A novel technique for olfactory bulb measurements.

BACKGROUND: To introduce new ways to calculate OB volumes, checking their validity and comparing them to already established technique i.e. OB volumetric based on manual segmentation of OB boundaries.
METHODS: Two approaches were used to calculate OB volumes (1) Manual Segmentation using planimetric manual contouring; (2) Box-frame method, calculating the parameters based on a box placed around the OB.
RESULTS: We calculated OB volumes using both techniques and found comparable outcomes. High inter-observer reliability was found for volumes calculated by both observers. For manual segmentation, Cronbach's alpha (α) was 0.91 and 0.93 for right and left OB volume, respectively, whereas for the box-frame method α was 0.94 and 0.90 for right and left OB, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The simple box-frame method of OB volume calculation appears reliable. Its results are comparable to an established technique.

Introduction

The olfactory bulb (OB) is a highly significant structure in the processing of olfactory information. It is the first relay station from the peripheral olfactory system to higher order processing of olfactory information. In animals, OB continuously replace its local GABAergic interneurons which signifies [1-3] continuous generation of new neurons throughout lifetime [4]. From the sub-ventricular zone (SVZ), the OB receives progenitor cells through the rostral migration stream, which have the property of differentiation [4]. These newly born adult cells further integrate into an already existing OB neural network, hence adapting its function [5].

Less is known about the plastic nature of the OB in humans. Its regenerative property in humans is still a topic of debate. A study by Bergmann et al., focusing on the age of OB neurons in humans concluded that age of the OB neurons equals the age of an individual and that less than 1% of OB neurons are replaced in one’s entire lifetime [6]. However, other groups reported indications for major regenerative activity in the OB [7]. In addition, the influx of neurons from the SVZ to the OB had been described in humans [8] which compares to animals [2].

Humans have varied OB volumes, which had been hypothesized to depend on synaptic input from olfactory receptor neurons [9, 10] In healthy subjects, OB volume was found to positively correlate with measured olfactory function, and varying with age [11-13]. OB volume varies in subjects with different olfactory pathologies. For example, subjects with congenital anosmia may have under-developed or no OB, whereas reduced OB volume was reported in subjects with post-infectious and post-traumatic olfactory loss [14]. As an exception to this rule, Weiss et al. reported normal olfactory functioning in women who did not have clear and distinct OB [14-16].

The OB volume is of clinical importance to gauge olfactory function [13, 17, 18]. As reported, change in OB volume correlates well with odor threshold and odor identification [19]. Moreover, because assessment of OB volume requires manual delineation, it is time-consuming and needs specific training of observers. Hence, OB volume measurements are typically not used in routine examinations of patients with olfactory loss. This might change with the availability of tools allowing reliable but less investigator-biased and faster OB volume measurement. Hence, the aim of the present study was to introduce a new way to calculate OB volumes, examining (1) its test- retest reliability and (2) validity, comparing them to the established technique, i.e. OB volumetric based on manual segmentation of OB boundaries (3) checking usability of the new technique by experts and non- experts.

Methods

Subjects

To calculate OB volumes, 52 subjects underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain. All participating subjects visited the Smell and Taste Clinic at the Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus (Dresden, Germany) and were clinically diagnosed with smell loss. The local Ethics Committee approved the study. All subjects provided written informed consent and were tested for their orthonasal olfactory functioning using the “Sniffin’ Sticks” test battery [20] which comprises three olfactory tests: olfactory threshold for phenyl ethyl alcohol (a rose-like odor), odor discrimination and odor identification. These tests were used to categorize olfactory loss patients as being either functionally anosmic, hyposmic or normosmic [21].

MRI acquisition

MRI data were acquired on a 3 Tesla scanner (model Prisma; Siemens, Erlangen, Germany). For the T2 weighted sequence a 32-channel head coil was used. The scanning parameters were: repetition time (TR) = 1500 ms; echo time (TE) = 78 ms; flip angle = 150°; slice thickness = 1mm; field of view matrix = 256 x 320.

Measurement of OB volume

OB volumes (shown in Fig 1B) were calculated using two methods.

Fig 1

(A) Whole brain MR scan from a single subject. (B) right and left OB of the subject. (C) MS approach by plane manual contouring technique. (D) BF approach, with H = height and W = width depiction.

Manual segmentation method (MS)

AMIRA 3D visualization and modeling system (Visage Imaging, Carlsbad, USA) was used to calculate the volume of right and left OB using the planimetric manual contouring (PMC) technique (surface in mm2) (Fig 1A and 1C). The OB sequence included acquisition of 1 mm thick T2- weighted fast spin images, in the coronal plane that covers middle and anterior portions of the skull base. A standardized PMC protocol was applied to all scans [22]. Firstly, number of slices with clear visibility of the OB were selected. On each successive slice of brain, contours on left and right side of OB were manually drawn. The proximal end of the OB was defined by the abrupt change in the diameter at the beginning of the olfactory tract [22, 23].Two trained observers blind to the diagnosis and clinical characteristics of the subjects, calculated the volumes (in mm3).

Box- frame method (BF)

ITK-SNAP (version 3.8.0, University of Pennsylvania & University of Utah, www.itksnap.org) [24] was used for the alternative calculations of OB volumes. Firstly, the number of slices with distinct visibility of the OB was noted down. Further, the slice having the most visible voxels for both right and left side was chosen as the standard slice (in most cases it was the central slice). As the OB shape varies between individuals, we framed a box on it as shown in Fig 1A and 1D. Annotations were drawn on the standard slice using Image annotation tool. With the help of this tool, we calculated the width (w) and height (h) by physically drawing a line between two extreme points of OB. For calculation of box volume, the length (l) was calculated by selecting the total number of slices which showed clear and distinct OB, multiplied by the slice thickness (1mm) (V = l*w*h, in mm3). Two expert observers (AJ, XY), blind to the subject’s condition calculated the volumes of right and left OBs. When the difference exceeded 10%, a third expert observer calculated the volumes again. After input of the third observer, two closest volumes with less than 10% difference were selected.

The idea for proposing the BF approach was also its usability by non-experts in neuroimaging. Accordingly, we checked its performance by non- expert observers who belonged to a different background with no imaging experience. They were well explained how the technique works and were asked to do the measurements in all of the subject population. Following the same rules, when the difference exceeded 10%, a third non-expert observer calculated the volumes again.

Out of the total 52 subjects, five subjects were excluded due to unclear OBs and lack of subject’s information and finally, volumes of 47 subjects were analyzed and compared for left and right OB volumes. Out of them, 36 subjects had reduced olfactory functioning due to an infection in the upper respiratory tract (URTI), eight were diagnosed with idiopathic olfactory loss (ID) and three had congenital anosmia.

Statistics

The Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 25.0 (IBM SPSS 25.0, Chicago, IL, USA) was used for statistical analysis. Table 1 shows the characteristic information for all subjects (means ± SD). A paired t-test was done to compare volumes of right and left OB as calculated by observers 1 and 2 using both methods. Furthermore, using Pearson correlation, inter-observer reliability was investigated for the volumes calculated by MS (AMIRA) and BF (ITK-SNAP) method. The level of significance was set at 0.05.

Table 1

Subject characteristics shown as mean ± standard deviation [SD] or number of subjects [N (%)].

Age (in years)	56 ± 14
Male/ female ratio	15/ 32
Causes of olfactory loss
patients with idiopathic olfactory loss	N = 8 {17%}
patients with congenital olfactory dysfunction	N = 3 {6%}
patients with post- viral olfactory loss	N = 36 {77%}
OB results using the Manual Segmentation:
Volume of right OB (Observer 1) (in mm3)	21.52 ± 11.42
Volume of right OB (Observer 2) (in mm3)	19.25 ± 10.67
Volume of left OB (Observer 1) (in mm3)	22.73 ± 13.11
Volume of left OB (Observer 2) (in mm3)	20.44 ± 12.11
OB results using the Box- Frame method (expert)
Volume of right OB (Observer 1) (in mm3)	34.34 ± 18.46
Volume of right OB (Observer 2) (in mm3)	32.96 ± 17.51
Volume of left OB (Observer 1) (in mm3)	32.38 ± 17.53
Volume of left OB (Observer 2) (in mm3)	31.52 ± 17.41
OB results using the Box- Frame method (non-expert)
Volume of right OB (Observer 1) (in mm3)	33.65 ± 17.78
Volume of right OB (Observer 2) (in mm3)	39.24 ± 22.10
Volume of left OB (Observer 1) (in mm3)	42.12 ± 24.46
Volume of left OB (Observer 2) (in mm3)	42.71 ± 27.23
Olfactory test scores
TDI score	17.91 ± 7.86
Threshold score	2.57 ± 2.54
Discrimination score	7.87 ± 3.40
Identification score	7.64 ± 3.49
Duration of smell loss
0–2 years	33
2–5 years	8
5–10 years	2
>10 years	4
Categorisation of participants
Functional anosmia	23
Hyposmia	21
Normosmia	3

Results

Mean volumes for right and left OB as measured by 2 observers using MS and BF-methods varied significantly (p<0.05) with MS producing smaller volumes (Fig 2). Number of slices chosen by the 2 observers did not vary significantly for both methods. The mean number of slices for MS and BF methods were 6.3 and 6.8 respectively.

Fig 2

Averaging from measurements done by both the expert observers, OB volumes in Mean ± SEM, measured by both methods: MS right = 20.38 ± 1.54; BF right = 33.65 ± 2.59; MS left = 21.58 ± 1.8; BF left = 31.95 ± 2.5.

Positive correlation was found between OB volumes calculated by observer 1 and 2 for both methods: For MS, r = 0.84, p <0.01 (right OB) and r = 0.86, p <0.01 (left OB). For BF, r = 0.95, p<0.01 (right OB) and r = 0.89, p< 0.01 (left OB) (Table 2 and Fig 3).

Table 2

Correlations between right and left OB volumes obtained by expert observers (O1 = observer 1 and O2 = observer 2) and with different techniques (manual segmentation and box frame method).

		Coefficients of correlation (r)	level of significance (p)
O1 vs. O2: Manual Segmentation	Right OB	0.84	<0.01
O1 vs. O2: Box-frame	Right OB	0.95	<0.01
O1 vs. O2: Manual Segmentation	Left OB	0.86	<0.01
O1 vs. O2: Box-frame	Left OB	0.90	<0.01
Manual Segmentation vs Box- frame	Right OB	0.73	<0.01
Manual Segmentation vs Box- frame	Left OB	0.70	<0.01

Fig 3

Positive correlation between volumes (in mm3) measured by observer 1 and 2 for manual segmentation (MS) and box- frame methods (BF).

For MS, (A) r = 0.84, p <0.01 (right OB volume) and (B) r = 0.86, p <0.01 (left OB volume). For BF, (C) r = 0.95, p<0.01 (right OB volume) and (D) r = 0.90, p< 0.01 (left OB volume).

Also, positive correlations were found between MS and BF methods (taking the average volumes measured by observer 1 and 2). For right OB, r = 0.73, p<0.01 and for left OB, r = 0.70, p<0.01 (Table 2).

High inter-observer reliability was found for volumes calculated by observers 1 and 2. For MS method, Cronbach’s alpha (α) was 0.91 and 0.93 for right and left OB volume, respectively, whereas for the BF method α was 0.98 and 0.95 for right and left OB, respectively.

For BF approach, inter- observer reliability was checked for measurements done by experts and non- experts. The Cronbach’s alpha (α) for right OB was 0.82 and 0.83 for left OB. The results advantages its usability by non- experts or less trained as well.

Discussion

In this study, we aimed to find an efficient, reliable yet less time-consuming method to calculate the OB volume. In fact, measurement time for the MS method was approximately 7–10 minutes whereas it takes only one minute for the BF method. Our study indicated that the BF approach provides reliable results which are in accordance with the results obtained from MS and when used by experts and non- experts.

So far, the MS of coronal slices is the most widely used method for volumetric measurements of the OB [25] Accuracy and reliability of MS method has been demonstrated clearly in previous studies [18, 26]. In the present study, we also followed up accuracy and reliability for the measurements made by the BF approach using ITK-SNAP software. This software was chosen for its user-friendly interface and free availability. However, many other software solutions could be used for this straight-forward technique. For the BF approach, intraclass coefficients of correlation between measurements of the two observers were at r = 0.96 for right OB and r = 0.89 for left OB. The results drawn from this new approach were comparable with the results obtained from MS approach with r = 0.84 for right OB and r = 0.86 for left OB.

The focus throughout the project was on the introduction of a method that can be clinically acceptable, with time demands being a major issue. This is important as OB volume is considered as a measure to evaluate the status of olfactory functioning. There has been evidence in support of how OB volume clinically describes the severity of olfactory loss. For example, in comparison to hyposmic patients, OB volumes were found to be smaller for anosmic subjects in olfactory loss, following infections of the upper respiratory tract or head trauma [27]. Importantly, OB volume also seems to be a predictor of recovery in patients with post-infectious olfactory loss [22]. Hence, the routine assessment of OB volume appears to be useful in patients with olfactory loss. This is more likely to be diagnostically implemented with the availability of a fast and convenient approach.

The present investigation also revealed that the internal consistency of measurements made with either method was excellent. Hence, it can be noted that the new BF method can be used as a clinically acceptable, efficient, reliable, easy and quick approach to calculate OB volumes. However, it has to be kept in mind that both MS and BF method remain subjective and voxel selection may vary depending on skills of the individual observers which requires some degree of training.

To conclude, the present results suggest that the BF method for OB volumetric is reliable and produces valid results, comparable to the results from MS. The new technique is a simple, quick approach and may require less training than MS of the OB. It is hoped that this technique paves the road for the routine clinical assessment of OB volume in patients with olfactory loss.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

12 Oct 2020

PONE-D-20-23928

A novel technique for olfactory bulb measurements.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Joshi,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. As suggested by the reviewer, we strongly encourage you to benchmark the performance of your new technique with a couple of less-expert users who are unrelated to the manuscript.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 23 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Matthieu Louis

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

"Akshita Joshi and Divesh Thaploo are supported by DAAD (Deutscher Akademischer

Austauschdienst / German Academic Exchange Service). The funding source had no role in

the study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of the data. Nor in the writing of the

manuscript, and in the decision to submit the paper for publication."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

"The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In this manuscript, Joshi et al demonstrate a technique for delineating the olfactory bulb volume in MRI scans of the human brain. Whereas the standard technique takes a well-trained observer 10 minutes of tracing, the new technique requires less expertise and time. The demonstration that the two techniques give equivalent results is promising. However, given that the techniques were only applied by the study's co-authors, I wonder if this equivalence can be put to a more stringent test. Would the two techniques give equivalent results if applied by less expert observers? Since one of the claimed advantages of the box-frame technique is that it requires less expertise, it would make sense to determine whether box-frame gives equivalent performance for less-expert observers. I suggest that the authors ask other observers, preferably not co-authors of the study, to apply the two techniques. The value of the box-frame technique will be more compelling if its advantages generalize to non-authors.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Matt Smear

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

20 Nov 2020

Dear Reviewers and Editors,

• Thank you very much for your time and comment on the manuscript.

Reviewer #1: In this manuscript, Joshi et al demonstrate a technique for delineating the olfactory bulb volume in MRI scans of the human brain. Whereas the standard technique takes a well-trained observer 10 minutes of tracing, the new technique requires less expertise and time. The demonstration that the two techniques give equivalent results is promising. However, given that the techniques were only applied by the study's co-authors, I wonder if this equivalence can be put to a more stringent test. Would the two techniques give equivalent results if applied by less expert observers? Since one of the claimed advantages of the box-frame technique is that it requires less expertise, it would make sense to determine whether box-frame gives equivalent performance for less-expert observers. I suggest that the authors ask other observers, preferably not co-authors of the study, to apply the two techniques. The value of the box-frame technique will be more compelling if its advantages generalize to non-authors.

In response to the valuable comments raised by the reviewers; two non- experts belonging to completely different background with no imaging experience measured the bulb volumes using box- frame approach in total study population. Further, reliability was tested between measurements done by experts and non- experts. Cronbach alpha values shows that the technique is worth relying on and therefore supports its universal usability.

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

1 Dec 2020

A novel technique for olfactory bulb measurements.

PONE-D-20-23928R1

Dear Dr. Joshi,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Matthieu Louis

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

4 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-23928R1

A novel technique for olfactory bulb measurements.

Dear Dr. Joshi:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr Matthieu Louis

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE