Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The present narrative review explores a very important, yet actual topic for applied research at the edge between clinical and internal medicine, biology, neuroscience and, given the rising prevalence of such disturbances, it can have a significant impact on public health. The methods used are properly described, and the choice for a narrative review, within a complex framework as this described here, appears to be the best solution to achieve and deliver exactly what is promised.

I have just two concerns:

• Throughout the manuscript, several typos are present and English language should be carefully revised. In some parts, the sentences' structures are also poor, as happens, for example, in the final part of the Abstract, and in many parts of the discussion sections.
• Figures are well aligned with the content of the paper, however, the use of GenAI in generating them should be acknowledged

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Thank you for your positive and thoughtful evaluation of our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your recognition of the importance of the topic, its interdisciplinary nature, and its potential impact on public health.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper submitted to me for review, entitled “Diet–Microbiome–Brain Axis and Mental Health: Biological Mechanisms and Nutritional Implications,” is a review article.

It covers a very interesting topic, which is the relationship between mental health and diet.

The authors reviewed the most important scientific literature databases on PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science.

I have no objections to the introduction of the paper.

In the second chapter, the authors describe the methodology of the analyses in detail.

The paper includes three very interesting figures illustrating the topic under discussion.

In addition, two tables are also included.

The work as a whole discusses the complex relationships between diet, metabolic pathways, and mental health in a very detailed but also accessible way. It will certainly be useful for other authors in preparing their research papers.

At the end, the authors draw careful but interesting and fully justified conclusions from the analyzed scientific literature.

The paper includes 102 references to current scientific literature.

In summary, I believe the topic of the paper is very interesting. The paper contains the latest data on the subject. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well-structured and up-to-date review that clearly reflects a strong command of the literature and a solid mechanistic perspective.

The methodological section is generally appropriate, however, it would benefit from slightly more precise description of the study selection process. In particular, it would be helpful to clarify the applied exclusion criteria (e.g small sample size, lack of relevant outcomes), the types of mental health outcomes considered (clinical diagnoses v. self-reported measures) and how dietary exposures were defined (dietary patterns vs individual nutrients).

Toward the end of the Introduction, the brief reference to oral health and child development appears somewhat disconnected from the main focus, this could be either more tightly integrated or removed to maintain a clearer narrative flow.

To further improve readability, some of the denser paragraphs could be shortened, and key messages could be highlighted more clearly, as several sections currently present multiple statements in quick succession.

The practical relevance of the manuscript could be strengthened by including a brief clinical takeaways or key messages section.

From a content perspective, it would be valuable to more clearly distinguish which conclusions are supported by human studies -especially RCTs-, and which rely primarily on animal or mechanistic evidence. Related to this, the authors may wish to clarify which proposed mechanisms are currently supported by human-level evidence.

The conclusions are well aligned with the overall narrative but remain somewhat general. It would be useful to more explicitly highlight what is novel in this review compared to the existing literature, and to outline concrete clinical or research next steps emerging from the synthesis. Finally, a light stylistic and editorial revision would further enhance the overall clarity and readability of the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf