All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
I have thoroughly confirmed that the authors have addressed all of the reviewers' comments.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jafri Abdullah, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The reviewer suggested that the authors should revise the manuscript before considering the publication in PeerJ. Please find the reviewer comments listed in below.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: PeerJ can provide language editing services if you wish - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Your revision deadline is always extended while you undergo language editing. #]
no comment
no comment
no comment
The study has been significantly improved by incorporating the corrections suggested by the reviewers. However, there are still some critical points that can be improved:
Introduction:
- Lines 104 - 108: Make a connection between these two sentences
- Line 114: Define RED-S before using it for the first time (it is explained in the abstract, but should also be in the introduction).
- Line 116: Remove the period before the reference.
- Line 119: Before the aims, explain what research has been done on the relationship between RED-S syndrome and cognitive ability and what the gaps are in this area.
- Line 121: Change nutrition to lower case.
- Line 129: The term Female Athlete Triad (FAT) needs to be introduced before it is mentioned.
Methodology:
- Line 172: This inclusion criterion is too vague. All sports are competitive in their own right at a professional level.
- Line 193: Specify what VR/AR is.
- Line 181 - 194: Overall, the exclusion criteria could be grouped and simplified.
- Line 223: Improve readability of Table 1.
Results:
- This section should be better organised to make it more understandable, going from the more general aspects to the more specific aspects of particular sports. These can be classified and grouped.
- Tables need to be reduced to include only the relevant information.
- Use subheadings to organise and group results (also in the summary section).
As all reviewers have noted, this review falls within the scope of PeerJ, and Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport (RED-S) is an interesting and growing topic in the fields of sports and health. However, the reviewers have raised several issues. Please revise the manuscript to address the reviewers' comments.
The authors have submitted a review manuscript on the relationships between cognitive performance, energy intake and energy deficiency in athletes. This review is within the scope of PeerJ and energy deficit in sport (RED-S) is an interesting and growing topic in sport and health area.
The current proposal, which attempts to combine four reviews in one, may need further refinement.
The introduction - and the manuscript as a whole – needs to be simplified and I suggest to focus only on describing relative energy deficit in sport (RED-S) and cognitive abilities variables, and establishing the relationships between both. All questions concerning the artificial intelligence aspect should be removed. In any case, the background section about nutrition and energy deficiency in sport is very poor and must be improved.
Furthermore, the scientific gap that the authors intend to fill are not clearly defined and the aim is very broad and vague.
Regarding the methodology section, the review seems to focus on a small group of sports, but there is no indication of what classification of sport was used and why.
The literature search strategy is not entirely clear. More information should be provided. Furthermore, provide a rationale for the limited range of dates selected for the search.
Table 1 should be easier to read. It could be improved with clearer and more concise information, including the conclusions of each study.
It is recommended that the discussion be organised into subsections. Rather than merely listing the results of each research study analysed, these subsections should be linked together to provide additional information and help answer the aims set out in the introduction section.
The conclusions must be redrafted in line with the proposed new approach and should be unambiguous, concise, and aligned with the aim of this review.
The use of upper and lower case should be checked throughout the text and the table, as well as the use of spaces before quotations.
Title
I was wondering why you used the word “efficacy” in this context?
Introduction
87: Reference is missing
122: Please specify “ smaller amino acids”
128: RED-S results from failure of ingesting enough energy to provide energy for the bodys’ basal functions in addition to the energy required for physical activity.
129: RED-S does not result in psychological & eating disorders, rather psychological & eating disorders contribute to the complex picture of RED-S
140-141: The rationale of the present review is not stated clear enough. Why are cognitive abilities relevant for RED-S? For prevention of RED-S? For RED-S assessment? Or RED-S therapy?
Survey Methodology
Table:
I would suggest to order the studies based on their main topic with sub-headings, e.g. cognition, nutrition…. So the topic of each study becomes clearer to the reader at first sight.
212: Impacts of RED-S on female health are known and this statement is unspecific. What kind of consequences does RED-S have on health?
214: change “+” to “and”
Discussion
238: Reference is missing
no comment
no comment
no comment
General comments
This manuscript is a narrative review to conduct comprehensive survey on athletes’ cognition, nutrition, and energy deficiency, along with using deep learning models. This is a very interesting manuscript, but there are some critical points in some sections that need to be improved.
Specific comments
Please, consider the following point-by-point revisions:
Title and abstract
• Title: The title looks confusing and long. Please simplify this part ‘... exploring the effectiveness of cognition, nutrition, athlete energy deficiencies and deep learning models’. Please simplify this part more objectively ‘... exploring the effectiveness of cognition, nutrition, athlete energy deficiencies and deep learning models’.
• Abstract: The background should be exploratory and objective. This information should be reported by the results Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM), Bidirectional LSTM networks, Gated Recurrent Unit Networks (GRU) and attention + LSTM to quantify the health and performance of the athletes by recognition, classification, prediction of action in their sports. All the sections of the abstract seem too long, I advise you to summarize the information.
• Introduction: The introduction is well structured, but the context of the analysis needs to be described in detail. In the first paragraph, the authors should focus on specific sports, because it's not clear whether the focus is on performance (exercise), or physical activity (and concerns about well-being and quality of life) (lines 82 to 92). Also, the assumptions about neurogenesis and angiogenesis, as well as neurotrophins, lack context. At what stage of training and competition are the assumptions raised? (lines 94 to 117). Finally, the review focuses on cognition, nutrition and energy deficiencies, but I have some difficulty as to what the authors actually intend to study and review in each subdomain (lines 120 to 158).
• Methodology: The survey methodology did not respect a set of methodological concerns when drawing up the research strategy. Please, clarify taking into account available guidelines (see: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8481359/) or previous published revisions (https://www.mjssm.me/?sekcija=article&artid=269). The criteria for evaluating the quality of the studies to include the articles, the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the data extraction strategies. Even in the case of a survey review, all of this must be explained.
• Results: The extraction of information for table 1 is somewhat poor and is limited to the structure of the articles. Please expand a little more, taking into account the three main axes you want to study: cognition, nutrition and energy deficiencies. The studies presented in table 1 do not describe what they report and, in fact, I find it difficult to understand their relationship with the objective set for the article.
• Discussion and conclusions: The discussion must be expanded. At the end, it should be clear to the reader what the literature criticizes, practical applications and future prospects. As well, the conclusions should be a short, objective section of 2/3 sentences with the main outcomes. Therefore, I recommend that you summarise the discussion in order to better frame the assumptions made with practical applicability (in what sporting context is all this useful to me?) and how I can actually understand the different dimensions of analysis that are aimed at understanding Relative Energy Deficiency in Sports (RED-S) by exploring the efficacy of cognition, nutrition, energy deficiencies of athletes and deep learning models. Also, the authors give little description of the deep models that can be applied in this context of analysis.
• References: Please expand a little more on the methodological procedures of the survey review.
Please, see also the peer review comments in the attachement.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.