Unveiling the wealth-bone connection: How socioeconomic status influences trabecular bone health

Yuan Zhang; Tingxiao Zhao; Yanlei Li; Kai Chen; Qice Sun

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0338378

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 4, 2024
23 Jun 2025 Decision Letter - Khabir Ahmad, Editor Dear Dr. Sun, 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 Aug 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. 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, Khabir Ahmad, MBBS, MSc, 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. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/endocrinology/articles/10.3389/fendo.2022.857110/full https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36626464/ https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00198-005-1917-1? In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed. 3. Please note that your Data Availability Statement is currently missing the DOI/accession number of each dataset or a direct link to access each database. If your manuscript is accepted for publication, you will be asked to provide these details on a very short timeline. We therefore suggest that you provide this information now, though we will not hold up the peer review process if you are unable. 4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. 5. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript. Additional Editor Comments: Ensure all abbreviations are defined at first use. Introduction Change “This study addresses the gap in ...general population” to "This study aims to address the gap in ... general population.” Fig 1 should be part of the methods. Remove arrows from figure. Use neutral connectors instead. Methods Provide the rationale for the selection of confounders and the choice statistical methods, especially for stratified and interaction analyses. Results Table 3 is too crowded; please divide it into two separate tables to improve clarity. Discussion Discuss the clinical significance of the small observed effect size? Discuss possible mechanisms linking SES and TBS. Explicitly mention study limitations,....use "temporal" instead of "causal" Ethics Add a brief statement clarifying that no ethics approval was needed due to the use of publicly available, de-identified NHANES data. Please check journal's guidelines [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 ******** 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 Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: I don’t have a lot of concerns about this study – large sample size and an unsurprising finding demonstrating a relationship between SES and TBS. There are these three things I suggest the authors correct, including: 1. Introduction needs a hypothesis. 2. Introduction needs expanding to include literature about other studies have looked at the relationship between SES and osteoporosis/bone health. There are plenty of them and the readers will need to get a good picture of what has already been done in this space, before understanding that there is a need to look at TBS. In fact, there have been studies that found inconsistent relationships between SES and different measures of bone remodelling/BMD etc. It will be important to establish a good overview of the current state of the literature there. 3. In Figures 2 and 3, the font on the x and y axes and in the legend, is too small. ****** 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0338378.r001
Revision 1
24 Jul 2025 Author Response Dear Editors and Reviewers: Thank you for your letter and the valuable comments from the reviewers. Based on your constructive suggestions, we have revisited and revised the manuscript. These comments provide important guidance for improving the quality of the paper. All modifications and additions have been marked in blue font. We sincerely appreciate your positive evaluation and suggestions, and hope that the revised manuscript will be accepted for publication in PLOS ONE. Editor’s comments� 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. Answer: Thank you for your affirmation and recognition of our article. We are fully aware that the manuscript still has shortcomings, and your professional comments are extremely valuable for improving the quality of the paper. We have made comprehensive revisions based on your suggestions and look forward to your further review and approval. 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 Answer: Thank you for your comments. This task has been completed according to your requirements. 2.We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/endocrinology/articles/10.3389/fendo.2022.857110/full https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36626464/ https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00198-005-1917-1? In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed. Answer: Thank you for your comments. Your suggestions are very important for improving the quality of the manuscript. We sincerely apologize for the text overlap issue and have thoroughly revised the manuscript. 3.Please note that your Data Availability Statement is currently missing the DOI/accession number of each dataset or a direct link to access each database. If your manuscript is accepted for publication, you will be asked to provide these details on a very short timeline. We therefore suggest that you provide this information now, though we will not hold up the peer review process if you are unable. Answer: Thank you for your comments. Your suggestions are very important for improving the quality of the manuscript. We have addressed your comments and completed the task as per your request. 4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Answer: Thank you for your comments. This task has been completed according to your requirements. 5.Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript. Answer: Thank you for your comments. This task has been completed according to your requirements. Additional Editor Comments: Ensure all abbreviations are defined at first use. Answer: Thank you for your comments. This task has been completed according to your requirements. Introduction Change “This study addresses the gap in ...general population” to "This study aims to address the gap in ... general population.” Answer: Thank you for your comments. Your suggestions are very important for improving the quality of the manuscript. We have addressed your comments and completed the task as per your request. Fig 1 should be part of the methods. Remove arrows from figure. Use neutral connectors instead. Answer: Thank you for your comments. Your suggestions are very important for improving the quality of the manuscript. Arrows, as internationally recognized symbols in flowcharts, are widely used in academic journal flowcharts. They visually demonstrate the sequence and direction of screening steps, conforming to international guideline standards and readers' reading habits, thereby enhancing the readability and academic quality of diagrams. Methods Provide the rationale for the selection of confounders and the choice statistical methods, especially for stratified and interaction analyses. Answer: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have added a clear rationale for our selection of confounders and statistical methods in the Methods section. Results Table 3 is too crowded; please divide it into two separate tables to improve clarity. Answer: Thank you for your comments. Your suggestions are very important for improving the quality of the manuscript. We have addressed your comments and completed the task as per your request. Discussion Discuss the clinical significance of the small observed effect size? Answer: Thank you for your comments. We acknowledge the importance of addressing the clinical significance of the observed effect size. We have added a new paragraph in the Discussion section to specifically address this point. Discuss possible mechanisms linking SES and TBS. Answer: Thank you for your comments. Your suggestions are very important for improving the quality of the manuscript. We have addressed your comments and completed the task as per your request. Explicitly mention study limitations,....use "temporal" instead of "causal" Answer: Thank you for your comments. This task has been completed according to your requirements. Ethics Add a brief statement clarifying that no ethics approval was needed due to the use of publicly available, de-identified NHANES data. Please check journal's guidelines Answer: Thank you for your comments. This task has been completed according to your requirements. 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 Answer: Thank you for your comments. We appreciate your positive remarks on our manuscript. We sincerely hope that our article will be accepted for publication. 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Answer: Thank you for your comments. We appreciate your positive remarks on our manuscript. We sincerely hope that our article will be accepted for publication. 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 Answer: Thank you for your comments. We appreciate your positive remarks on our manuscript. We sincerely hope that our article will be accepted for publication. 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 Answer: Thank you for your comments. We appreciate your positive remarks on our manuscript. We sincerely hope that our article will be accepted for publication. 6.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) Answer: Thank you again for your positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We hope you will find our revised manuscript acceptable for publication. Reviewer #1: I don’t have a lot of concerns about this study – large sample size and an unsurprising finding demonstrating a relationship between SES and TBS. There are these three things I suggest the authors correct, including: Answer: We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. As you are concerned, there are several problems that need to be addressed. According to your nice suggestions, we have made extensive corrections to our previous draft, the detailed corrections are listed below. 1. Introduction needs a hypothesis. Answer: Thank you for your comments. Your suggestions are very important for improving the quality of the manuscript. We have addressed your comments and completed the task as per your request. 2. Introduction needs expanding to include literature about other studies have looked at the relationship between SES and osteoporosis/bone health. There are plenty of them and the readers will need to get a good picture of what has already been done in this space, before understanding that there is a need to look at TBS. In fact, there have been studies that found inconsistent relationships between SES and different measures of bone remodelling/BMD etc. It will be important to establish a good overview of the current state of the literature there. Answer: Thank you for your comments. Your suggestions are very important for improving the quality of the manuscript. We have addressed your comments and completed the task as per your request. 3. In Figures 2 and 3, the font on the x and y axes and in the legend, is too small. Answer: Thank you for your comments. This task has been completed according to your requirements. 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 We sincerely thank the editor and all reviewers for their valuable feedback that we have used to improve the quality of our manuscript. We hope our revisions meet your approval and contribute meaningful insights to the field. We welcome any further comments or suggestions. Yours sincerely Qice Sun July 15, 2025 Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewer-PLOS ONE.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0338378.r002
8 Oct 2025 Decision Letter - Jianhong Zhou, Editor Dear Dr. Sun, Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 22 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 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, Jianhong Zhou Staff Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 1. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 2. 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.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: This is a much-improved manuscript. I have made some very minor comments in text on the writing mechanics here and there - please see file attached. I also suggest to rephrase the elements of the text that refer to the 'racial' analysis - it would be more culturally sensitive to use terms such as ethnicity or ancestry rather than race. Same goes for the use of 'blacks' 'whites' etc. - please consider using terms such as African-Americans, Caucasians etc. ****** 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 Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-24-55944_R1 reviewed.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0338378.r003
Revision 2
4 Nov 2025 Author Response To: The Editorial Office PLOS ONE Subject: Revised Submission of Manuscript PONE-D-24-55944R1 Title: Unveiling the Wealth-Bone Connection: How Socioeconomic Status Influences Trabecular Bone Health Dear Editor, We sincerely thank you and the reviewer for your constructive and thoughtful feedback on our manuscript. We are pleased that Reviewer #1 found our previous revisions satisfactory and considered the manuscript much improved. In accordance with the reviewer’s remaining suggestions, we have made several minor textual revisions to improve clarity and cultural sensitivity. Specifically, we replaced terms such as race, blacks, and whites with more culturally appropriate and scientifically precise expressions including ethnicity, ancestry, African Americans, and Caucasians. These changes have been carefully applied throughout the Methods, Results, and Discussion sections. We have also reviewed the reference list for completeness and accuracy, ensuring compliance with the PLOS ONE reference and data availability policies. A detailed, point-by-point rebuttal addressing the reviewer’s comments is included as a separate document, and all textual changes have been highlighted in the revised manuscript for ease of review. We thank the reviewers and editorial team again for their time and effort in improving the quality of our work. We believe that the revised version of our manuscript now meets the journal’s publication standards, and we respectfully submit it for your further consideration. Sincerely, Qice Sun The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University xinhuasunqice@163.com Response to Review Comments Manuscript Title: Unveiling the Wealth-Bone Connection: How Socioeconomic Status Influences Trabecular Bone Health Manuscript ID: PONE-D-24-55944R1 Dear Editor, We sincerely thank you and the reviewer for the positive evaluation of our revised manuscript. We are pleased that Reviewer #1 found our responses satisfactory and considered the manuscript much improved. Below, we provide our responses to the minor remaining suggestions. Editorial Requirements We have also reviewed the reference list to ensure it is accurate and that no retracted works are cited. All data remain publicly available in accordance with the PLOS Data Policy. Journal Requirements: If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. Response�Thank you for your attention. The reviewer's comments did not include suggestions for citing published literature. 2. 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. Response�Thank you for your attention. We carefully checked the list of references to ensure that the content was complete and accurate, and that there were no papers that had been retracted. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Response: Thank you for your attention. 2. 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 Response: Thank you for your attention. 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Response: Thank you for your attention. 4. 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 Response: Thank you for your attention. 5. 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 Response: Thank you for your attention. 6. 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 is a much-improved manuscript. I have made some very minor comments in text on the writing mechanics here and there - please see file attached. I also suggest to rephrase the elements of the text that refer to the 'racial' analysis - it would be more culturally sensitive to use terms such as ethnicity or ancestry rather than race. Same goes for the use of 'blacks' 'whites' etc. - please consider using terms such as African-Americans, Caucasians etc. Response: We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. Following this advice, we have carefully revised the manuscript to replace all terms referring to “race” with more culturally appropriate and scientifically precise terminology. Specifically: “race” has been replaced by “ethnicity” or “ancestry,” depending on context. “blacks” and “whites” have been replaced with “African Americans” and “Caucasians,” respectively. All corresponding sentences have been reviewed to ensure consistent and respectful language throughout the manuscript. These changes have been made in the Methods, Results, and Discussion sections accordingly (highlighted in the revised version). 7. 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 Response: Thank you for your attention. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0338378.r004
23 Nov 2025 Decision Letter - Mukhtiar Baig, Editor Unveiling the Wealth-Bone Connection: How Socioeconomic Status Influences Trabecular Bone Health PONE-D-24-55944R2 Dear Dr. Sun, 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, Mukhtiar Baig, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: Thank you for making the final minor corrections, the manuscript is now ready for publication, in my opinion. ****** 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 ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0338378.r005
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Mukhtiar Baig, Editor PONE-D-24-55944R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Sun, 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 You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days 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. You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing. 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 Professor Mukhtiar Baig Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0338378.r006

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 .