JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03729-x (2025)

Title: A prospective randomized study of the efficacy of continuous active warming in patients
undergoing laparoscopic gastrectomy
Version: 4 Date: 31 Jan 2025
Reviewer:  Jae Hun Chung
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
Congratulations on your research and the results of this well-conducted study. Your work
addresses an important topic, and I appreciate the effort put into the study design and analysis.
I would like to suggest a few minor revisions to improve the manuscript's completeness and
clarity.
1. The age range of the patient group (18–85 years) is quite broad. Since thermoregulation,
as a part of homeostatic control, varies significantly across different age groups, it would be
beneficial to acknowledge this as a limitation in the "Limitations" section of the manuscript.
2. The patient characteristics table does not include a comparison of baseline comorbidities
between the two groups. While I assume there is no significant difference between the groups,
if there are any discrepancies, their potential impact on the study outcomes should be discussed
in the "Discussion" section.
3. In Section 3.4, "Comparison of the recovery quality after surgery between the two groups,"
it would be helpful to provide a rationale for selecting recovery quality variables supported by
relevant previous studies cited in the references.
4. In Section 3.5, "Comparison of the inflammatory markers of the perioperative period,"
including PT and APTT as inflammatory markers is not appropriate. Instead, I suggest separating
PT and APTT into a distinct section, such as "Comparison of the Risk of Coagulopathy in the
Perioperative Period," to present the results more appropriately.
I hope these suggestions enhance the clarity and impact of your study. Please let me know if
you have any questions or require further clarification.
Best regards,
Jae Hun Chung, MD, PhD
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03729-x (2025)

Title: A prospective randomized study of the efficacy of continuous active warming in patients
undergoing laparoscopic gastrectomy
Version: 4 Date: 07 Feb 2025
Reviewer:  Hilmi Yazici
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for letting me review this research. Hypothermia during the surgery is an
underestimated but important issue. Here are my comments to improve the manuscript:
1- The abstract is well-written in general. However, short information about the number of
patients after randomization and demographic results would be better for the quality of the
abstract.
2- The introduction is sufficient. In my opinion, changing the places of the first two paragraphs,
1 to 2 and 2 to 1, would be better for clearance.
3- 2.2 Subjects paragraph of the methods section should move to the results section.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03729-x (2025)

Title: A prospective randomized study of the efficacy of continuous active warming in patients
undergoing laparoscopic gastrectomy
Version: 8 Date: 22 Feb 2025
Reviewer:  Jae Hun Chung
Reviewer's report:
The revisions have effectively incorporated the reviewers' comments, improving the overall
readability of the paper. Additionally, the necessary content has been appropriately placed,
enhancing the persuasiveness of the manuscript.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03752-y (2025)

Title: Biological Age Prediction and NAFLD Risk Assessment: A Machine Learning Model
Based on a Multicenter Population in Nanchang, Jiangxi, China
Version: 2 Date: 25 Dec 2024
Reviewer:  Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors, please address the following points below
-While the paper mentions splitting the data into training and test sets (80:20), there is limited
detail on how model performance was validated. It would be beneficial to include information
on cross-validation procedures, such as k-fold cross-validation, to assess model stability and
generalizability. Further, including a comparison of model performance across different datasets
(Nanchang vs. NHANES) would strengthen the validity of the findings.
-The imputation method for missing values is based on a chi-square binning method, which
may be suboptimal in model accuracy. The manuscript should provide a more detailed rationale
for choosing this imputation method over other potential methods, such as multiple imputation
by chained equations (MICE) or k-nearest neighbors imputation. This may yield more reliable
results for missing data handling.
-While the paper mentions using common biomarkers across datasets, the specific biomarkers
included and their selection process (beyond the feature selection methods) are not clearly
outlined. The authors should provide more information on the rationale for selecting specific
biomarkers and how these are linked to aging and NAFLD pathophysiology. -Additionally,
a more detailed explanation of the standardization process (e.g., the use of Z-scores) and its
potential impact on the analysis would help understand the model's sensitivity to different data
distributions.
-Although the NC-BA model performs well across multiple datasets (Nanchang and NHANES),
the manuscript does not provide a thorough external validation of the model using an
independent cohort. Validation with a third dataset (e.g., a cohort from a different region or
country) would further strengthen the generalizability of the NC-BA model. This is particularly
important given the study's emphasis on developing a tool that can be applied to diverse
populations.
-How might the choice of biomarkers and features affect the accuracy or applicability of the
model in different populations or disease states?
-What are the limitations of using a machine learning approach (e.g., risk of overfitting or model
interpretability)?
-Are there specific patient subgroups (e.g., elderly, very young, severely ill) for which the model
may not perform well?
-Was the model properly calibrated for the NHANES dataset, or does the decrease in correlation
suggest that adjustments are needed for other population-specific factors?
-Would incorporating additional variables (e.g., genetic data, environmental factors) help
improve model accuracy and calibration across diverse populations?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03752-y (2025)

Title: Biological Age Prediction and NAFLD Risk Assessment: A Machine Learning Model
Based on a Multicenter Population in Nanchang, Jiangxi, China
Version: 2 Date: 04 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
The authors have allegedly attempted to investigate Biological Age Prediction and NAFLD Risk
Assessment using  A Machine Learning Model Based on a Multicenter Population in China.
1. The introduction is long and not focused.
2. The rationale behind the study has been poorly stated.
3. The aim of the study is not clear.
4. It is not clear what new information is supposed to come out of this analysis.
5. Several biomarkers used in the analyses might have been collinear or even correlated. This
must be remedied.
6. The calibration and predictive discriminatory power of the prediction model for all cause
mortality must be reported.
7. How this information could be used in every day clinical encounters?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03752-y (2025)

Title: Biological Age Prediction and NAFLD Risk Assessment: A Machine Learning Model
Based on a Multicenter Population in Nanchang, Jiangxi, China
Version: 2 Date: 07 Jan 2025
Reviewer:  Fatemeh Sadat Hosseini#Baharanchi
Reviewer's report:
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03752-y (2025)

Title: Biological Age Prediction and NAFLD Risk Assessment: A Machine Learning Model
Based on a Multicenter Population in Nanchang, Jiangxi, China
Version: 3 Date: 21 Jan 2025
Reviewer:  Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr
Reviewer's report:
the responses are satisfactory.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03752-y (2025)

Title: Biological Age Prediction and NAFLD Risk Assessment: A Machine Learning Model
Based on a Multicenter Population in Nanchang, Jiangxi, China
Version: 3 Date: 21 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
I'm not convinced that the study carries any novelty.
I could not manage to find any clinical implication
The formal methodology has been followed for development or validation of the models
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03752-y (2025)

Title: Biological Age Prediction and NAFLD Risk Assessment: A Machine Learning Model
Based on a Multicenter Population in Nanchang, Jiangxi, China
Version: 4 Date: 24 Feb 2025
Reviewer:  Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr
Reviewer's report:
The responses are satisfactory.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03713-5 (2025)

Title: Prognostic Value of Tumor Deposits and Positive Lymph Nodes in Colorectal Cancer
Surgery: Improved Staging for Long-Term Prognosis
Version: 3 Date: 18 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
My review comments are as follows:
1. The full name of MSIH is not provided before its first abbreviation appears.
2. What does "In the current staging system" refer to? The 7th AJCC staging system is outdated,
and discussing past staging criteria no longer holds practical significance.
3. There are too many opinions or conclusions of others in the article that lack supporting
literature. Please provide corresponding references. For example, "Studies from France's IDEA
and Mayo Clinic show that TDs have a harmful effect in both N1a/b and N2 patients." and "the
presence of TD indicates that the patient's clinical stage is at least stage III."
4. Annotations are needed on Figure 2's survival curves to indicate which line represents which
type.
In summary, I believe this study provides a detailed analysis of TD, but there are still deficiencies
in the paper that require revisions
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03713-5 (2025)

Title: Prognostic Value of Tumor Deposits and Positive Lymph Nodes in Colorectal Cancer
Surgery: Improved Staging for Long-Term Prognosis
Version: 3 Date: 22 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
The aim of the study is very interesting and current with important implications in clinical
practice, especially surgical and oncology.The introduction adequately presents the aim of
the work, also citing the literature regarding other types of neoplasms on the same topic.
The Materials and Methods are well described with a detailed subdivision into paragraphs.
The inclusion and exclusion criteria are good. The results, with the precise help of statistical
studies, report clear and important data. Tables and figures correctly reported and useful for a
better understanding of the results obtained. Relevant and well-explained discussion, updated
bibliography.  I would recommend:
1) In table 1, patients with TD were classified as N0, N1, and N2 in the N stage.According to
the eighth edition of TNM staging of malignant tumors released by the UICC, tumor deposition
(TD) (+) patients without regional lymph node metastases are classified as N1c, as described in
your article. So what is the definition of N0 in the N stage for TD-positive patients in Table 1?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03713-5 (2025)

Title: Prognostic Value of Tumor Deposits and Positive Lymph Nodes in Colorectal Cancer
Surgery: Improved Staging for Long-Term Prognosis
Version: 4 Date: 20 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
After the author's thorough responses and meticulous revisions, I have no further questions.
Personally, I believe this paper is ready for publication.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03722-4 (2025)

Title: Expression profile and N6-methyadenosine modification of Circular RNA analysis in
MAFLD
Version: 0 Date: 29 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
This article does not describe a complete discovery and experiment, the description of the
sequencing results and experimental verification is too lacking. This article only lists two
sequencing results, and only a very short verification by qPCR does not illustrate any conclusion.
I do not think this article can be published.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03722-4 (2025)

Title: Expression profile and N6-methyadenosine modification of Circular RNA analysis in
MAFLD
Version: 0 Date: 07 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript explores the expression profile of circular RNAs (circRNAs) and their N6-
methyladenosine (m6A) modifications in metabolic-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD).
The study combines bioinformatics analysis with experimental validation, offering fresh insights
into the molecular mechanisms of MAFLD. The manuscript is well-structured, with credible
conclusions and potential implications for clinical diagnosis and treatment. However, several
aspects need improvement to enhance the overall quality of the paper.
1. Some figures (e.g., Figure 2A’s density plots and Figure 3’s GO/KEGG analysis) are overly
dense and difficult to interpret. Please improve the legends and annotations to make the data
easier to understand.
In Figure 4, the statistical graphs for RT-qPCR and MeRIP-qPCR lack clear indications of
significance. Consider adding specific p-values for better clarity.
2. The description of the microarray analysis and SRAMP prediction tool lacks specific details.
Please provide the parameters and criteria used for these analyses.
The workflow and data analysis for the MeRIP-qPCR experiments are too brief. A more detailed
explanation is needed.
3. The study does not adequately discuss its limitations, such as the relatively small sample size
(only five cases per group), which might affect the generalizability of the results. Additionally,
the causal relationship between m6A modifications and circRNA expression remains unclear.
Addressing these points in the discussion section would improve the manuscript.
This study provides valuable new insights and has scientific merit, but improvements in data
presentation, methodological details, and discussion depth are necessary.  I recommend minor
revisions before it can be considered for publication.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03722-4 (2025)

Title: Expression profile and N6-methyadenosine modification of Circular RNA analysis in
MAFLD
Version: 1 Date: 02 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
After reviewing the revised manuscript and the point-by-point response, it is evident that
the authors have addressed most of the critical concerns raised in the first review. They
provided detailed explanations, improved the clarity of figures, and expanded the methodology,
particularly for microarray analysis and SRAMP predictions. While the study remains
exploratory, lacking experimental validation of causal relationships between m6A modifications
and circRNA functions, the authors acknowledged these limitations and suggested future
research directions. The manuscript’s language and structure have improved, although minor
grammatical issues and phrasing could benefit from further polishing. Overall, the study
provides valuable insights into the regulatory role of m6A modified circRNAs in MAFLD and
is well aligned with the scope of BMC gastroenterology. I recommend accepting this article.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03722-4 (2025)

Title: Expression profile and N6-methyadenosine modification of Circular RNA analysis in
MAFLD
Version: 1 Date: 12 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
The author has supplemented some experiments in this revision. However, the verification
experiments in this study are still too few, and the level of m6a modification on different
circRNAs still needs more verification. At the same time, the function of m6a in MAFLD and the
mechanism of how to regulate the expression of circRNA need more experimental verification.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03756-8 (2025)

Title: The Association between the Dietary Index for Gut Microbiota and Non- Alcoholic Fatty
Liver Disease: Evidence from NHANES 2017-2020
Version: 0 Date: 17 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
Overall, this paper is well done and has interesting subject matter. I have no major concerns
with the methodology. Belo two suggestions:
1 - If possible, I suggest that the authors use the new nomenclature and replace NAFLD with
MASLD.
2 - The authors could extend the scope of the research to understand how DI-GM affects liver
fibrosis in NAFLD/MASLD. This could be assessed using a non-invasive test (NIT) such as
VCTE (by LSM measurements) or FIB-4 (which includes age, AST, ALT and platelets) to detect
the presence of individuals at high risk of advanced fibrosis (FIB-4>2.67).
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03489-0 (2025)

Title: KIF3C inhibits the progression and proliferation of colorectal cancer
Version: 4 Date: 25 Jul 2024
Reviewer:  Kumar S. Bishnupuri
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript is primarily focused on defining the role of KIF3C in colorectal carcinogenesis.
Although the manuscript includes some interesting data, it needs extensive edits and rewriting
even to follow the results. Even the title of the manuscript 'KIF3C Promotes Human Colorectal
Cancer Cell Proliferation by Inhibiting Dependant (???) Cell Cycle Progression' appears
to be confusing. Abstract: Methods - what is the meaning of meaning of transcription of
KIF3C, why results are included, i.e. we showed that KIF3C impacts..............pathway; we
demonstrated .....................with tumor prognosis, Results: what is the meaning of 'expression of
replicative, migratory and invasive capabilities'. Similar issues exist throughout the manuscript.
Overall, the manuscript needs extensive edits and rewriting to analyze the results in a proper way.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03489-0 (2025)

Title: KIF3C inhibits the progression and proliferation of colorectal cancer
Version: 4 Date: 11 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript by Diallo and coworkers titled ‘KIF3C Promotes Human Colorectal Cancer Cell
Proliferation by Inhibiting Dependant Cell Cycle Progression’ describes the oncogenic potential
of KIF3C in colorectal cancer.
I ask the authors to address the following concerns.
1.        Please revisit the title. It does not make sense to write ‘….. by Inhibiting Dependant
Cell Cycle……’.
2.        Authors showed that manipulating KIF3c affects PI3K and AKT signaling. Authors claim
that KIF3C promotes migration and invasion by affecting the PI3K/AKT pathway. It is essential
to show that this pathway is sufficient to promote migration and invasion by rescue experiments
using overexpression or knockdown of PI3K/AKT or by using phosphomimetic mutants.
3.        Please show error bars in figure 3B.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03489-0 (2025)

Title: KIF3C inhibits the progression and proliferation of colorectal cancer
Version: 5 Date: 28 Aug 2024
Reviewer:  Kumar S. Bishnupuri
Reviewer's report:
Although the manuscript quality is improved significantly after revision, it still needs thorough
grammatical edits, especially while mixing past and present tense  in a single sentence.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03489-0 (2025)

Title: KIF3C inhibits the progression and proliferation of colorectal cancer
Version: 5 Date: 29 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript by Yan and coworkers titled ‘KIF3C inhibits the progression and proliferation of
colorectal cancer through PI3K/AKT pathway’ describes the role of KIF3C in colorectal cancer
tumorigenesis and its molecular mechanism. This is an interesting study.
I ask authors to address the following minor comments.
1.      To convincingly establish that KIF3C promotes proliferation and migration through
PI3K/AKT signaling, please conduct a rescue experiment wherein proliferation and migration is
measured after ectopically expressing KIF3C following treatment with PI3K or AKT inhibitor.
2.      Please show higher magnification images of IHC shown in figure 1a (in inset).
3.      Please show median survival and hazard ratio for survival curve shown in figure 1F.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03489-0 (2025)

Title: KIF3C inhibits the progression and proliferation of colorectal cancer
Version: 5 Date: 30 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
Despite extensive re-editing by the authors, there are still numerous grammatical issues present.
For example, in the Abstract-Results section, 'We demonstrated that KIF3C cells and tissues
(???) were highly expressed, and its expression is thoroughly associated with tumor prognosis.'
Additionally,  'it was confirmed that the KIF3C signaling pathway (???) promotes CRC
progression by upregulating the PI3K/AKT Bax, Bcl-2, and cyclin D1 pathways'. Furthermore,
in the Abstract-Conclusions section, it mentions 'Our findings strongly suggest that inhibiting
KIF3C promotes the proliferation of CRC cells.' Is this a typographical error? It is recommended
that the authors carefully review the entire paper to avoid such basic errors.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03489-0 (2025)

Title: KIF3C inhibits the progression and proliferation of colorectal cancer
Version: 5 Date: 01 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the article entitled “KIF3C inhibits the progression
and proliferation of colorectal cancer through PI3K/AKT pathway.” I have carefully reviewed
the changes you made in response to the reviewers’ comments and are pleased to see that you
have addressed the concerns raised. These revisions have significantly improved the clarity and
quality of the manuscript.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03489-0 (2025)

Title: KIF3C inhibits the progression and proliferation of colorectal cancer
Version: 6 Date: 17 Sep 2024
Reviewer:  Kumar S. Bishnupuri
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript still needs edits. Some of examples are as below:
* All 'in vitro' and 'in vivo' should be in italics.
* Abstract: Methods:  Correct this sentence 'KIF3C function expression in CRC cells'
* The tissue was dewaxed after being divided (??)  into 3um slices.
* Correct the structure of this sentence in 'Materials and Methods' section: The NCM-460 normal
colon cancer epithelial cell lines and human colon cancer cell lines (HCT116, SW-480, and
SW-620) were obtained from the (Cell Bank of the Type Culture Collection at the Shanghai
Institute of Cell Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences).
* Correct the structure of this sentence in 'Materials and Methods' section: The different cell
lines were cultured in RPMI-1640 medium, supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS)
(Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA), and supplemented with  (??) 100 U/mL penicillin and 100µg/
ml streptomycin (SV30010, Hyclone, Cytiva), at 37°C in a 5% CO2 environment.
* 1x10^3 cells were seeded in a 96-well plate and cultured overnight at 37°C. At 24, 48, 72,
and 96 hours, (...better to replace this comma with period) 10 µL of cell counting Kit-8 (CCK-8)
reagent from Beyotime Institute of Biotechnology, Shanghai, China, was added to each well
and incubated for 2 hours.
* Stage I&Stage II - spacing issue.
* Stage III&Stage IV - spacing issue.
* while the SW-620 cells was (either replace 'cells' with 'cell line' or replace 'was' with 'were)
employed to examine the effects of KIF3C overexpression.
* Be consistent with 'was knocked down ' or 'was knockdown' .
* relationship between KIF3C and the PI3K/Akt pathway, with Bax, Bcl-2, and cyclin D-1
proteins associated with apoptosis (Cyclin D1 is not associated with apoptosis??)
* and elevated levels of these proteins in Bax and p53  (??).
* The si-KIF3C was separately transfected into SW-480 and HCT-116 cells (??), while the oe-
KIF3C overexpression (??) was in SW-620 cells.
* Nevertheless, Bcl-2 and the Cyclin D1 cell cycle regulator protein CyclinD1 are of a kind
that is closely linked to the development of tumors (??  -    Bcl-2 is a regulator of apoptosis
and Cyclin D1 is a regulator of cell cycle) - please be careful while mentioning their respective
involvement in apoptosis regulation or cell cycle regulation.
* Conclusion: oncogene KIF3C, whether suppressed or overexpressed, stimulated cell migration
and invasion while suppressing cell apoptosis in CRC - As shown in figure 3, si-KIF3C
(knockdown) inhibited migration and invasion, while in figure  4, oe-KIF3C stimulated
migration and invasion, but  concluding remark says 'whether suppressed or overexpressed,
stimulated cell migration and invasion'.
Overall, although the manuscript includes interesting results, it's painful to see so many errors
and confusing statements  in a second time resubmitted manuscript.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03489-0 (2025)

Title: KIF3C inhibits the progression and proliferation of colorectal cancer
Version: 6 Date: 20 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
I thank the authors for revising the manuscript.
Since the authors do not want to conduct a rescue experiment to show that KIF3C regulates
proliferation and migration through PI3K/AKT signaling, I ask the authors to remove the phrase
‘through PI3K/AKT pathway’ from the title.
The data presented in the manuscript shows that PI3K/AKT as well as Bax, Bcl-2, and cyclin D1
pathways. There is no evidence to indicate that PI3K/AKT signaling is responsible for the effects
observed. Therefore, claiming that KIF3C acts through specifically PI3K/AKT signaling is not
appropriate. Keep this in mind, please edit the abstract, results and discussion section as well.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03489-0 (2025)

Title: KIF3C inhibits the progression and proliferation of colorectal cancer
Version: 6 Date: 21 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled “KIF3C inhibits the
progression and proliferation of colorectal cancer through PI3K/AKT pathway.” The authors
have responded to the comments of the reviewers, and the manuscript is now sufficient for
publication. However, a few more typographical errors need to be corrected before acceptance.
In supplemental figures, The expressions “fist replicate” or “frist replicate” are typographic
errors to be revised.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03716-2 (2025)

