Dear Dr. Smith,

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 Mar 27 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.

• 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,

Hesham M.H. Zakaly, 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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

 [This work was funded by Federal Medical-Biological Agency of Russia (MOD, EIT, EAS, PAS, VIZ) and the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of International Health Programs (MAS, BAN) in the framework of joint US-Russia JCCRER Project 1.1 (https://www.energy.gov/ehss/russian-health-studies-program).]. 

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Please include a caption for figure 5, 6, 7, 8.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[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?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: the text provides a good overview of the purpose of the study, but it could benefit from explicitly stating its primary objective earlier. For example, clearly define whether the focus is methodological innovation, parameter evaluation, or both.

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors,

Thank you for your submission to PLOS ONE. Your manuscript presents a well-structured and methodologically sound study on Stochastic Parametric Skeletal Dosimetry (SPSD) for modeling radiation exposure to bone marrow. The approach is innovative and provides a robust framework for radiation risk assessment, particularly for bone-seeking radionuclides. However, I have noted some areas for improvement, particularly regarding statistical analysis, model validation, and clarity in the discussion of limitations.

Include confidence intervals (CIs) or sensitivity analysis for key parameters. The Monte Carlo approach incorporates variability, but confidence intervals for trabecular thickness (Tb.Th), bone volume fraction (BV/TV), and cortical thickness (Ct.Th) are not explicitly reported. Providing 95% confidence intervals, standard deviations, or a bootstrapping approach would improve statistical robustness.

Perform a sensitivity analysis to evaluate how variations in key parameters influence dose estimations. A one-at-a-time (OAT) sensitivity analysis or variance-based sensitivity analysis (e.g., Sobol indices) could provide valuable insights into parameter impact.

Provide empirical validation or benchmark comparisons. The study relies on literature-based data, but additional validation would strengthen credibility. If direct experimental validation is not possible, consider benchmarking results against ICRP reference phantoms or other computational dosimetry models (e.g., UF/NCI hybrid phantoms). A comparison table summarizing differences in dose estimations would be helpful.

Verify assumptions on parameter distributions. The manuscript assumes normal distributions for some trabecular bone parameters but does not test this assumption. A Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test or Shapiro-Wilk test should be performed to confirm normality. If non-normal, a log-normal or gamma distribution may be more appropriate.

Clarify segmentation methodology. The segmentation of hematopoietic sites into simple geometric shapes is described, but the rationale behind specific segmentations is not clear. A brief explanation of why certain segmentations were chosen, particularly for heterogeneous bone structures, would improve transparency.

Improve readability in the methodology section. Some descriptions, especially in parameter selection and stochastic modeling, are complex and may be difficult for non-specialists to follow. Simplifying descriptions and adding a schematic diagram or flowchart of the SPSD modeling workflow would enhance clarity.

Address minor grammatical issues. While the manuscript is generally well-written, refining sentence structures and improving conciseness would improve readability.

These revisions will improve the statistical rigor, validation strength, and clarity of the manuscript. Addressing these concerns will enhance the study’s impact and ensure its findings are transparent and reproducible. Looking forward to the revised version.

Reviewer #3: Thank you for massive data you gathered and the manuscript, but I didn't understand your introduction, your method and finally your discussion and I didn't find coordination between different parts of your manuscript. your abstract can not convey your work and is too long.

generally it is not obvious that who will use this model and how. I think it needs total and basic rewriting and revision.

**********

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: 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.

Stochastic parametric skeletal dosimetry model for humans: Anatomical-morphological basis and parameter evaluation

PONE-D-24-52145R1

Dear Dr. Smith,

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,

Hesham M.H. Zakaly, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #2: I have reviewed the authors’ responses and revised manuscript. The authors have addressed the key concerns appropriately, either by implementing the requested changes or by providing clear and reasonable justifications where direct implementation was not feasible within the scope of this paper. The manuscript is now well-structured, methodologically sound, and clearly defines its contribution. I recommend the manuscript for acceptance.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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 #2: Yes:  Mert Ocak

Reviewer #3: No

**********