JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-70 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Discrimination of individuals in a general population at high-risk for
alcoholic and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease based on liver stiffness
Version: 1Date:30 January 2011
Reviewer: Do Young Kim
Reviewer's report:
The authors investigated the value of liver stiffness measurement (LSM) by
FibroScan in 416 healthy adults who underwent general check-up. Fatty liver was
diagnosed by ultrasonography (US). With BMI and daily alcohol consumption,
patients were divided into alcoholic and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease,
respectively. The 171 subjects with no fatty liver in US, normal BMI and liver test,
and no/non-habitual alcohol consumption were set as control. The authors found
that LSM in 171 subjects was 4.3±0.85kPa. The LSM was significantly higher in
subjects with fatty liver than those without fatty liver. BMI was found to be the
only independent factor associated with higher LSM value.
[Comments]
1. Although the authors stated that liver biopsy is hard to conduct in routine
patient care or health check-up, it is a major drawback of this study that a
reference standard of fatty liver. In spite of relatively high positive predictive value
of US in diagnosis of fatty liver, US is not the gold standard for diagnosis of fatty
liver.{Major compulsory revision)
2.Rrather small number of subjects in this study may not be representative of
general population. Moreover, the subjects would not be purely indicative of
general population since there is possibility of some symptoms or signs in these
subjects.(Major compulsory revision)
3. Normal value of LSM values in healthy adults have already been reported (Kim
SU, et al. Liver International). (Minor essential revision)
4. Deleting ALT levels and other factors from multivariate analysis may not be
appropriate.(Major compulsory revision)
5. High ALT is well known to affect LSM score. Considering this, Figure 6 show
the same result as that of Figure 4.(Minor essential revision)
6. The authors would discuss more on the debate of relationship between LSM
and steatosis.(Major compulsory revision)
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-70 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Discrimination of individuals in a general population at high-risk for
alcoholic and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease based on liver stiffness
Version: 2Date:22 May 2011
Reviewer: Jing-Houng Wang
Reviewer's report:
The authors had adequately addressed the important issues in the first review.
The study provided sound results of liver stiffness in healthy adults and analyzed
the factors affecting liver stiffness in participants of medical check-up. The
conclusion had been sound according to the results of the study.
Minor essential revision: They need re-arrangements of references according to
their appearances in the text.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-70 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Discrimination of individuals in a general population at high-risk for
alcoholic and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease based on liver stiffness
Version: 2Date:22 May 2011
Reviewer: Monica Lupsor
Reviewer's report:
Dr Baba and co-workers have made important changes in this reviewed version
of the paper. The authors have answered the questions.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-70 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Discrimination of individuals in a general population at high-risk for
alcoholic and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease based on liver stiffness
Version: 2Date:22 May 2011
Reviewer: Do Young Kim
Reviewer's report:
The authors well responded to the queries of reviewers.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-69 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation alone without sphincterotomy for
the treatment of large common bile duct stones
Version: 1Date:23 April 2011
Reviewer: Peter V Draganov
Reviewer's report:
The authors retrospectively review their experience with the use of large balloon
dilation of native papilla for extraction of biliary stones. This is a relatively new
technique with very little data available in the literature. From that perspective
this manuscript brings an important contribution. The paper is well written and
easy to follow. The study suffers from the usual shortcomings associated with
retrospective research. Nevertheless the findings will be of interest to the
practicing Gastroenterologist.
Specific remarks:
1) In the discussion please acknowledge the limitations of this study including
a. Retrospective design
b. No predetermined criteria existed on who will be treated wit large balloon
dilation versus standard sphincterotomy (Patient selection bias)
c. There was no predetermined protocol on the exact size of the balloon and the
time for inflation (Intervention/exposure bias)
d. Complications were assessed retrospectively and retrospective studies are
notorious for under representing complications (Measurement bias)
e. No standard follow-up was applied (Measurement bias). The stone recurrence
rate in the patients who were followed up was quite high (25/172 patients) which
raises concerns whether stone clearance was complete on the initial ERCP.
f. Significant number of patients were lost to follow-up (measurement bias)
2) In order to be able to discuss the issues described under #1 the discussion
should be shortened significantly.
3) Please shorten the result section. Most of the data in the first paragraph of the
result section are already incorporated or can be incorporated in Table 1.
4) Table 2: Please use the American Society for Anesthesia classification (ASA
class) to grade patient comorbidities.
5) Please use the updated ASGE consensus statement for defining and grading
complications instead of the dated reference # 17.
Cotton PB, Eisen GM, Aabakken L, et al. A lexicon for endoscopic adverse
events: report of an ASGE workshop. Gastrointest Endosc 2010;71:446-54
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-69 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation alone without sphincterotomy for
the treatment of large common bile duct stones
Version: 1Date:27 April 2011
Reviewer: Akio Katanuma
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
1)Please describe the severity grading of each complications.
2)By this method, do the biliary sphincter function preserve or not? In another
word, what is the frequency of acute cholangitis or acute cholecystitis during the
follow up period? Please mention about these points.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-68 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Schwann cell hamartoma: Case report
Version: 2Date:8 March 2011
Reviewer: Jason L Hornick
Reviewer's report:
The authors report a case of mucosal Schwann cell hamartoma of the colon and
briefly discuss the differential diagnosis. The findings are well-documented, the
discussion appropriately contextualizes the diagnosis, and the pathologic images
are good.
Minor essential revisions:
1. In the discussion (p. 5), the authors mention "benign fibroblastic polyps" (ref
15). Recent comprehensive immunohistochemical studies demonstrate that the
lesions previously reported as such are in fact identical to mucosal perineuriomas
(see Agaimy A, Stoehr R, Vieth M, Hartmann A. Benign serrated colorectal
fibroblastic polyps/intramucosal perineuriomas are true mixed epithelial-stromal
polyps (hybrid hyperplastic polyp/mucosal perineurioma) with frequent BRAF
mutations. Am J Surg Pathol. 2010 Nov;34(11):1663-71 and Groisman GM,
Polak-Charcon S. Fibroblastic polyp of the colon and colonic perineurioma: 2
names for a single entity? Am J Surg Pathol. 2008 Jul;32(7):1088-94). Moreover,
a distinctive feature of mucosal perineuriomas is the presence of an adjacent
serrated epithelial polyp (usually hyperplastic polyp, occasionally sessile serrated
polyp/adenoma) in around 70% of cases (this is not a feature of the other neural
polyps in the colorectum). Among colorectal polyps containing a spindle cell
proliferation, mucosal perineuriomas are much more common than mucosal
Schwann cell hamartomas. The manuscript would be improved by a brief
explanation of this change in classification/nomenclature and the histologic
differences between mucosal Schwann cell hamartoma and mucosal
perineurioma.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-68 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Schwann cell hamartoma: Case report
Version: 2Date:14 April 2011
Reviewer: Naotaka Ogasawara
Reviewer's report:
Colorectal polyps containing S-100 positive neural proliferations in the lamina
propria that lack ganglion cells have been previously referred to as neuromas or
neurofibromas.
Recently, Gibson analyzed 26 cases of colorectal polyps comprising pure
Schwann cell proliferation, different from gastrointestinal schwannomas and with
no association with inherited syndrome. This entity was designed as mucosal
Schwann cell hamartoma. In this report, the authors investigated a case of
colonic polypoid lesion with features of this recently proposed new entity. The
mucosal Schwann cell hamartoma of gastrointestinal tracts is extremely rare and
informative for other clinicians. Therefore, the reviewer believes that this
manuscript is very interesting and worth being published in the journal. However,
there are the following shortcomings as follows:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. Authors described that one small polyp which was 3 mm in diameter was
removed at 30 cm-distance from anal rim. Authors should investigate the method
of resection.
2. In this report, authors only showed the pathological findings. For information
and education to endoscopists and other clinicians, authors should indicate the
colonoscopic findings of the polyp features, and investigate the difference
between adenomatous polyp, hyperplastic polyp and mucosal Schwann cell
hamartoma.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-66 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:High Incidence of Hepatitis B Infection-Associated Cirrhosis and
Hepatocellular Carcinoma in the Southeast Asian Patients with Portal Vein
Thrombosis
Version: 1Date:28 March 2011
Reviewer: Shi Lin
Reviewer's report:
Major comments:
The study is well-written and provides useful information regarding the clinical
events of PVT.
Minor comments:
1. Abstract is too long. In the “Results”, please provide data regarding the word of
“frequent” or “major” risks. Conclusion should be shortened. The last sentence in
“Conclusion” should be removed because this statement is not supported by the
current results.
2. How to diagnose PVT, by ultrasound, CT or MRI? Please clarify.
3. In “Results”, some statement was duplicated since these have been shown in
Tables.
4. The conclusion in page 14 is also too long, please shorten it
5. In Table 6, provide p value comparing between various age groups.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-66 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:High Incidence of Hepatitis B Infection-Associated Cirrhosis and
Hepatocellular Carcinoma in the Southeast Asian Patients with Portal Vein
Thrombosis
Version: 1Date:10 April 2011
Reviewer: Seyed-Moayed Alavian
Reviewer's report:
Thanks for your request. The topic is important and unfortunattelly there are a
lack of study in the literature regarding it. However, The study is retrospective
and has many limitation in documentation of risk factors and doing the necessary
tests.
It can publish after some revision
1- It was mandatory to differentiate the splenic thrombosis from PVT
1- The sensitivity of imaging methods (ultrasound with or without doppler,
computed tomographic-angiography (CT-angiography), or magnetic resonance
imaging (MRI)),for detection of PVT should discuss more
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
No Copmeting interest
1- It was mandatory to differentiate the splenic thrombosis from PVT
1- The sensitivity of imaging methods (ultrasound with or without doppler,
computed tomographic-angiography (CT-angiography), or magnetic resonance
imaging (MRI)),for detection of PVT should discuss more
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-65 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Most bowel symptoms do not indicate colorectal cancer and polyps: a
systematic review
Version: 1Date:25 February 2011
Reviewer: Adriana Perez
Reviewer's report:
This is a systematic review of the association between bowel symptoms and
colorectal cancer or polys.
Major Compulsory Revisions
Introduction: Omit the variable prediction given that the systematic review with
different type of studies does not allow you to establish a prediction estimate but
only associations.
Page 6, Second paragraph, line 4: Please clarify which terms were used as
random effect and which ones were used as fixed effects.
Appendix 3: Needs clarification on symbols within tables. What is CBH and
others? There is not information in the table and the table has to stand alone.
The order of footnotes for the table does not match the table order, please
re-arrange.
Appendix 4: It is inconsistency between what is shown as DOR (Spell out also)
and what is stated in text regarding as OR or authors need to explain to the
readers what is shown inside the tables if nor DOR values which is only
summarize as one overall value in text. This is confusing. What is the definition of
New in table? Please include the year of the publications.
Figures titles: All figure titles need to spelled out acronyms. Spell out to readers
what is the line in figures. What are the ovals and what is the + sign. Also plots
should start at 0,0 coordinates. These are continuous measurements therefore
the XY coordinates should start at 0 and there should be no distance from 0 to
the other 0 as shown in current version0 Also. Maximum values should be 1,1
instead of additional values in graphs presented..
Figures: Authors need to define what is CRC for readers standing alone in
figures. The dotted lines from black dots to 45 degree dot line are confusing the
purpose. They will need a different type of line given that dotted lines have
different meanings in all figures.
Authors listed the presence of figures 9-16 but they not presented in current
manuscript
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-65 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Most bowel symptoms do not indicate colorectal cancer and polyps: a
systematic review
Version: 2Date:13 April 2011
Reviewer: Tom Marshall
Reviewer's report:
The authors have responded appropriately to all my comments.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-65 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Most bowel symptoms do not indicate colorectal cancer and polyps: a
systematic review
Version: 2Date:25 April 2011
Reviewer: Floris Van de Laar
Reviewer's report:
Dear editor,
I thank the authors for their thorough reply. I am satisfied with this response and I
have no further remarks or questions.
Kind regards,
Floris van de Laar
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-65 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Most bowel symptoms do not indicate colorectal cancer and polyps: a
systematic review
Version: 2Date:9 May 2011
Reviewer: Adriana Perez
Reviewer's report:
The authors provided an improved and revised version. There were not statistical
concerns.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-64 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Impact of a probiotic fermented milk in the gut ecosystem and in the
systemic immunity using a non-sever protein-energy-malnutrition model in mice
Version: 1Date:22 December 2010
Reviewer: HARIOM YADAV
Reviewer's report:
Galdeano and colleagues reported the immunomodulatory effects of probiotic
fermented milk in non-severe protein energy-malnourished mice model. Although
the study is interesting, but before final acception of this article, few
improvements must be made:
1. There are abundant typographical and grammatical errors all over the running
text, which must be corrected carefully
2. Although these findings are interesting in relation with malnutrition, but
probiotics and probiotic containing fermented milk products have shown
health-beneficial effects in high-energy fed animal models (i.e. Yadav et al
Nutrition. 2007 Jan;23(1):62-8, described this effect), and reviewer wonders how
does you explain your findings in reference of high energy induced obesity vs
malnourished animal models.
3. The gut flora has been closely correlated with obesity in recent era, I am
wondering while mice fed with probiotic-fermented milk gained fat mass in
comparison to control mice.
4. Recently Jain et al (J Med Food. 2009 Jun;12(3):576-83) also have reported
that probiotic containing fermented milk product improved immunological
parameters in normal mice, how does your findings are different than Jain et al
findings, please discuss.
Minor points:
1. Please replace ‘sever’ with ‘severe’ in title
2. Abstract: ln 17-21; please complete the sentence
3. Background: ln 34-37; complete/correct the sentence
4. ln 46; insert ‘known’ by replacing ‘know’
5. ln 56; define what is ‘PFM’, or Is that PEM and PFM is the same, if it is than
keep one consistent in whole text
6. Methods: ln 74, replace ‘experience’ with ‘experiments’ and other places too in
the text
7. ln 89; correct temperature
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-64 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Impact of a probiotic fermented milk in the gut ecosystem and in the
systemic immunity using a non-severe protein-energy-malnutrition model in mice
Version: 2Date:1 March 2011
Reviewer: Federico Lara-Villoslada
Reviewer's report:
All the comments made in the first revision have been succesfully met. I think
that the mansucript is suitable for publication.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-63 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Mucosal Progranulin expression is induced by H. pylori, but independent of
Secretory Leukocyte Protease Inhibitor (SLPI) expression
Version: 1Date:24 April 2011
Reviewer: Antonia Sepulveda
Reviewer's report:
Progranulins are converted to granulins and are secreted by epithelial cells and
immune cells. Progranulin and granulins have been shown to regulate
inflammation, proliferation and wound healing. The authors characterized the
expression of progranulin and granulins in gastric mucosa (by measuring
progranulin) in relation to H. pylori status.
Further, since progranulin was previously shown to be regulated by SLP1 in
SLP1 deficient mice (SLP1 prevents progranulin degradation by elastase) the
authors hypothesized that progranulin levels could be correlated with SLP1 levels
in gastric mucosa and used the AGS cell culture model to determine the effects
of changes in SLP1 levels using SLP1-siRNA.
The study reports that progranulin is up-regulated during H. pylori infection,
however, SLP1 did not appear to have a regulatory role on progranulin in H.
pylori gastritis.
The methods used are appropriate and well described and the conclusions are
supported by the data presented in the paper.
The manuscript is well written, with only rare typos throughout the text, which
should be corrected.
The hypothesis regarding the possible role of SLP1 in progranulin regulation
could be better outlined by stating the hypothesis directly in the introduction and
abstract.
This is a descriptive study, that provides additive information regarding the host
response to H. pylori, suggesting a role for progranulins during H. pylori gastritis.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-63 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Mucosal Progranulin expression is induced by H. pylori, but independent of
Secretory Leukocyte Protease Inhibitor (SLPI) expression
Version: 1Date:5 May 2011
Reviewer: Hassan Ashktorab
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting manuscript related to mucosal Progranulin expression is
induced by H. pylori, which the author claim to be independent of Secretory
Leukocyte Protease Inhibitor (SLPI) expression. Even though the study itself is
not novel the approach and design is novel.
The author mentioned in page 14 that “The results obtained in the AGS cell
model do partially not correspond to the ex vivo findings. While ex vivo data
demonstrated an upregulation of Progranulin by H. pylori, in the AGS cell model,
the secretion was strongly induced, whereas the cellular expression was
decreased.”.
I would be nice that the author suggest their model in a form of figure to show the
pathway that the H. pylori takes for the induce such secretory responses.
Minor comments:
Page 8, lane 167 make sure the spelling of xylol is correct
Page 8, lane 168 what is thrice meant to be?
Page 11, lane 248, please define a.u
Page 13, lane 295 elastase / SLP1 delete the space the same in lane 296
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-61 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Obesity is a Negative Predictor of Success after Surgery for Complex Anal
Fistula
Version: 1Date:12 March 2011
Reviewer: Wilhelm Graf
Reviewer's report:
Abstract: what does the author mean by “complex” anal fistula. It is better to
define exactly which kind of fistulas that were included.
Introduction: sphincter reconstruction is not an integral part of advancement flap
Methods
Major compulsory revisions
Why do the author choose to use a dichotomous classification of BMI and not a
continous?
Who assessed the patients for healing? If the author did the evaluation
personally there is a risk for bias.
A limitation of the study is the short follow-up, this should be recognized and
discussed.
The statistical methods should be described more in detail.
The author state that:” …. fistulas in which the fistula tract was located in the
upper two-thirds of the external sphincter were treated by rectal advancement
flap repair” What was the technique in the lower third?
Was the study approved by the IRB?
Discretionary revisisons
The word “oralisation” seems eccentric
Results:
Major compulsory revisions
The legend to Table 2 says: Fistula etiology but no such data is presented.
78% had an advancement flap repair, which procedure was used in the
remaining 22%?
A greater proportion in the non obese group were previously unoperated which
can affect the success rate
Which variables were included in the multivariate analysis?
Discussion
Discretionary revisions
The sentence:” Moreover, sufficient of the external wound is mandatory” is
unclear.
The author claim that excision of the entire tract is mandatory – any evidence for
this statement?
Many statements are repeated and the discussion section could be shortened by
removing unnecessary repetitions.
NB Major compulsory revisions are written in bold text. Minor Essential Revisions
are presented in Italic style. Discretionary Revisions are in normal text.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-61 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Obesity is a Negative Predictor of Success after Surgery for Complex Anal
Fistula
Version: 1Date:13 March 2011
Reviewer: C. Neal Ellis
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. In the manuscript the authors state the follow-up is a mean of 6 months with a
range of 3-18 monthe. What is the median follow-up? This should be used
instead of the mean. Additionally, it is generally considered that 12 months of
follow-up is required to determine the results of fistula surgery. The short
follow-up should be included in the discussion.
2. It appears from the table that co-morbidities, including diabetes, were more
common in the obese group. Diabetes has been reported to be associated with
increased risk of recurrence after sphincter preserving fistula management. I feel
that the presence of diabetes should be included in the univariate and
multivariate analysis and the result included in the manuscript.
Minor essential revisions
1. Can the authors provide continence data on the patients in this series. In the
introduction they state that flap repair has been reported to result in incontinence
in a significant number of patients. Can the authors present any data on this
topic?
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interest
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-61 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Obesity is a Negative Predictor of Success after Surgery for Complex Anal
Fistula
Version: 3Date:26 April 2011
Reviewer: C. Neal Ellis
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
none required
Minor Essential Revisions
none required
Discretionary Revisions
none required
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-61 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Obesity is a Negative Predictor of Success after Surgery for Complex Anal
Fistula
Version: 3Date:4 May 2011
Reviewer: Wilhelm Graf
Reviewer's report:
The author have corrected most of the comments raised. However, some
corrections should still be performed;
1. The author claims that the follow-up time is given in median but in the results it
still reads mean.
2. The question of IRB approval was not answered. If the author believe that IRB
approval is unnececary, this should be explained and motivated.
3. The text of the results section still state that Table 2 contains etiology data, but
it does not.
If these corrections are made, and checked by the Editor, I believe the paper is
suitable for publication.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-62 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:An adjuvant free mouse model of oral allergenic sensitization to rice seeds
protein
Version: 1Date:28 July 2010
Reviewer: Eva Untersmayr
Reviewer's report:
In the current manuscript the authors report their adjuvant-free sensitization
protocol for the induction of rice allergy in a BALB/c model. This model is
potentially interesting, however, several questions arise upon review of the
manuscript:
- Major Compulsory Revisions
1. The immunization protocol lacks two important control groups: One with daily
PBS gavages and challenges with rice total protein and another with daily rice
flour sensitization and challenges with PBS. Without these control groups it is not
possible to discriminate which antigen application at which dosage was decisive
for induction of rice specific IgE antibodies.
2. It has been previously reported that immunizations with high doses of
allergens induce tolerance rather than sensitization and high allergen
concentrations (20-100 mg) were found to even suppress antigen-specific IgG1,
IgG2a and IgE (Helm RM et al Environ Health Perspect 2003, Strid j et al
Immunology 2004). The authors should discuss their results with regards to
these publications.
3. It remains unclear to this reviewer why the author have chosen to use purified
rice proteins for intragastric challenges. This does not reflect the situation of
allergic patients. Please provide the rationale for the chosen experimental setup
in you manuscript.
4. The quality of figure 4 is rather poor. The authors might consider choosing
another presentation of the results obtained testing for vascular leakage.
5. Why were the antigens injected twice within 24 h for the passive cutaneous
anaphylaxis test?
6. The manuscript needs to be revised regarding English language.
- Minor Essential Revisions
1. The methods for passive cutaneous anaphylaxis test is not easy to follow.
Please provide the information if all four test substances were injected in each
mouse and how the number of reaction sites (Table 1) was calculated.
2. Instead of heat inactivation it would be more elegant to use IgG1 purified from
the murine sera for the passive cutaneous anaphylaxis test.
3. Figure 6: Please calculate IgE titers rather than presenting raw OD values.
- Discretionary Revisions
1. It would significantly enhance the findings of the study if the authors test sera
of rice allergic animals for reactivity with purified rice allergens to conclude on
major allergens in their model.
2. The authors might consider discussing their histological results obtained from
small intestinal tissue in the light of previously published data on an oral food
allergy model (Pali-Schöll et al. Exp Toxicol Pathol. 2008)
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-62 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:An adjuvant free mouse model of oral allergenic sensitization to rice seeds
protein
Version: 1Date:28 July 2010
Reviewer: Patrick Leung
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions :
1. Please state the statistical methods used in data analysis.
2. In Figure 3, there is an extra dot for low dose group at score points between 4
& 5.
Doesn’t it suppose to have 6 mice per group? Please clarify.
3. In figure 5, the white and black arrows are missing. Please include.
Minor Essential Revisions:
1. A more detailed legend legend for figure 1 will be helpful.
2. In figure 5, the white and black arrows are missing. Please include.
Discretionary Revisions
1. In Results, the last sentence in the first section, it may be more clear if the
author can change the order of total RP and rice seed flour. Because the raw rice
seed flour was used for sensitization and total RP were used for challenge.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-62 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:An adjuvant free mouse model of oral allergenic sensitization to rice seeds
protein
Version: 2Date:10 March 2011
Reviewer: Gabriella Di Felice
Reviewer's report:
In general, the authors have satisfactorily addressed the issues I raised in my
original review of this manuscript, and provided adequate responses to minor
points at the best of their knowledge. I have no further comments.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-62 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:An adjuvant free mouse model of oral allergenic sensitization to rice seeds
protein
Version: 2Date:14 March 2011
Reviewer: Eva Untersmayr
Reviewer's report:
Review of revised Ms. Nr. 1531535814417669 by Xiao-Wei Chen et al.
The authors have revised their manuscript according to the reviewers’
suggestions. Unfortunately, several important questions have remained
unanswered.
Major compulsory revision:
1. 1. As the authors decided to not include additional immunization experiments
to discriminate whether rice flour feeding or extracted rice flour protein
challenges are responsible for the observed sensitization, it would be of
importance to disclose these limitations in the discussion section.
2. Not only in the table but also in the figures mean +/- SD should be given as the
standard error of the mean (SEM) is the standard deviation of the error in the
sample mean relative to the true mean and thus does not provide enough
statistical information.
3. The manuscript still needs revision regarding English language and typing
errors.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-62 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:An adjuvant free mouse model of oral allergenic sensitization to rice seeds
protein
Version: 3Date:14 April 2011
Reviewer: Eva Untersmayr
Reviewer's report:
The authors have thoroughly revised their manuscript according to the
suggestions in my previous reviews.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-59 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Small invasive colon cancer with severe distant metastasis: A case report
Version: 3Date:31 January 2011
Reviewer: Werner Hohenberger
Reviewer's report:
Comments to the Authors
The authors should comment, whether they had before performed examinations
to detect MSI. Lesions like that are highly suspicious of HNPCC.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-59 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Small invasive colon cancer with severe distant metastasis: A case report
Version: 3Date:5 February 2011
Reviewer: parham minoo
Reviewer's report:
Minori Matsumoto and colleagues have reported an interesting case of relatively
small sized-colon cancer with aggressive behavior. The authors have described
a 12mm lesion in transverse colon with raised borders and a depressed center
associated with local invasion and distant lymph node metastasis. The authors
have suggested that this case may represent an example of newly described “de
novo” colorectal cancer characterized by distinct pathway of carcinogenesis.
This case is very interesting in the context of clinical presentation and
pathological behavior. The authors did not explain how the molecular pathway for
“de novo” colon cancers is different from traditional adenoma-carcinoma
sequence. If this has not been addressed in the literature, the authors should
acknowledge this and emphasize that their assumption to classify this lesion as
“de novo” colon cancer is just based on the morphology and clinical behavior.
The authors should also include the data from microsatellite instability testing (at
least by Immunohistochemistry) to rule out MSI-H type cancer.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-59 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Small invasive colon cancer with severe distant metastasis: A case report
Version: 3Date:11 February 2011
Reviewer: Ho-Kyung Chun
Reviewer's report:
In this manuscript Minori Matsumoto and coworkers describes a case of cervical
lymph node metastasis which was proven to originate from small colon cancer.
The way they traced the primary site was very interesting. I recommend the
authors to change the title of this manuscript.(severe metastasis is not a proper
term.)
Please clarify whether the patient had aspiration cytology or biopsy of the
cervical lymph node. (In the first paragraph of case presentation, "aspiration
cytology" was performed, whereas in the second paragraph "biopsy specimen"
was obtained.)
The tumor was 12mm in diameter, but had central depression and a severely
thickened stalk, which suggested direct cancer invasion to the deep submucosa.
The authors need to verify why they performed endoscopic submucosal resection
rather than a biopsy.
I believe that the patient had upper endoscope. Even though the result was
negative, it should be described.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-56 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Clinicopathologic characteristics and treatment outcomes of hepatoid
adenocarcinoma of stomach, a rare but unique subtype of gastric cancer
Version: 1Date:11 January 2011
Reviewer: Takashi Kishimoto
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
Authors have analyzed 26 cases of gastric hepatoid adenocarcinomas and
reported the results; (1) Clinicopathological data of 26 cases of gastric heptoid
adenocarcinomas. (2) Overall survival and disease-free survival in the cases with
curative resection. (3) Overall survival and progression free survival in the cases
with chemotherapy. Because gastric hepatoid adenocarcinoma is a rear but
highly malignant variant in gastric adenocarcinomas, statistical analysis has a
great value. But there are, I think, many ambiguous points that should be
improved in this manuscript.
1) Three cases of Stage IV are inoperable cases. Was the pathological diagnosis
made with biopsy specimens? It is generally difficult to make a final diagnosis of
hepatoid adenocarcinoma with biopsy specimens.
2) Histological characterizations (moderately and poorly differentiated type, and
Lauren’s intestinal, diffuse, and mixed type) are controversial. These
classifications may be inadequate for hepatoid adenocarcinomas.
3) There are 23 cases with surgical resection. All cases should be reviewed for
vascular and lymphatic invasion for discussing the relation between
endovascular or endolymphatic tumor emboli and the recurrence of tumors.
4) Indication for chemotherapy should be described. Don’t you apply
chemotherapy for the cured cases with advanced tumor? (I think “disease-free”
or “without recurrence” would be better that “cure”)
5) Explanation of Table 1 in Results (2) are somewhat complicated and
unintelligible.
6) Numerical values of serum AFP, endovascular tumor emboli, endolymphatic
tumor emboli, and liver metastasis may be different between text and Tables.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-56 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Clinicopathologic characteristics and treatment outcomes of hepatoid
adenocarcinoma of stomach, a rare but unique subtype of gastric cancer
Version: 1Date:21 January 2011
Reviewer: Rosario Caruso
Reviewer's report:
In this study, the authors have evaluated clinicopathologic characteristics,
treatment, outcome, and prognosis in patients with gastric hepatoid carcinomas.
The authors performe a computer search of pathology report to identify hepatoid
adenocarcinoma of the stomach. In particular, pathologic data included
histopathological characteristics such as differentiation, Laurèn classification,
immunohistochemical staining and serum AFP.
There are critical points that need clarification.
1)Although it is stated both in the Introduction and in Discussion that hepatoid
adenocarcinoma has been considered as a specific entity diagnosed by
histological features that resemble hepatocellular carcinoma, regardless of AFP
production, this is not made clear in the immunohistochemical part of Methods
and Results sections. In other words, what were the diagnostic criteria used to
define an hepatoid adenocarcinoma of the stomach?
2)In the Results, the authors report that there were nine patients with intestinal
type, five with mixed type and four with diffuse type. Usually, hepatoid
adenocarcinomas have the histological and immunohistochemical of both liver
cell carcinoma and conventional intestinal-type adenocarcinoma. The authors
should provide morphological and immunohistochemical documentation on four
tumors that are described in the text as diffuse carcinomas. Furthermore,
morphologic characteristics are not established in 8 out of 26 cases according to
Laurèn classification , as revealed in table 1.
3) The Methods section can benefit from a better description of the antisera used
for differential diagnosis of hepatoid adenocarcinoma.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-56 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Clinicopathologic characteristics and treatment outcomes of hepatoid
adenocarcinoma of stomach, a rare but unique subtype of gastric cancer
Version: 3Date:9 March 2011
Reviewer: Rosario Caruso
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor
I have studied the revised manuscript entitled “Clinicopathologic characteristics
and treatment outcomes of hepatoid adenocarcinoma of stomach, a rare but
unique subtype of gastric cancer”
(Sun Kyung Baek, Sae-Won Han, Do-Youn Oh, Seock-Ah Im, Tae-You Kim and
Yung-Jue Bang) MS: 1534780246496113. My original criticisms have been
answered and from my viewpoint this work is acceptable for publication.
Sincerely Messina 9/3/11
Prof Rosario Caruso
e-mail: rosariocaruso@tin.it
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-56 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Clinicopathologic characteristics and treatment outcomes of hepatoid
adenocarcinoma of stomach, a rare but unique subtype of gastric cancer
Version: 3Date:15 March 2011
Reviewer: Takashi Kishimoto
Reviewer's report:
Please check the numbers in Figure 1; You described that “Of 18 patients
undergoing curative resection, 9 patients underwent adjuvant chemotherapy….”
But the number of the patients who underwent chemotherapy is 7 in Figure 1.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.