Structured PREreview of The landscape of paediatric infectious disease exposure in a rural sub-Saharan Africa setting in Kilifi, Kenya: longitudinal serological analysis over two decades and priorities for future vaccine development

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

Partly

What justification explains the inclusion of only 38 infectious diseases ? Are these the only infectious diseases causing mortality in children within SSA?

Are the methods well-suited for this research?

Somewhat appropriate

We think the authors didn’t control for the confounding effects. The relationship between age and anti-body titre can be confounded by sex, socioeconomic status, nutritional status (malnutrition affects immune status), or even behavioral status. Second, authors could have regressed the anti-body levels against time while controlling for confounding effects, thus permitting the report of an adjusted p-trend. The difference between serological measures between the birth and in-patient cohorts could be interacted with time with probably repeated ANOVA. This could help visualize the sphericity in differences between the two groups in time; if that ever existed, then probably use cox-harzard model.

Are the conclusions supported by the data?

Somewhat supported

We think the results are well discussed to suit the study objective (s) however, due to the limitation of not controlling or properly managing the confounding effect, we have some reservations about the conclusion being made.

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

Highly appropriate and clear

They present results appropriately, well captured and titled.

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

Very clearly

The authors explained it is the first study in this capacity in Africa, recommending the conduct of similar studies and vaccine developmentfor diseases that do not yet have one.

Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge?

Highly likely

1. The idea of comparing different cohorts of childbirth to advance knowledge in terms of preventing child mortality and development in medical research advancement(vaccine development). 2. It also helps in surveillance for available vaccine effectiveness

Would it benefit from language editing?

No

The language is appropriate and can be understood by the target audience.

Would you recommend this preprint to others?

Yes, but it needs to be improved

There is a need for minor revision or acknowledgment of confounding effects.

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.