Escrever um comentário

Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint?

Yes

It defined the population ("often associated with military service, contact sports or domestic violence"), what they are exposed to ("Traumatic brain injury") and its result ("mortality and long-term neurological disability"). So the objective is to provide a solution to avoid those results in those populations under those circumstances. It has also broken down the results into biological and measurable responses "into external (medical care access and pre-existing health conditions) and intrinsic (age, gender, genetics) risk factors", as well as "the complex interplay that occurs between multiple cell types (neurons, glia) and signaling cascades that regulate appropriate activation of inflammation, clearance, and repair pathways"

Are the methods well-suited for this research?

Highly appropriate

Data are extracted from trustworthy databases Flies were divided into three groups to simulated different types of TBI: "A severe trauma bout (sTBI) was set at 4.3 m/s and a mild bout (mTBI) at 2.1 m/s. For multi-bout conditions, fly cohorts were injured (5 seconds) and allowed to recover for 30 seconds before the start of subsequent injury bouts." Outcome measured after 24 hours to determine mortality and 3 times each week for 3 weeks to asses long term disability The design of the study and methods used to conduct the experiments were appropriate. The flies were randomized into groups and provided with the right environmental conditions of the study. The statistical test and tools employed were also suitable for the study.

Are the conclusions supported by the data?

Somewhat supported

The section on "Implications for Human Health' should be rewritten to capture the effect on human health instead of repeating the results gotten from the analysis. Specifically on application to different categories of human health e.g a disease. Suggest a design for a clinical trial that can be done in humans to utilize the information in this study to draw clinical conclusions in humans. Talk about the future direction of the study.

Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data?

Somewhat appropriate and clear

Legends are needed to explain the tables, especially the abbreviations used.

How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research?

Somewhat clearly

Suggest a design for a clinical trial that can be done in humans to utilize the information in this study to draw clinical conclusions in humans. Talk about the future direction of the study.

Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge?

Highly likely

Yes, the study does by pointing out the genetic modifiers for disease expression in both humans and Drosophila.

Would it benefit from language editing?

Yes

More simple language to be understood by doctors and the general public. Avoiding abbreviations, at least the first time a new technical word is used in the paper.

Would you recommend this preprint to others?

Yes, but it needs to be improved

Include an abbreviation table Specify inclusion criteria for the selection of drosophila Legend for tables Limitations of study should be included The discussion section on implication on human health should be rewritten (suggest a clinical study design)

Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience?

Yes, after minor changes

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.