or regional economic disparities as additional limitations.

Reviewer #3: The manuscript details an interesting piece of research, and seems technically sound. "Hidden hunger" is a key public and global health concern, especially in infants in lower-income countries, and in light of climate change pressurizing the situation. The statistical analysis is complex and thorough, and appropriate to answer the research questions. The conclusions are the same key messages that the reader draws from the data. There are a few clarifications that I would like the authors to make, as well as some grammatical areas I have highlighted and commented on the attachment. All of my comments can be read on the PDF. Overall, a very good study and clearly written paper.

Reviewer #4: Dear Author,

I wanted to bring to your attention that I previously reviewed manuscript “PONE-D-24-22661” and provided several comments and suggestions for revision. However, in the current version, I do not see any changes that indicate my feedback was addressed.

If the revisions have been made, I would appreciate receiving a version with the changes clearly highlighted or tracked.

Best regards,

Reviewer #5: This relevant work aimed to assess the spatial distribution and factors influencing the intake of foods rich in MN among children aged 6–23 months in Ethiopia. The study has national representativeness and a robust statistical analysis.

Below are some minor and major comments:

Minor comments:

The text does not define the meaning of ANC, nor how the wealth index variable is constructed

Regarding table 1:

Why not evaluate age as a continuous variable?

Sex of the household? (word “head” is missing)

Family size is repeated

To include AIC in the second part of table 4? If I understand correctly, the AIC is a criterion to select between more than one model, what would be the use of adding it in isolation?

Major comments:

Some variables of nutritional status in the infant. Is it correct to assume that infants who have not consumed MN in the last 24 hours have MN deficiency? I think that is not an adequate assumption, it could be possible that they do not have MN deficiency even if they have not consumed MN in the previous 24 hours. Did you take any consideration regarding breastfeeding? Breastfeeding could also provide NM to the infant. If you do not have access to this information, you could at least develop this point in the discussion.

Nutrient intake was assessed by 24-hour recall, the day of the week was indicated. If this survey was conducted on a Monday, it is possible that the previous day is not representative of usual dietary behavior. This is an important limitation that should be addressed in the discussion.

I think the discussion could include something about the validation of the method to assess NM intake, perhaps how close the questionnaire is to the gold standard (serum measurement) this argument would give strength to the discussion.

The discussion is developed around the purchasing power of families and therefore the ability to acquire foods rich in NM. However, there is a lack of information about the food environment in the center of urban areas, and how this could be promoting or not the consumption of foods rich in NM (commercial determinants of nutrition).

I think the study includes many results and some of them evaluate the same associations, not all the results are discussed, you should consider sending some to supplementary material.

You could mention in the introduction or discussion how spatial distribution studies have been useful in planning public health and nutrition intervention projects.

An important issue to consider in the discussion is the possible reverse causality in children who consume MN supplements since they usually do so when they already have a diagnosis of deficiency.

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes:  Jessica Boxall ANutr

Reviewer #4: Yes:  Dr. Mai Albaik

Reviewer #5: Yes:  Nadia Angélica Cerecer-Ortiz

**********

[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: comments.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-24-22661 12-09-2024.pdf

Spatial distribution and determinants of micronutrient intake status among children aged 6-23 months in Ethiopia: A Multi-scale Geographical Weighted Regression Analysis

PONE-D-24-22661R1

Dear Dr. Alemu Birara Zemariam,

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,

Samuel Kofi Tchum, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: