JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02929-7 (2023)

Title: Efficacy of washed microbiota transplantation for therapeutic targets of refractory
functional constipation and the influencing factors: A single-center, retrospective, 24-week
follow-up study
Version: 1 Date: 02 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
The commonly used disease score may be suitable for overall evaluation of efficacy one
treatment/therapy, but some specific benefits are also important for improving the quality of
life of patients. This study evaluates the value of WMT in treating FC independently from
the concept of targets, challenging the traditional total score evaluation method, and better
demonstrating the value of WMT for patients. The starting point and thinking of this study are
very innovative, providing a different perspective and large sample of evidence from previous
studies.
The minor comments as below:
1. Why did you aim to use this evaluation concept? What is the strength of the “TRAGET”
evaluation? These points should be clearly stated in the introduction for not causing confusion.
The core novelty of the study should be shown properly. Previous reports have indicated the
potential of role of FMT on FC, the limitations of those studies or the limitation of the evaluation
might be the logistic of your study on TARGETS.
2. What is WMT? “Washed microbiota transplantation (WMT) is a modification of FMT” in
introduction is vague. Can you have the clear definition of WMT and the release by consensus?
That would be better for readers to understand the different methods of FMT.
3. In methods: how to perform TET in colon?
4. In methods: the delivered microiota in fresh or frozen?
5. line 378-379: “the efficacy of WMT on other four therapeutic targets remain largely
unknown”. List the terms of the other four targets or show them in (   ).
6. Clostridium difficile has been replaced by Clostridioides difficile. Correct them in the text.
7. Line 432-433: “However, there is no consensus on the optimal WMT delivery route in clinical
practice at present”. This sentence is non-sense and improper. I suggest to state that there is no
reported difference of efficacy using the different delivery way via mid-gut tube and colonic
TET for FC. This your logistic why did you choose both ways.
8. Check the TABLE 1 for confirming the notes.
9. Table 2B and 2C, try to test “Course of WMT” by other analysis, instead of mean ± standard
deviation? Also check other items.
10. Table 4: is the * at right place?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02929-7 (2023)

Title: Efficacy of washed microbiota transplantation for therapeutic targets of refractory
functional constipation and the influencing factors: A single-center, retrospective, 24-week
follow-up study
Version: 2 Date: 29 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
Minor comments:
1. Line 85-88: The therapeutic potential of FMT in refractory FC has recently been demonstrated
[18-21]. These studies demonstrated that FMT may relieve refractory FC by reconstructing gut
microbiota and improving colonic transit time [6, 19-22]. The rate of response from Liquan Wu
is more close to the reality in clinical practice. However, it seems like that the rate of positive
response in the cited reports are much higher. What is the reason? The combined medication
with FMT should be stated and discussed clearly in those selected population according to their
serials reports. So, the difference should be discussed clearly for not causing misunderstanding.
Or avoid this point by other way? Additionally, “refractory FC has recently been demonstrated”
is not proper. “demonstrated” or reported#
2. The conclusion in Abstract: “The efficacy is increased with more than one course of WMT”
can be changed as “The effectiveness of WMT via colonic TET in the management of FC is
enhanced with the administration of multiple courses.”
3. In Key Words (line 57-58): 1. Change washed microbiota transplantation as “fecal microbiota
transplantation” for improving the increases the likelihood of this article being retrieved in
searches; 2. Delete “refractory”.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02929-7 (2023)

Title: Efficacy of washed microbiota transplantation for therapeutic targets of refractory
functional constipation and the influencing factors: A single-center, retrospective, 24-week
follow-up study
Version: 2 Date: 17 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
This is a well designed study about the effect of washed microbiota transplantation for
therapeutic targets of refractory functional constipation and the influencing factors evaluation.
I don't think the authors need to make any revision. It's a good study.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02913-1 (2023)

Title: Clinical characteristics of Dieulafoy’s Lesion in the Small Bowel Diagnosed and Treated
by Double-Balloon Endoscopy
Version: 1 Date: 27 Mar 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript entitled “Clinical characteristics of
Dieulafoy’s Lesion in the Small Bowel Diagnosed and Treated by Double-Balloon Endoscopy”.
The authors investigated the clinical characteristics of Dieulafoy’s lesion (DL) in the small bowel
by double-balloon endoscopy and the factors to predict DL in obscure gastrointestinal bleeding.
They concluded that DL is suspected in case with two or more episodes of hematochezia.
Although the manuscript are well written, I cannot accept the manuscript as the following
reasons;
Major comments:
1) Definition of hematochezia and re-bleeding should be more clearly described. Additionally,
indication of double-balloon endoscopy is unclear.
2) Authors concluded that in case with two or more episodes of hematochezia, balloon-assisted
endoscopy should be scheduled at the earliest possible time. I think that the result from this
study cannot describe such conclusion because authors did not evaluate the relationship between
time from onset of hematochezia and the procedure in order to obtain definite diagnosis of DL,
particularly to differentiate other conditions such as angiodysplasia.
3) In this study, only lesions which could be diagnosed as DL are included, thus authors
should mention selection bias in the discussion. Difference of clinical characteristics between
angiodysplasia and DL might be more interesting.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02913-1 (2023)

Title: Clinical characteristics of Dieulafoy’s Lesion in the Small Bowel Diagnosed and Treated
by Double-Balloon Endoscopy
Version: 1 Date: 04 Apr 2023
Reviewer:  Weiguang Qiao
Reviewer's report:
Reviewer 1
- Thank you for your submission titled " Clinical characteristics of Dieulafoy’s Lesion in the
Small Bowel Diagnosed and Treated by Double-Balloon Endoscopy." This study was intended
to determine to reveal the clinical characteristics of Dieulafoy’s lesion in the small bowel as
diagnosed by DBE and consider whether it is possible to predict bleeding from Dieulafoy’s
lesion before endoscopy in OGIB.
- The article is well written.
- The design and statistical analysis is done thoroughly.
Although did not reveal any independent factor associated with re-bleeding, this article revealed
the clinical characteristics of Dieulafoy’s lesion.
Minor recommendations:
1. Abstract results section didn’t cover the clinical characteristics of Dieulafoy’s lesion
2. How to distinguish Dieulafoy’s lesion and vascular malformation or arteriovenous
malformation# The images by DBE maybe similar.
3. Lesion located in the deep duodenum could be diagnosis by gastroscopy. Could be discussed
in discussion section. Journal of Digestive Diseases 2017; 18; 618–624 And Journal of Digestive
Diseases 2017; 18; 56–58
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02913-1 (2023)

Title: Clinical characteristics of Dieulafoy’s Lesion in the Small Bowel Diagnosed and Treated
by Double-Balloon Endoscopy
Version: 4 Date: 08 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript entitled “Clinical characteristics of
Dieulafoy’s Lesion in the Small Bowel Diagnosed and Treated by Double-Balloon Endoscopy”
again. The authors investigated the clinical characteristics of Dieulafoy’s lesion (DL) in the small
bowel by double-balloon endoscopy and the factors to predict DL in obscure gastrointestinal
bleeding. They concluded that DL is likely to have the failed initial diagnosis in case with
two or more episodes of hematochezia and difficulty to predict bleeding from DL in obscure
gastrointestinal bleeding.
Major comments:
1) Definition of hematochezia and inclusion criteria of double-balloon endoscopy (according to
physician’s decision) are too subjective and obscure. Hence, frequency of hematochezia should
not be included in the factor to predict DL. Please show more objective data, or the result of
this manuscript cannot be generalized.
2) I think that conclusion of this study is less impressive for daily clinical practice unless they
could find any predictors to have definite diagnosis as DL and also factors associated with re-
bleeding.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02913-1 (2023)

Title: Clinical characteristics of Dieulafoy’s Lesion in the Small Bowel Diagnosed and Treated
by Double-Balloon Endoscopy
Version: 4 Date: 30 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to review this
manuscript. I read the manuscript, the reviewers comments and the authors responses, and have
the following comments:
Major:
1. There is lack of detailed methodology regarding multivariate analysis in the methodology
section.
2. How did the authors identify the DL on subsequent endoscopy after first failed treatment?
Was it based on endoscopic tattooing, radiology etc.?
3. The authors should also share any other endoscopic findings in these patients i.e. findings on
index EGD, push enteroscopy, first failed BAE etc. There is a possibility that other endoscopic
diagnosis may have led to shadowing of the real culprit here and this should be discussed.
4. The authors mentioned that emergency SBCE may be limited given the stomach may be full.
Can a prokinetic such as Erythromycin help clean the stomach for increasing the diagnostic
yield? (Aziz M, Dig Dis Sci. 2023 Apr;68(4):1435-1446).
5. The authors mentioned clip placement was the interventions used in majority of patients for
hemostasis choice. Were these through the scope, over-the-scope, etc.? Please give more details.
Minor:
1. The authors need to get this manuscript checked by someone that is proficient in English.
There are lots of grammar and spelling mistakes.
2. Table 1: Antithrombotic drugs – Please be more specific which drugs were looked at.
3. Table 1: No. of endoscopies until confirmed diagnosis- What do you mean by “endoscopices”
here? Is it DBE or any endoscopy. Please be more specific.
4. Table 2: Distribution of lesions- How did the authors determine the accuracy of location?
5. Table 2: What does complicated angiodysplasia mean?
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
I have included my comments. The manuscript may be considered for publication if above
comments are satisfactorily addressed."
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02913-1 (2023)

Title: Clinical characteristics of Dieulafoy’s Lesion in the Small Bowel Diagnosed and Treated
by Double-Balloon Endoscopy
Version: 5 Date: 21 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: Thank you for revising the manuscript based on the comments.
I have very minor comments: (1) Please revise the conclusion to include "after standard
endoscopic evaluation with esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy is unrevealing". A
patient may presents with multiple episodes of hematochezia and that does not necessarily
warrant DBE. (2) Table 3 and 4 can be merged and consolidated.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Please see the comments. Very minor comments that can be easily taken care of.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02906-0 (2023)

Title: Fatigue in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease - Strongly Influenced by Depression
and not Identifiable through Laboratory Testing: a Cross-Sectional Survey Study
Version: 1 Date: 11 May 2023
Reviewer:  Bhaskar Kante
Reviewer's report:
Dear Author, I want to congratulate on the elegant study on the most under-recognised symptom
i,e fatigue in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. The manuscript was well written,
however, I have a few comments below
Comments :
1. IBD-F is the only scale specific to patients with IBD. Studies have shown that IBD-F correlates
to the MFI and MAF instruments. Why did you choose the FAS scale
2. Can we have data on the extent, location, and behaviour of the disease and any relation with
the presence of fatigue in patients
3. Did you screen for malnutrition in patients as micro and macronutrient deficiencies associated
with fatigue
4.  Studies cited in this paper showed poor sleep increases fatigue in patients of IBD. Any
experience of the effect of sleep on fatigue in your study
5. Using Patient-reported outcomes scores and correlating them with fatigue could give a better
perspective of disease activity's effect on fatigue. Do you have any data on PRO scores
6. Medications play an important role in fatigue scores. Any data on what medications patients
are using during the study
7. Any correlation between employment status on fatigue
8. As mentioned in the discussion section, the effect of age on fatigue in Crohn's disease and
UC depends on the complications, do you have data on behavior and extent of the disease
9. Any effect of surgery on fatigue in the study
10. Discussion needs to be rewritten in a focused way
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02906-0 (2023)

Title: Fatigue in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease - Strongly Influenced by Depression
and not Identifiable through Laboratory Testing: a Cross-Sectional Survey Study
Version: 1 Date: 01 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
I would like congratulate the authors for addressing a crucial aspect of Inflammatory Bowel
Disease (IBD) management, namely, fatigue. Their study focuses on a topic that is often
overlooked but significantly impacts the overall well-being of individuals with IBD. By
examining the relationship between fatigue and IBD, the authors have made a valuable
contribution to the field.
However, I have a few suggestions and questions regarding certain aspects of the study that I
believe could enhance the overall quality and impact of the research:
Sample Representation: I would appreciate it if the authors could explain why CD patients were
more than UC in the study and whether the sample accurately represents the larger population
of IBD patients.
Prospective Data: The authors mention that the data used in this study is from 2018. While
I understand that gathering prospective data can be challenging, it would be helpful if the
authors clarify the date of ethics approval and also if the same data has been used for any other
publication
Patient Selection: The study appears to include only patients who underwent outpatient (OP)
treatment. It would be valuable to acknowledge any limitations associated with this patient
selection criterion, as it may impact the generalizability of the findings to the entire IBD patient
population
Table Terminology: In the tables presented, it would be more appropriate to use the term "Total"
instead of "Together." This modification would enhance clarity and align with standard scientific
terminology.
UC Patients: The authors state that there was no influence of activity on fatigue among UC
patients. It would be beneficial to explore and discuss the potential reasons behind this finding.
Treatment Effects: Was there any specific impact of particular drugs or treatment on fatigue
Overall, this study contributes to the existing literature on IBD by shedding light on the often
neglected issue of fatigue. With the suggested refinements and elaborations, the authors can
enhance the impact of their research and provide valuable insights for clinicians, researchers,
and patients in the field of gastroenterology.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02906-0 (2023)

Title: Fatigue in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease - Strongly Influenced by Depression
and not Identifiable through Laboratory Testing: a Cross-Sectional Survey Study
Version: 3 Date: 19 Jul 2023
Reviewer:  Bhaskar Kante
Reviewer's report:
Congratulations author, you have answered the comments point by point and modified the
manuscript accordingly. I have no further comments.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02906-0 (2023)

Title: Fatigue in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease - Strongly Influenced by Depression
and not Identifiable through Laboratory Testing: a Cross-Sectional Survey Study
Version: 3 Date: 24 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
I have reviewed the revised manuscript, and I am pleased to acknowledge that the authors have
diligently addressed all the comments and suggestions raised by the reviewers. The additional
statistics provided in response to the reviewers' feedback have significantly strengthened the
quality and credibility of the research presented in the manuscript.
The authors' efforts in incorporating the suggested improvements have resulted in a more
comprehensive and well-organized paper.
Considering the authors' meticulous attention to addressing the reviewers' concerns and the
incorporation of valuable statistical insights, I am confident that the manuscript is now of
publishable quality. I recommend accepting the paper for publication, as it will undoubtedly
contribute to the field and add value to the existing body of knowledge.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02925-x (2023)

Title: Comparison of Clinicopathologic Characteristics among Patients with HBV-positive,
HCV- positive and Non-B Non-C Hepatocellular Carcinoma after Hepatectomy: A Systematic
Review and Meta-Analysis
Version: 2 Date: 01 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
Comparison of Clinicopathologic Characteristics among Patients with HBV-positive, HCV-
positive and Non-B Non-C Hepatocellular Carcinoma after Hepatectomy: A Systematic Review
and Meta-Analysis
Authors conducted a meta-analysis in the topic of the difference in clinicopathologic
determinants and the prognosis among HCC with different etiologies (i.e., nonBnonC, HBV-
related, HCV-related, and HBV/HCV coinfection). This study demonstrated that NBNC-HCC
showed better liver function and lighter liver cirrhosis compared with patients of hepatitis virus-
related HCC, but there was no significant survival difference. However, there were several
concerns for this study.
Major comments
1. This study aimed to evaluate the differences in the demographics, oncological features and
survival outcomes between NBNC-HCC and hepatitis virus-related HCC. I think the comparison
between HBV-related versus HCV-related HCC is irrelevant and not necessary.
2. There are significant disparities in terms of the indication of surgery, the choice of anatomical
resection, and follow-up strategy relative to the region (i.e., Eastern versus Western). Could the
authors do additional analysis with a stratification of regions?
3. I wonder how the conclusion of this study apply to the clinical situation. Should we change
the practice relative to the etiologies or not? Please dig deeper on this topic in the conclusion.
Minor comments
1. Some grammatical errors and typos which need editing. For example, page 4 - change from
"…the comparison of clinic features…" to "…the comparison of clinical features. . ."
2. If it is feasible, the authors should collect the information on BCLC stage, which is accepted
as an effective staging schema for HCC worldwide.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02925-x (2023)

Title: Comparison of Clinicopathologic Characteristics among Patients with HBV-positive,
HCV- positive and Non-B Non-C Hepatocellular Carcinoma after Hepatectomy: A Systematic
Review and Meta-Analysis
Version: 2 Date: 19 Jun 2023
Reviewer:  Mohammad Hossein Yektakooshali
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
1. conclusion in the abstract Should be changed with better sentences.
2. Our study was aimed to compare the ..... in abs.
3. dramatically is not an academic word in abs.
4. Why you choose this time
1. May 2020
2. Its better you use completed years because of publications rules. For example, until 2023 or
2022.
3. Hepatitis B Virus Surface Antigen-Negative and Hepatitis C Virus Antibody-Negative
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ”, “non-B non-C hepatocellular carcinoma        Its not Mesh:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/?term=Hepatitis+B+Virus+Surface+Antigen-Negative
+and+Hepatitis+C+Virus+Antibody-Negative+Hepatocellular+Carcinoma
4. non-B non-C hepatocellular carcinoma            its not mesh:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/?term=non-B+non-C+hepatocellular+carcinoma
5. The initial literature screening was performed by two independent reviewers ............  what is
your strategy if these two researchers have conflict in one study? Should be say
6. no references to NOS? NOS is not good for cohort stuies, NOS is better for Cross sectional,
you should use NIH Quality Assessment Tool.
The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) Quality Assessment Tool is primarily designed for case-
control and cohort studies. However, some researchers argue that the NOS may not be the
best tool for assessing the quality of cohort studies due to its limited scope and lack of
consideration for important factors such as confounding variables and loss to follow-up. Other
quality assessment tools, such as the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, may be more appropriate for
evaluating the quality of cohort studies.
7. in figure 1 D - why do you use random when i2 is zero? must use fixed effect size. Also, in
C i2 is 20%. ---- also, in fig 2 B and D I2 is below 25%.  so, this section should be re-analyzed
and change.
8. Your study has high heterogeneity, what was your strategy to reduce this matter. Did you use
one study remove test or sensitivity analysis?
9.  what was your strategy to evaluate the cause of heterogeneity?
10. Did papers blind for the name of the author, institute and journal to reduce researchers bias?
You said against.
11. How did you do In necessary cases, further information and raw data?
12. Its better you say your PICO in inclusion criteria
13. Study like Li [13][41] and Utsunomiya [15] with population of more than 10 times than
others is very high risk
This study resluts' weight to whole analysis. So you should run sensitivty analysis.
14. More than 80 percentage of studies are from Japan and China, which is very hard to spread
the rusults' to other coutries. It is dicussable.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02925-x (2023)

Title: Comparison of Clinicopathologic Characteristics among Patients with HBV-positive,
HCV- positive and Non-B Non-C Hepatocellular Carcinoma after Hepatectomy: A Systematic
Review and Meta-Analysis
Version: 4 Date: 23 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you so much for reviewing this interesting paper. I appreciate that the authors worked on
the Reviewers’ concerns. I would like to endorse publication.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02925-x (2023)

Title: Comparison of Clinicopathologic Characteristics among Patients with HBV-positive,
HCV- positive and Non-B Non-C Hepatocellular Carcinoma after Hepatectomy: A Systematic
Review and Meta-Analysis
Version: 4 Date: 24 Jul 2023
Reviewer:  Pawin Numthavaj
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor,
I would like to thank the authors for taking the time to address all the feedback I gave. I
truly appreciate their dedication to improving the quality of the manuscript. I have no further
comments on the paper.
Pawin Numthavaj.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02923-z (2023)

Title: The evaluation of MMP-2/TIMP-1 ratio in peptic ulcer and its association with refractory
helicobacter pylori infection Running head: MMP-2/TIMP-1 in PUD and H. pylori infection
Version: 1 Date: 12 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear Respected Editor,
The authors have highlighted a very interesting clinical topic related to H. pylori. The authors
have demonstrated that assessment of serum MMP-2 level through 95 patients with H. pylori
induced peptic ulcer disease can be a potential predictive marker for refractory H. pylori
infection. The obtained results could help in tailoring the H. pylori treatment and overcome
antibiotic resistance related to H. pylori.  However, several modifications in different parts of
the manuscript need to be considered.
I would advise to take in consideration the following major and minor comments in your next
resubmission.
Major comments:
1. Elaborate more in the introduction on the role of Metalloproteases and tissue inhibitors of
matalloproteinases in the presence of H. pylori infection.
2. Line 59: the stool antigen is an efficient and common tool for this purpose. Therefore, explain
briefly why assessing the MMP-2/TIMP-1 would present more advantages in confirming the
eradication of H. pylori.
3. In the exclusion criteria (line 90-91), please provide a short explanation why these diseases
were excluded.
4. Line 110: what about the obtained significant differences of alcohol ( p=0.02)  among the
three study groups ?
5. Figure legends need to be reconsidered. Include a, b and c in the figure legend. Replace
o.oo1 (o letter) with 0.001. Change the group name of `` patient`` into H. pylori PUD group
for example.
Minor comments:
1. Please write the name of all the H. pylori bacteria in italic starting from the title to the whole
manuscript.
2. The name of the MMP-2 and TIMP-1  Elisa kit was not mentioned.
3. Divide the material and methods part into : Study design, Samples preparation, ethical
approval and statistical analysis.
4. Please check the statistical analysis (line 102-103), and select the suitable applied test.
5. Line 107: 95 patients instead of 115 patients
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02923-z (2023)

Title: The evaluation of MMP-2/TIMP-1 ratio in peptic ulcer and its association with refractory
helicobacter pylori infection Running head: MMP-2/TIMP-1 in PUD and H. pylori infection
Version: 2 Date: 07 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: I examined the authors’ point-by-point responses to my previous
comments and the revised version of the manuscript.
The authors responded adequately to each of the questions or concerns I raised in my comments.
They also made changes to reflect their responses in the manuscript itself.
With this revision, the article has become more tidy, its deficiencies and errors have been
corrected, and it contains more satisfying information.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
The article has become really beautiful as it is. The authors have already mentioned the
limitations. deficiencies and errors have been corrected. Doesn't seem to need any further editing.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02896-z (2023)

Title: Comprehensive analysis of CXCL14 uncovers its role during liver metastasis in colon
cancer
Version: 1 Date: 20 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for allowing me to review the manuscript titled "Comprehensive analysis of CXCL14
uncovers its role during liver metastasis in colon cancer". In this study, Zhou and their colleagues
identified CXCL14 as an underlying therapeutic target for colon cancer. The study provides
valuable insights, yet there are a few areas that need to be addressed for a more robust
interpretation of the results.
Firstly, the results section would benefit from a more comprehensive statistical analysis. Specific
p-values and confidence intervals would bolster the significance of the findings. In the discussion
section, it is recommended to compare and contrast the results with previous related studies.
This would help to place the findings in the broader context of the field.
Secondly, according to the analysis results, the author seems to have many candidate genes, why
only choose CXCL14?
Thirdly, please provide a specific explanation of Figure 3. The existing description does not
allow me to understand it well.
Fourthly, are Figures 5a and 5b-g both gsea analyses? The display forms of the two seem
different
Fifthly, the author should specifically discuss the potential and potential application prospects
of CXCL14 as a clinical target for colon cancer in the discussion section,
Sixthly, I think the author needs to provide a more detailed methodology section to improve the
repeatability of the research.
Seventhly, The author should improve the general information of the included patients.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02896-z (2023)

Title: Comprehensive analysis of CXCL14 uncovers its role during liver metastasis in colon
cancer
Version: 1 Date: 24 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
Zhou and their colleagues systematically explored the molecules involved in the liver metastasis
process of colon cancer. The biological role of these molecules was identified through the GO
and KEGG analysis. Moreover, they identified that the molecules SERPINA3, SERPINA1,
MMP3, ALDH1A3, PBK and CXCL14 were the independent factors for patients survival. The
CXCL14 was selected for further analysis for its most significant P value. Single-cell analysis
showed that the CXCL14 was mainly expressed in the fibroblasts. Meanwhile, the biological role
of fibroblasts in the colon cancer microenvironment was investigated. Further, the clinical role of
CXCL14 in colon cancer was also explored. The result showed that the CXCL14 is a protective
factor against colon cancer independent of other clinical parameters like age, gender, clinical
stage, and TNM classifications. Then, biological enrichment analysis indicated that the CXCL14
is predominantly involved in the activating of the WNT/#/catenin pathway, pancreas beta cells,
peroxisome and bile acid metabolism. Immune infiltration analysis showed that for the patients
with high CXCL14 levels, the plasma B cells, CD8 + T cells, neutrophil and NK cells might
infiltrate more, in contrast to B cells, monocyte and macrophages. Furthermore, they found that
the patients with low CXCL14 expression might be more sensitive to etoposide, rapamycin and
sunitinib. I think that this is an interesting study with clinical translational significance. However,
some problems should be solved.
1. A detailed flowchart will greatly improve the reading experience of readers like me and help
me better understand the article.
2. Baseline data for patients is required.
3. The author conducted data preprocessing, but will this affect the stability of the results? What
are the specific aspects reflected in?
4. Some typos are there; rectify those.
5. Can the author improve the details of the GDSC database?
6. Can the author provide specific parameters for the clusterprofiler package?
7. Figure legend section is still not detailed enough.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02896-z (2023)

Title: Comprehensive analysis of CXCL14 uncovers its role during liver metastasis in colon
cancer
Version: 4 Date: 15 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the author's response and modifications. These modifications greatly improved
the quality of the research and resolved most of my doubts. However, I still want to know why
the author used LASSO regression analysis? The potential benefits should be clarified. Because
univariate and multivariate cox regression analysis can already complete the construction of
prognosis models.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02921-1 (2023)

Title: Impact of preoperative docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil (DCF) therapy on degree
of malignant esophageal stenosis
Version: 1 Date: 17 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
Comments to the author
I am grateful for the opportunity to review this interesting manuscript entitled: "Impact of
preoperative docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil (DCF) therapy on degree of malignant
esophageal stenosis". This report is interesting because it focused on the improvement of
MES according to neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimen. However, your manuscript has major
problems as following.
Comments
1. There are a lot of previous reports which suggested better local control of DCF for esophageal
cancer compared to other regimens, therefore this manuscript does not give us novel information.
You should show clinical benefit, such as the improvement of nutritional status and food intake
after neoadjuvant therapy.
2. You use stenosis index (SI) as an indicator of stenosis, but I suspect if SI is reproducible
indicator or not. I cannot understand the definition of length of stenosis, because the start and end
points were not clear. I concern that this length will vary according to persons of measurement.
Minor comments
1. Page 6, Line 6-10
Were all of your cohort received R0 resection or not? You should mention about it.
2. Page 16, Line 4-16
This paragraph mentioned about PTX for esophageal cancer, but it was not used for your cohort.
You had better delete this paragraph.
3. Figure 2
OS was worse in DCF group than in FP group because of the difference of oncological
background between two groups. I think that survival information is not necessary in this
manuscript because it will not help your conclusion in your report.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02921-1 (2023)

Title: Impact of preoperative docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil (DCF) therapy on degree
of malignant esophageal stenosis
Version: 1 Date: 22 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors assessed the relationship between the improvement in MES and chemotherapy
regimen in patients who received preoperative FP or DCF therapy for the treatment of ESCC.
This manuscript is well written and informative, and the conclusion is acceptable. I have some
comments for this manuscript.
1) As the authors have stated, the value of this paper will increase if the relationship between
the dysphagia score and the stenosis index (SI) is shown.
2) In the DCF group, there were more advanced cases, but unlike the JCOG1109 results, the
DCF group showed a lower OS. Is it possible to consider other factors, such as decreased
chemotherapy compliance due to adverse events?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02920-2 (2023)

Title: T2-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast#enhanced imaging in predicting the
prognosis in patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure
Version: 1 Date: 08 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
In this paper, the authors tried to distinguish the prognosis of acute-on-chronic liver failure
using imaging features and finally identified three independent influencing factors, acceptable
prediction results were obtained. Following are some suggestions.
1. A nomogram may help you to see how the final three characteristics are weighted in the final
radiological score.
2. You should combine the graphs in one figure.
3.The cited literature is a bit scarce. You can cite more articles on liver imaging related.
Wang J, Tang S, Mao Y, Wu J, Xu S, Yue Q, Chen J, He J, Yin Y. Radiomics analysis of
contrast-enhanced CT for staging liver fibrosis: an update for image biomarker. Hepatol Int.
2022 Mar 28.
Mao Y, Wang J, Zhu Y, Chen J, Mao L, Kong W, Qiu Y, Wu X, Guan Y, He J. Gd-EOB-DTPA-
enhanced MRI radiomic features for predicting histological grade of hepatocellular carcinoma.
Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr. 2022;11(1):13-24.
Tang S, Wu J, Xu S, Li Q and He J (2023) Clinical-radiomic analysis for non-invasive prediction
of liver steatosis on non-contrast CT: A pilot study. Front. Genet. 14:1071085. doi: 10.3389/
fgene.2023.1071085
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02920-2 (2023)

Title: T2-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast#enhanced imaging in predicting the
prognosis in patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure
Version: 1 Date: 08 Jul 2023
Reviewer:  Alireza Aziz-Ahari
Reviewer's report:
Overall, the manuscript provides valuable insights into the use of MRI imaging features to
predict the prognosis of patients with ACLF. Study design, methodology, and research seem
appropriate. However, there are some potential issues that can be addressed:
Language & Writing Style:
The manuscript should be proofread and edited for grammatical errors, typos and syntax.
The style can be improved to make it clearer.
Study design and procedure:
It is not clear if the Gd-enhanced hepatic MRI was performed for all of acute-on-chronic liver
failure patients in the study period? If not, what were the indications for performed MRIs? Was
the renal function a consideration?
The manuscript briefly states that two radiologists reviewed and commented on the MR images.
However, it would be useful to provide more information on inter-rater agreement or possible
disagreements and how they were resolved.
Discussion and Conclusion:
The discussion section summarizes the findings and implications accordingly. However, it can
be expanded to include detailed comparisons with previous studies regarding any discrepancies
or similarities in the results.
The concluding section provides a brief overview but could be strengthened by emphasizing
clinical implications and possible future research directions.
Overall, the manuscript provides valuable insight into the use of MRI imaging features as
prognostic factors in ACLF. Addressing the above issues will improve the clarity and power
of the manuscript.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02920-2 (2023)

Title: T2-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast#enhanced imaging in predicting the
prognosis in patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure
Version: 2 Date: 30 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
The article aim to use MRI imaging features to predict the poor outcome of patients with ACLF
and develop a clinically practical radiological score. The article is complete and prove enough
evidence to its conclusion. So I think the article basically meets the requirements for publication.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02920-2 (2023)

Title: T2-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast#enhanced imaging in predicting the
prognosis in patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure
Version: 2 Date: 08 Aug 2023
Reviewer:  Alireza Aziz-Ahari
Reviewer's report:
I would like to express my thanks to the authors for addressing my comments.
All the points have been resolved, and it seems to me that Manuscript is suitable for publication.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02915-z (2023)

Title: Novel Nomogram to Predict the Overall Survival of Postoperative Patients with Gastric
Signet
Version: 2 Date: 06 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
The paper named “Novel Nomogram to Predict the Overall Survival of Postoperative Patients
with Gastric Signet” conducted by Liu et al. has been evaluated. I think this study has certain
innovation and clinical significance. However, some obvious limitations impair the overall
quality. Before it is suitable for publication, I suggest the author make substantive modifications.
1. I noticed that some of the figures have a low resolution which makes them hard to read. I
would suggest that the authors increase the resolution of these figures, which would make them
easier to read and understand. This would also make it easier for readers to fully understand the
results and make use of it. I believe that increasing the resolution of these figures would greatly
improve the manuscript.
2. This study was conducted based on open-accessed data. Some previous studies
have used similar bioinformatics or statistical methods. Although it will lose some
innovation, I think it will benefit the reader if the authors could include the following
references, which would provide readers with a more complete understanding of the
whole study: doi: 10.1177/10732748221129451; doi: 10.1016/j.ajur.2020.11.004; doi: 10.3389/
fgene.2021.627508; doi: 10.4103/aja2021102.
3. Detailed description of all method section is required.
4. State the * and statistic value in the method section or otherwise mention in every figure
legend. e.g., *p>0.05.
5. Check the reference style and abbreviation of journals.
6. Some typos are there; rectify those (Minor).
7. Please calculate the C index of nomogram plot.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02911-3 (2023)

Title: Sevoflurane inhibits cholangiocarcinoma via Wnt/#-catenin Signaling pathway
Version: 1 Date: 09 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
1. This is a good research paper that explores the mechanism of sevoflurane intervention in bile
duct epithelial cell carcinoma.
2. It is suggested that specific data of the findings should be appropriately added to the summary.
The data is more persuasive and allows readers to understand the paper more quickly.
3. The author chooses the Wnt/#-catenin signaling pathway as the research object. Please specify
the reasons for choosing this signaling pathway.
4. As a drug intervening in tumor through signal axis, it is suggested to supplement animal
experiments as much as possible in addition to cell tests. Studies conducted in vivo and in vitro
are more reliable.
5. The original image of WB strips studied was of high quality. Please provide the original cell
culture and flow cytometry images.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02911-3 (2023)

Title: Sevoflurane inhibits cholangiocarcinoma via Wnt/#-catenin Signaling pathway
Version: 1 Date: 13 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
Chen et al. explored the effects of sevoflurane on CCA proliferation and apoptosis through
the Wnt/#-catenin signaling pathway. This study suggests a potential role for sevoflurane in
the treatment of CCA. The authors wrote in good English, which was easy for the readers to
understand. However, if possible, I suggest the authors to add the expression of key proteins
downstream of the Wnt/#-catenin pathway, such as GSK3#, C-Myc and CyclingD1 to enhance
the reliability of the experiment.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02911-3 (2023)

Title: Sevoflurane inhibits cholangiocarcinoma via Wnt/#-catenin Signaling pathway
Version: 1 Date: 30 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The study has been executed in a systematic and scientific manner.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
1) Why did the authors select the concentration of Sevoflurane as 1.7%, 3.4%, and 5.1% initially
and on what basis was the concentration of 3.4% finalized for the remaining studies?
2) Include magnification or scale bar in images.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02911-3 (2023)

Title: Sevoflurane inhibits cholangiocarcinoma via Wnt/#-catenin Signaling pathway
Version: 4 Date: 21 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
This is an excellent paper. It is recommended to publish in the current version. Thanks to the
author for his detailed reply to the review comments.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02911-3 (2023)

Title: Sevoflurane inhibits cholangiocarcinoma via Wnt/#-catenin Signaling pathway
Version: 4 Date: 02 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors responded to all the questions raised by the reviewers.
Appropriate changes were done in the manuscript. Overall impression - satisfactory with the
changes done
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
No additional revisions needed