PONE-D-24-55952Simulating HIV Transmission Dynamics: An Agent-Based Approach Using NetLogoPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Llantos,

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 Jul 14 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,

José Antonio Ortega, 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. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

3. Please update your submission to use the PLOS LaTeX template. The template and more information on our requirements for LaTeX submissions can be found at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/latex.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

“Mindanao State University-Iligan Institute of Technology”

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.

5. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: 

“All relevant data are within the manuscript and its 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.

6.  Please ensure that you refer to Figure 1 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

7. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Tables 2, 3 and 5 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

8. 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.

Additional Editor Comments:

While two referees accepted to review the paper, only one submitted their recommendations. The editor has also inspected the manuscript corroborating the detailed opinion of the reviewer on the merit of the paper so that a second review is not judged necessary. There are minor specific comments that should be addressed. 

[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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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

**********

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

**********

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: This study presents a timely and technically sound approach to modeling HIV transmission through an enhanced Agent-Based Model (ABM) developed in NetLogo. The authors extend Wilensky’s foundational model by incorporating behavioral parameters such as sexual behavior dynamics, condom usage, drug use, testing frequency, and treatment inclination—contributing valuable insights particularly in the Philippine context.

The manuscript demonstrates strong technical soundness. The simulation logic is coherent, the agent attributes are clearly defined, and the algorithm is systematically presented. The enhancements—especially those involving diverse sexual behavior interactions and the inclusion of the PWID (People Who Inject Drugs) population—add complexity and realism to the model. These modifications allow for a more holistic view of the interrelationships that drive HIV transmission dynamics, especially among key subpopulations.

The statistical analysis is appropriate and rigorously applied. Model calibration using Mean Absolute Error (MAE = 3.5) and Mean Squared Error (MSE = 14.9) demonstrates a good fit between the simulated trends and actual HIV infection data from 2010 to 2018. The use of sensitivity analysis through a One-Factor-at-a-Time (OFAT) method is methodologically suitable, and the application of both Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients effectively highlights the influence of various behavioral factors. While the analysis is sound, the addition of confidence intervals or variability ranges for the simulation outputs would improve robustness. Furthermore, a split-sample validation (e.g., using part of the data for calibration and the rest for testing) could further enhance confidence in the model’s predictive capability.

The authors affirm that all relevant data are fully available within the manuscript and Supporting Information files, which meets data availability requirements for simulation studies. However, to promote reproducibility, it is recommended that the authors provide public access to the NetLogo model file and simulation outputs via a platform such as GitHub or Zenodo, along with usage documentation.

The conclusions are generally well-supported by the simulation results. The findings—showing that higher condom use, frequent testing, longer commitment duration, and treatment adherence correlate with reduced HIV infections—are consistent with existing literature and epidemiological expectations. The model successfully mirrors real-world HIV trends in the Philippines across a 10-year window, capturing periodic fluctuations and a gradual decline in new infections. Importantly, the authors acknowledge the model’s limitations in long-term prediction due to assumptions like fixed population size and lack of new agent entry, which is appropriate. Nevertheless, some conclusions, such as the impact of sexual abstinence, should be interpreted more cautiously to avoid overgeneralization.

In terms of presentation, the manuscript is written in standard academic English and is generally intelligible. However, minor revisions in grammar and writing style would significantly improve clarity and readability. Sections 1 (Introduction) and 2 (Model Development) contain several repetitive and overly long sentences that could be streamlined for better comprehension. Additionally, the consistent and precise use of key terms such as “gender,” “sexual orientation,” “coupling tendency,” and “commitment” is essential to avoid confusion, particularly for interdisciplinary readers. Terminology like “person righty/lefty,” introduced in Section 2.3 and Table 2, should also be clearly defined and used consistently throughout the manuscript. While the figures and tables are informative and relevant, several—particularly Figures 4, 14, and 17—would benefit from more detailed captions to enhance standalone understanding. Standardizing Y-axis scales across related graphs is also recommended to facilitate easier visual comparison across simulation results.

There are no ethical concerns with the study, as it does not involve human participants or identifiable data. The manuscript properly declares “N/A” for ethics approval. The authors also thoughtfully discuss model assumptions and limitations, including the simplification of gender interactions, static condom efficacy, and universal needle-sharing behavior among drug users. Their suggested future directions—such as modeling multi-partner relationships, HIV progression to AIDS, and behavioral variability—are thoughtful and commendable.

In summary, this is a strong and innovative manuscript with relevant findings for public health modeling. I recommend minor revisions, particularly to improve language clarity (Sections 1–2), refine interpretation (Section 4.2.6), enhance figure captions (Figures 4, 14, 17), and ensure consistent terminology (Section 2.3, Table 2). With these enhancements, the manuscript will be a valuable contribution to the literature on computational modeling of HIV transmission.

**********

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

**********

[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.

Simulating HIV Transmission Dynamics: An Agent-Based Approach Using NetLogo

PONE-D-24-55952R1

Dear Dr. Llantos,

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. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support.

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,

José Antonio Ortega, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The previous reviewer was not available. However, the editor has checked that the recommendations have been implemented meeting PLOS ONE requirements for publication.

Reviewers' comments: