To authors, 1. Abstract: “This disorder is caused by irregular menstrual periods”: peculiar! The latter is the result (manifestation) of the former (PCOS) and never is the “cause” of the former. Please state/consider “cause-effect relationship” more accurately. Nobody consider that PCOS is “caused” by irregular period.
2. You state, “The main aim of our re- 22 search study is to predict polycystic ovary syndrome”, “Our study reveal that the dataset features 32 PRL(ng/mL), BP_Systolic(mmHg), BP_Diastolic(mmHg), TSH(mlU/L), RR(breaths/min), and Preg- 33 nant(Y/N) are most prominent factors that cause the PCOS in females”. Please consider the meaning of “prediction” or “cause”. If you obtained data (for examples) from women aged 15-18 (ages not yet showing PCOS) and then “predict” the “later occurrence” of PCOS from/amomg this fraction (after several years), then, you can say “predict PCOS”. The factors (variables) are often the “manifestation” of PCOS and thus this shows the “occurrence” of PCOS and NOT “prediction” of PCOS. This holds true also to the text. Please reconsider the context. 3. Introduction; Cause effect relationship between PCOS and described factor is still unclear. 4. Introduction; Not well organized. You state things regarding machine learning here and there. No need to write the incidence rate in various areas in a so detailed manner. 5. Introduction is too long. 6. Methods. Sorry if I am absent minded but did you write “whom you studied”? Please describe detailed data regarding 541 women. Please bear in mind the issue that I wrote in number advice. You here really made a study on “Prediction”? If so, please write things in a more reader-friendly manner.

To editors, I must apologize to you for my carelessness. I believe that I can easily review this paper; however, the calculation and mathematics here described is far beyond my knowledge/power. Thus, I cannot determine the significance of this study. Very sorry for this. However, as a paper writing specialist and also as a clinician dealing with PCOS, there may be a number of problems in this paper. Some examples were written in “to author” section. Furthermore, the real problem of PCOS is the future development of diabetes and cardiovascular disorders. The authors did not touch, or at least less touched, this issue. I marked “rejection” tentatively for this reason (mainly from viewpoint of paper writing); however, please ask some specialist of machine learning regarding the significance of this paper. Very sorry but please DO NOT ask me to REVIEW the revised one. You can easily understand the meaning.