PONE-D-24-53637Paternal adverse childhood experiences and offspring’s attentional disengagement from faces at 8 months – results from the FinnBrain Birth Cohort StudyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Klimek,

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 Jun 07 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,

Maria Christine Magnus, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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 .

2. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

3. You have indicated that data is available from [linnea.karlsson@utu.fi].  Please can we ask you to provide us with a general contact email address for the data requests, so readers can request access in perpetuity. If a general email is not available please provide a link to a website where readers can obtain access to data.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

I would like to apologize for the delay in the processing of the manuscript. This is due to difficulties identifying reviewers. The two reviewers have some relevant comments and suggestions for improvements. Please carefully adress these comments . In particular, the second reviewer has several concerns regarding the framework of the analysis from a causal inference framework.

[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: No

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: No

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 study by Klimek and colleagues is interesting and touches a very vital topic Paternal ACE on intergenerational effects on attention at very early stage of neurodevelopment. While Brain carries the signature of ACE from early childhood because ACE has the maximum effect (Please see Kashyap et al, Psychological Medicine) on the brain (compared to all other factors), but whether the effects are carried out to next generation is definitely interesting and required. The methodology is also simple and easily understandable to readers. I have few issues that can be handled easily.

2.I believe the introduction can be shortened- Keeping the readers focus to the work done and shortening the Genetic-neuroimaging parts

3.Is there anyway to check for similarity of faces between the presented stimulus and faces encountered easily- (possibly done by any questionaires to parents)- I understand that the manuscript is from a concluded experiment, but still (else may be a limitation)

4.Please define each model - (in equation form) above its table. Also provide more parametric values from the tests for model validity.

5.I would like to see a more focussed discussion pertaining to the outputs of the study- Most of the studies they have cited can go in future direction including genetics , neuroimaging etc.

Minor-

Spelling mistakes exist

Shorten the introduction and discussion

Reviewer #2: Thank you for inviting me to review this manuscript. The authors attempt to relate paternal ACEs to offspring’s attentional disengagement from faces at 8 months. Below are my comments for the authors:

• How were the 1,953 fathers from the FinnBrain Birth Cohort Study selected? For example, was this a random or convenience sample? The same question applies to the 239 children. Including a flowchart would be helpful.

• Table 1 is somewhat limited. Do you have any additional information about your sample? For example: whether fathers are still in a relationship, whether children were born prematurely, any relevant medical history of the children, parents’ education levels, parents’ psychiatric history, childcare arrangements, family history, etc.

• On page 13, you state: “There was no difference between the studied group and the total sample, etc.” Does this comparison refer to the 239 fathers versus the 1,953 fathers? What about comparisons with all fathers from the FinnBrain Birth Cohort Study?

• On page 14: “If a statistically significant correlation was observed, then the covariate was included in the final statistical model.” This approach is not ideal. Covariate selection should be based on a conceptual framework, independent of statistical correlation.

• Depression and anxiety at 6 months postpartum may be on the causal path between paternal ACE and attention to faces in offspring. Including these mediators as covariates in your model could bias your causal estimate.

• Along these lines, your Table 3 is subject to the so-called “Table 2 fallacy” (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23371353/), especially regarding paternal anxiety and maternal EPDS being on the causal path.

• Still related to your causal framework, your model may not adequately account for confounders. For example, paternal ACEs may be influenced by factors that also affect children’s attentional disengagement, such as family history of addiction or mental illness. Ideally, you would conduct additional analyses to account for these factors. If these data were not collected, this limitation should be acknowledged.

**********

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: Yes:  Rajan Kashyap

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.

Paternal adverse childhood experiences and offspring’s attentional disengagement from faces at 8 months – results from the FinnBrain Birth Cohort Study

PONE-D-24-53637R1

Dear Dr. Klimek,

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,

Maria Christine Magnus, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Thank you for your responding in detail to the comments raised by the reviewers. Overall, I think your manuscript has approved considerably.

Reviewers' comments: