Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 27, 2025
Decision Letter - Giuseppe Biagini, Editor

PONE-D-25-68208Comparing the safety and efficacy of sodium valproate, levetiracetam, and phenytoin in attenuating the severity of agitation in patients with post-traumatic brain injury: an observational studyPLOS One

Dear Dr. Gangachannaiah,

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 Apr 17 2026 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 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,

Giuseppe Biagini, MD

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 in your Competing Interests section:

[NO authors have competing interests].

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now

This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. 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.

4. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

5. 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.

6. We note that Figure 4 in your submission contains images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 4 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

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.

[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: 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: 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: The authors of PONE-D-25-68208 conducted a prospective study to compare the safety and efficacy of sodium valproate, levetiracetam, and phenytoin in agitation control in patients managed after traumatic brain injury.

The study concludes that sodium valproate has higher efficacy and rapid beneficial actions in reducing agitation compared to levetiracetam, and the authors suggest that this treatment strategy offers better safety profile than phenytoin and levetiracetam.

I believe that the study was well designed and reported, the reference list is extremely poor and would benefit from inclusion of other relevant works. I do not totally agree with the conclusion that sodium valproate is easier to use than levetiracetam and would also modify the conclusion accordingly. Please see my detailed points below:

The introduction would benefit from additional references on delirium incidence, pathophysiology and management in NeuroIntensive Care Unit and in particularly following admission of silver traumas, given the increased risk in elderly patients. Please consider the followings:

- O'Keeffe F, et al. Serum biomarkers of delirium in critical illness: a systematic review of mechanistic and diagnostic evidence. Intensive Care Med Exp. 2025;13(1):90. doi: 10.1186/s40635-025-00795-z.

- Depreitere B, et al. Unique considerations in the assessment and management of traumatic brain injury in older adults. Lancet Neurol. 2025;24(2):152-165. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(24)00454-X.

I would also suggest to provide a better rationale for the use of antiepileptics, the authors provide only one paragraph about that. Ganau et al. provided a clear rationale for such pharmacological class and I would suggest to refer to their section dedicated to antiepileptics:

- Ganau M, et al. Delirium and agitation in traumatic brain injury patients: an update on pathological hypotheses and treatment options. Minerva Anestesiol. 2018;84(5):632-640. doi: 10.23736/S0375-9393.18.12294-2.

The antiepileptic drugs suggested are very effective in TBI patients however at present there is no equipoise on the most appropriate strategy, in fact the randomized trial MAST (see https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04573803) is still enrolling patients to clarify this matter. At present the only consensus is on the use of sedation plus poly-pharmacological strategy for the management of status epileptics following TBI (see Prisco L, et al. A pragmatic approach to intravenous anaesthetics and electroencephalographic endpoints for the treatment of refractory and super-refractory status epilepticus in critical care. Seizure. 2020;75:153-164. doi: 10.1016/j.seizure.2019.09.011.).

A consideration on those important pieces of scientific research is certainly warranted.

**********

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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Revision 1

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

Response: Thank you sir. We have complied with the journal style

2. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section:

[NO authors have competing interests].

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now

This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Response: We have stated "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist" and the same is included in the Cover letter.

3. 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.

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.

Response: Dear Sir, we have provided the compiled raw dataset used in the study as a supporting information file for your reference along with codes [S1_Rawdata and S2_Diary].

4. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

Response: Thank you for the clarification. We confirm that the submission contains all data required to replicate the study findings, including the values underlying summary statistics, figures, and analyses, which are provided as Supporting Information.

The dataset has been fully anonymized and includes all variables necessary for reproducibility. Although informed consent was obtained, explicit consent for unrestricted public data sharing was not secured at the time of enrolment from the participants. We therefore consulted the Institutional Ethics Committee, and in accordance with their guidance, full open access to the dataset is restricted to ensure participant confidentiality. The raw data are available and maintained within the Institutional Ethics Committee repository; access will be provided upon request. Requests for access can be directed to iec.kmc@manipal.edu to ensure compliance with ethical and legal requirements.

5. 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.

Response: Dear Sir, the orcid ID of the corresponding author is validated in Editorial Manager. Corresonding author’s ORCID ID is 0000-0002-6359-4024

6. We note that Figure 4 in your submission contains images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

Response: Sir, we thank you for highlighting this important point. Figure 4 was created by myself (Dr Shivaprakash G and Dr Shivani) using BioRender under an institutional academic license.

We have obtained and uploaded the official BioRender “Confirmation of Publication and Licensing Rights – Open Access” document, which explicitly permits publication of the figure under a CC BY 4.0 license, including for journals such as Public Library of Science.

We confirm here that the figure does not contain any third-party copyrighted material. In accordance with BioRender’s licensing requirements, the appropriate citation has been included in the revised figure caption. [Created in BioRender. Parida, A. (2026) https://BioRender.com/orogd49]

We confirm that the figure fully complies with the journal’s copyright and licensing requirements.

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

Response: Thank you Sir.

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

Reviewer #1: No.

Response: Dear Sir, we thank the reviewer for this important comment. The entire dataset was reanalyzed in consultation with an independent statistician, with analyses performed using the latest version of R software and appropriate statistical methods. All results were cross-verified to ensure accuracy and consistency. The detailed statistical methodology has been clarified in the revised “Statistical Analysis” section, and the raw dataset has been provided for transparency. We confirm that the analyses performed are appropriate and robust for the study and can be independently verified.

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

Response: Thank you Sir.

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

Response: Thank you Sir.

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 authors of PONE-D-25-68208 conducted a prospective study to compare the safety and efficacy of sodium valproate, levetiracetam, and phenytoin in agitation control in patients managed after traumatic brain injury.

The study concludes that sodium valproate has higher efficacy and rapid beneficial actions in reducing agitation compared to levetiracetam, and the authors suggest that this treatment strategy offers better safety profile than phenytoin and levetiracetam.

I believe that the study was well designed and reported, the reference list is extremely poor and would benefit from inclusion of other relevant works. I do not totally agree with the conclusion that sodium valproate is easier to use than levetiracetam and would also modify the conclusion accordingly. Please see my detailed points below:

The introduction would benefit from additional references on delirium incidence, pathophysiology and management in NeuroIntensive Care Unit and in particularly following admission of silver traumas, given the increased risk in elderly patients. Please consider the followings:

- O'Keeffe F, et al. Serum biomarkers of delirium in critical illness: a systematic review of mechanistic and diagnostic evidence. Intensive Care Med Exp. 2025;13(1):90. doi: 10.1186/s40635-025-00795-z.

- Depreitere B, et al. Unique considerations in the assessment and management of traumatic brain injury in older adults. Lancet Neurol. 2025;24(2):152-165. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(24)00454-X.

I would also suggest to provide a better rationale for the use of antiepileptics, the authors provide only one paragraph about that. Ganau et al. provided a clear rationale for such pharmacological class and I would suggest to refer to their section dedicated to antiepileptics:

- Ganau M, et al. Delirium and agitation in traumatic brain injury patients: an update on pathological hypotheses and treatment options. Minerva Anestesiol. 2018;84(5):632-640. doi: 10.23736/S0375-9393.18.12294-2.

The antiepileptic drugs suggested are very effective in TBI patients however at present there is no equipoise on the most appropriate strategy, in fact the randomized trial MAST (see https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04573803) is still enrolling patients to clarify this matter. At present the only consensus is on the use of sedation plus poly-pharmacological strategy for the management of status epileptics following TBI (see Prisco L, et al. A pragmatic approach to intravenous anaesthetics and electroencephalographic endpoints for the treatment of refractory and super-refractory status epilepticus in critical care. Seizure. 2020;75:153-164. doi: 10.1016/j.seizure.2019.09.011.).

A consideration on those important pieces of scientific research is certainly warranted.

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the constructive feedback and for highlighting relevant literature to strengthen the manuscript.

As suggested, we have substantially revised the Introduction to improve the depth and context of the study. Specifically, we have incorporated additional references addressing the incidence, pathophysiology, and management of delirium in neurocritical care settings, with particular emphasis on older adults and trauma populations.

• Burden: Lines 120-127

• Pathophysiology: Lines 128-136

• Management: Lines 137-165

We have also expanded the rationale for the use of antiepileptic drugs in post-traumatic agitation providing a clearer mechanistic and clinical basis for this pharmacological approach.

• Rationale of using antiepileptics: Lines 167-181

We have revised the conclusion to avoid overstating the comparative ease of use of sodium valproate; the final conclusion is now data-driven and has been modified in accordance with the available evidence.

Conclusion: Lines 395-399

We believe these changes have significantly improved the scientific rigor and contextual relevance of the manuscript and hope will satisfy, point by point to reviewers’ queries.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Giuseppe Biagini, Editor

Comparing the safety and efficacy of sodium valproate, levetiracetam, and phenytoin in attenuating the severity of agitation in patients with post-traumatic brain injury: an observational study

PONE-D-25-68208R1

Dear Dr. Gangachannaiah,

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,

Giuseppe Biagini, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

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

**********

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

**********

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 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

**********

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

**********

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: Authors have conducted a robust revision, their rebuttal letter provides a comprehensive outline of the changes made in the manuscript and I'm pleased to say that they have addressed all reviewers' comments

**********

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

**********

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Giuseppe Biagini, Editor

PONE-D-25-68208R1

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Gangachannaiah,

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

Dr. Giuseppe Biagini

Academic Editor

PLOS One

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 .