Dear Dr. ZHAO,

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 Nov 28 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,

Alaa Oteir, PhD

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 note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. Thank you for stating the following in your manuscript:

[This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81971808), the Beijing Natural Science Foundation (7222199), Capital Health Research and Development of Special (2018-2-4082) and the Peking University People’s Hospital Scientific Research Development Funds (RDGS2023-07). The funders played no role in the design or implementation of the study, or manuscript writing.]

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

[The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.]

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

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. 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 delete it from any other section.

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information .

7. 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.

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.

[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: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Thank you for inviting me to review the article entitled ‘Prognostic Accuracy of the CMPMIT-ICD10, APACHE-II, SOFA, ISS, and AIS Scoring Scale for In-Hospital Death Among Patients with Traumatic Haemorrhagic Shock’.

Serious injuries are the leading cause of death and disability worldwide. Unintentional injuries are ranked as the sixth leading cause of death and the fifth leading cause of moderate to severe disability. The objective of the study was to compare the prognostic performance of the CMPMIT-ICD10 with that of the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, Injury Severity Score, and Abbreviated Injury Scale for in-hospital mortality in patients with traumatic haemorrhagic shock(THS).

Title:

• The title of the paper reflect the scope of the research.

Abstract:

• The abstract clearly describes the work.

Introduction:

• This section provides a good introduction to the reader's topic.

Methods:

• In the methods section, it is worth adding a description of the elements/parameters of each scale and the range of possible scores on these scales. This can even take the form of a table. This will make it easier for the reader to understand the results of the work.

Results:

• This section is well described.

Discussion:

• Dividing this into subsections, where the results are discussed according to individual scales, would help the reader to understand the topic.

References:

• The references are correctly selected.

I congratulate the authors of the study. The article is very well prepared and clinically useful.

Reviewer #2: Abstract:

Switch out “the good specificity” for “a good specificity.” Make it crystal clear right off the bat: spell out the study period (2013–2023) and describe the study design upfront.

Introduction:

Some of those stats—like the mortality rates from haemorrhagic shock—could really use extra references to back them up. like:

*Ala A, Shams Vahdati S, Asghari A, Makouei M, Poureskandari M. Accuracy of the new injury severity score in the evaluation of patients with blunt trauma. Archives of Trauma Research. 2022 Jun 1;11(2):71-3.

*Hakimzadeh Z, Vahdati SS, Ala A, Rahmani F, Ghafouri RR, Jaberinezhad M. The predictive value of the Kampala Trauma Score (KTS) in the outcome of multi-traumatic patients compared to the estimated Injury Severity Score (eISS). BMC emergency medicine. 2024 May 14;24(1):82.

*

Methods:

Actually list the ICD-10 codes or categories you used for the CMPMIT scoring, instead of leaving readers guessing. Toss in a brief bit about how you made sure the Trauma-Specific Database data was accurate—something on data validation and quality checks.

Tables & Figures:

Table 1: Keep the decimal points consistent—so, for example, use <0.001 instead of 0.001.

Table 2: Make sure to clearly label the units for AUC, PPV, and NPV. Use bold to highlight the best-performing numbers.

Figure 2: The ROC curve comparison is kinda hard to read—add color coding and a clear legend, maybe even replot it so differences jump out.

Explicitly mention Supplementary Tables S1–S7 in the main text so readers don’t miss them.

Language & Style:

The writing’s already pretty clear, just needs a few tweaks for grammar. For example:

Instead of: “The CMPMIT-ICD10 had the highest sensitivity (85.4%), the good specificity (79.9%)…”

Go with: “The CMPMIT-ICD10 had the highest sensitivity (85.4%), good specificity (79.9%), and overall accuracy (80.4%).”

Ditch the repetition—no need to say “good specificity and good accuracy” back-to-back.

Ethics & Funding:

Ethics approval (2020PHB258-01) and the waiver of consent are both there and easy to find—nice job.

Double-check that the Funding and Competing Interests sections use the latest PLOS ONE format. Don’t want any surprises there.

**********

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

**********

[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: Review v 1.1.docx

Prognostic accuracy of the CMPMIT-ICD-10, APACHE Ⅱ, SOFA, ISS, and AIS for in-hospital death among patients with traumatic hemorrhagic shock

PONE-D-24-58143R1

Dear Dr. ZHAO,

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,

Alaa Oteir, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS One