Nutrient Patterns, Cognitive Function, and Decline in Older Persons: Results from the Three-City and NuAge Studies
, Cécilia Samieri 1, Marthe-Aline Jutand 6, Pierre-Hugues Carmichael 3,4, Bryna Shatenstein 7, Pierrette Gaudreau 8,9, Guylaine Ferland 9,10, Pascale Barberger-Gateau 1,† and Danielle Laurin 2,3,4,9,†Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have answered my concerns
Author Response
The authors thank the reviewer for his/her help during the review process.
Reviewer 2 Report
I thank the authors for their thorough revision. I would just like to emphasise a point I made previously although realising that the authors tend to follow the language trends set in the literature (following literature trends is not necessarily a good thing). I still believe that 'a posteriori derived' is not a proper adjectival phrase (can't be hyphenated properly) and must be rephrased or the word 'derived' be deleted because it seems the nutrient patterns were not 'derived' from anything, or were they? I understand the clarification of why such a phrasal construction was used, but the point I was trying to make was to highlight the clumsiness of the semantics in that example. Perhaps avoiding the Latin and sticking with plain English would work, too.
Thank you.
I don't have any other comments.
Author Response
Following the reviewer's suggestion, the term "derived" was deleted or replaced by another term when necessary throughout the manuscript (see changes in red in the text):
- p 1 line 31: deleted
- p 4 l 156 : replaced by "obtained"
- p 9 l 260 : replaced by "computed"
- p 10 l 340 : deleted
We thank the reviewer for his/her help during the review process.