Title: Identification and validation of a CD4 + T cell-related prognostic model to predict immune
responses in stage III-IV colorectal cancer
Version: 1 Date: 18 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Gangjian Wang
Reviewer's report:
The study initially identified the potential association between CD4 T cell abundance and the
prognosis of stage III-IV colorectal cancer (CRC) using bulk public data. Subsequently, it
identified marker genes of CD4 T cells using single-cell data and explored the relationship
between these marker genes, prognosis, and immunotherapy by constructing a model. The
research approach is relatively clear and innovative. However, some modifications are still
needed to enhance the quality of the article.
1#Firstly, the paper presents a large amount of data and information, making it difficult to follow.
I suggest the authors streamline the manuscript for better clarity.
2#Various studies have explored biomarkers for immunotherapy in gastrointestinal tumors (see
PMID: 37440827). Why did the authors not evaluate this important aspect? I recommend
discussing this point.
3#The CIBERSORT algorithm requires the p-values of sample estimates to be provided in the
methods section.
4#The criteria and number of patients collected in the methods section need detailed explanation.
5#Additionally, the biological replicates for Figure 8E are not clearly specified.
The single-cell results in Figure 2 are not the main findings of the article. The heatmap contains
too many genes, making it unclear. It is suggested to remove the genes from Figure 2 and include
them in the supplementary materials.
6#Annotations should be added to the nomogram to aid reader understanding.
7#In the evaluation of drug sensitivity, focus should be placed on clinically commonly used
drugs.
8#The authors should provide additional explanations regarding the limitations of this work.
9#Additionally, some minor formatting issues need attention: Ensure the original quality of
images, such as Figure 4G. It is recommended to use the same color for the same groups within
a single image to facilitate reader comprehension.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03716-2 (2025)

Title: Identification and validation of a CD4 + T cell-related prognostic model to predict immune
responses in stage III-IV colorectal cancer
Version: 1 Date: 23 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
This study integrated data from multiple data sets for analysis, combined with
Immunofluorescence staining and Quantitative real-time PCR, the overall workload was
reasonable.
The logic of writing is roughly reasonable. Starting from the prognosis of patients, the author
find possible related immune cell populations, and then group analysis to find related marker
genes and enrichment pathways, and then classify patients to complete the follow-up research
content. There are a few grammatical errors in some parts of the text, and the overall expression
is relatively smooth.
Data from the public database is reliable.
But in general, there are some deficiencies in the innovation of this study.
1. The research ideas and methods are similar to the previous studies of the same type, and the
final results lack further exploration of the underlying mechanism.
2. In the part of exploring the correlation between CD4 + Tcell and ICIs treatment effect, the
author used the patient cohort of bladder cancer to verify, which had a certain impact on the
credibility of the final results.
3. In the part of chemotherapeutic drug sensitivity, only data analysis was carried out, and there
was a lack of corresponding related experiments to further verify the conclusion.
4. Additionally, it is necessary to provide corresponding statistical analyses for ANXA2 and
FOXP3 in Fig. 8 to ensure the robustness and reliability of the results.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03716-2 (2025)

Title: Identification and validation of a CD4 + T cell-related prognostic model to predict immune
responses in stage III-IV colorectal cancer
Version: 1 Date: 23 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Wenlong Chen
Reviewer's report:
1. When performing single-cell data processing, authors should detail how cell subpopulations
are annotated and need to show marker expression for individual cell subpopulations.
2. In Identification of CD4+ T cell-related subtypes of stage III-IV CRC, more evidence is
needed for the accuracy of the choice of k values than just writing when k = 2, the cohort could
be well divided into two subtypes.
3. In line 280, 470... activated CD4 T cell, activated CD8 T cell..., please check the spelling of
the cell name, it should be consistent with the context.
4. In Evaluation of tumor immune microenvironment, imputation of the tumor immune
microenvironment by deconvolutional methods on transcriptomic data is feasible, but other
computational methods should be added to increase the credibility of the results, including but
not limited to MCPcounter, xCell, TIMER, and so on.
5.In Figure6A, 6 key genes are characterized genes obtained by analyzing CD4+ T cells, but
how to explain that some genes such as ANXA2 have no correlation with CD4+ T cells?
6. Results of differences in response to immunotherapy are based on data from colorectal cancer,
so why was a bladder cancer cohort used for validation?  GEO database has enough treatment
response data to support your conclusions (GSE136114, GSE60331...). Similarly, differences
in sensitivity to drugs should be validated with more clinical data.
7. Why not further validate TME differences with single-cell data? even if it's a simple cell ratio.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03716-2 (2025)

Title: Identification and validation of a CD4 + T cell-related prognostic model to predict immune
responses in stage III-IV colorectal cancer
Version: 1 Date: 24 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors found that a higher infiltrating abundance of CD4+ T cells may result in an
association with an improved prognosis in patients with stage III-IV CRC.And the authors
identified a set of CD4+ T-cell-related prognostic features that could predict prognosis and
response to immunotherapy in patients with stage III-IV CRC. That was a good job.That's a
good job, but there are still some concerns that need to be further elucidated by the authors.
1. The author should improve the logic of writing#such as“Finally…More importantly…
Furthermore”in the abstract.
2.The first sentence of the Introduction, regarding the colorectal cancer statisics should contain
an updated reference.
3.In Fig8, the authors described that ANXA2 was mainly expressed in Tregs, but there was no
obvious co-expression of ANXA2 and FOXP3 in Fig8E.
4.Should the author require additional evidence to further substantiate the claims.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03716-2 (2025)

Title: Identification and validation of a CD4 + T cell-related prognostic model to predict immune
responses in stage III-IV colorectal cancer
Version: 3 Date: 04 Jan 2025
Reviewer:  Wenlong Chen
Reviewer's report:
The authors used SingleR to annotate cell subpopulations, however manual annotation is
preferred. Marker gene expression in each cluster should be represented. The authors categorized
the cells in Figure2B,E as CD4+ T cells, T cells? What is the basis? because the latter includes
the former. The authors' analysis of single-cell data is puzzling.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03716-2 (2025)

Title: Identification and validation of a CD4 + T cell-related prognostic model to predict immune
responses in stage III-IV colorectal cancer
Version: 3 Date: 06 Jan 2025
Reviewer:  Gangjian Wang
Reviewer's report:
I think the author's corrections have basically met my requirements.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03716-2 (2025)

Title: Identification and validation of a CD4 + T cell-related prognostic model to predict immune
responses in stage III-IV colorectal cancer
Version: 4 Date: 18 Feb 2025
Reviewer:  Wenlong Chen
Reviewer's report:
I still have reservations about the authors' use of the singleR package to single-cell clustering
even this method may screen for true CD4+ T cells.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03750-0 (2025)

Title: Descriptive Analysis of Common Causes of Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Pediatric
Patients in Kerman: A Study from 2022 to 2023
Version: 0 Date: 07 Dec 2024
Reviewer:  Salahuddin Mahmud
Reviewer's report:
Good one
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03750-0 (2025)

Title: Descriptive Analysis of Common Causes of Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Pediatric
Patients in Kerman: A Study from 2022 to 2023
Version: 0 Date: 11 Dec 2024
Reviewer:  Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors, please address the following points below
-While the study mentions underlying conditions (e.g., Helicobacter pylori, NSAID use), more
detailed data on co-morbidities (such as liver disease, chronic conditions, or previous surgeries)
would provide valuable context for interpreting UGIB etiology, particularly for more complex
cases. Including this information would allow a deeper understanding of how these factors
influence UGIB outcomes.
-The manuscript focuses on the diagnosis and initial management of UGIB, but it does not
address follow-up data or long-term outcomes for the patients. Information on how these patients
fared after the initial treatment (e.g., recurrence of bleeding, need for further interventions) could
enrich the discussion and provide insights into the longer-term management of UGIB in this
population.
-The study mentions that 14 cases (11.6%) did not have a definitive diagnosis despite endoscopic
examination. It would be helpful to discuss potential reasons for this uncertainty. Could these
cases involve rare or less well-known causes of UGIB? Are there specific diagnostic limitations
in the region? Addressing this would give a more comprehensive understanding of the study’s
limitations and potential areas for future research.
-The authors mention that age-dependent variations in UGIB etiology were observed but were
not statistically significant. However, the discussion lacks elaboration on the potential reasons
for this lack of statistical significance. It would be beneficial to briefly explain why these
variations were not statistically significant (e.g., small sample size, insufficient power) and how
this could impact the interpretation of the results.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03750-0 (2025)

Title: Descriptive Analysis of Common Causes of Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Pediatric
Patients in Kerman: A Study from 2022 to 2023
Version: 2 Date: 06 Jan 2025
Reviewer:  Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr
Reviewer's report:
The responses are satisfactory.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03750-0 (2025)

Title: Descriptive Analysis of Common Causes of Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Pediatric
Patients in Kerman: A Study from 2022 to 2023
Version: 3 Date: 17 Feb 2025
Reviewer:  Mahdi Mazandarani
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor,
I would like to express my gratitude once more for selecting me as a reviewer for the article. I also
extend my sincere appreciation to the authors for their dedication to enhancing the manuscript.
I have no further comments, aside from the suggestion to relocate the Strengths and Limitations
section to the end of the discussion section, before the conclusion. Additionally, it would be
beneficial to enhance the quality and aesthetic appeal of the images included in the work, as this
could significantly improve the overall presentation and content.
Best regards
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03697-2 (2025)

Title: Development and validation of an interpretable machine learning model for predicting
the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with chronic hepatitis B: a case-control study
Version: 1 Date: 03 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
1- Introduction: Needs English editing.
2- Methods&Results
# Are all the patients with chronic hepatitis B on treatment or not?
# What about the performance status and BCLC criteria of patients with HCC?
# What about the pathological differentiation of patients with HCC?
# What about those patients with HCC (Naïve patients or underwent any intervention that may
affect the results)?
3- Discussion:
# It is better to be modified.
4- References:
More recent references better to be added.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03697-2 (2025)

Title: Development and validation of an interpretable machine learning model for predicting
the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with chronic hepatitis B: a case-control study
Version: 3 Date: 07 Jan 2025
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?
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: I thank the authors for their thorough and comprehensive responses
to my previous comments. Most of my concerns have been fully addressed, and I am largely
satisfied with the current version of the manuscript. However, there is one remaining issue that
requires further clarification: the authors should provide the 95% confidence intervals for the
model performance metrics presented in Table 3.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The authors should provide the 95% confidence intervals for the model performance metrics
presented in Table 3.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03697-2 (2025)

Title: Development and validation of an interpretable machine learning model for predicting
the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with chronic hepatitis B: a case-control study
Version: 4 Date: 08 Feb 2025
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: My previous comments have been sufficiently addressed. I am
satisfied with the current version and have no further comments.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03731-3 (2025)

Title: Impact of blood lead and manganese levels on metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic
liver disease prevalence: insights from NHANES (2017–2020)
Version: 1 Date: 28 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript is clearly written, without scientific errors.  I have no advice/suggestions/
questions that could improve this study. In my opinion, the manuscript can be accepted
immediately after correction of typographical errors.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03731-3 (2025)

Title: Impact of blood lead and manganese levels on metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic
liver disease prevalence: insights from NHANES (2017–2020)
Version: 1 Date: 31 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
1. MASLD should be spelled out in the title.
2. MASLD, NAFLD, and CAP should be defined in the abstract.
3. Definition/spelling out of MET under covariate assessment is needed.
4. Assumptions of linear regression models should be checked and information should be
provided.
5. In Table 1 and Table 2, why is there a p-trend test at each quartile of Lead and Manganese?
Shouldn’t it be an overall test for trend across different levels of the variable? Whether those p-
values are for trend test needed to be made clear. How do the authors interpret the p-trend for
continuous variable and categorical variables if the results are different, for example, for Lead
in Model 3, as well as for Manganese in all three models?
6. For the association between blood lead and manganese with CAP, Model 2 showed no
significant association between blood lead and CAP, while Model 1 and Model 3 showed
statistically significant association between blood lead and CAP, how do you interpret these
findings and the differences observed across different models? More discussions is needed.
7. Why nonlinear relationships were only examined between lead, manganese, and MASLD,
have the authors also checked whether the relationships could be nonlinear with CAP?
8. Difference between p-overall and p-nonlinear need to be further explained.
9. Why subgroup analysis was performed even though none of the interactions tested were
statistically significant, indicating there were no significant subgroup differences?
10. Both “gender” and “sex” were used in the paper, if it referred to biologic sex, please use
“sex”.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03731-3 (2025)

Title: Impact of blood lead and manganese levels on metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic
liver disease prevalence: insights from NHANES (2017–2020)
Version: 1 Date: 03 Feb 2025
Reviewer:  Peng Tang
Reviewer's report:
This article evaluated the association between blood lead, manganese and MASLD. However,
several key concerns require clarification:
1. The authors used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey to assess
the association between blood lead and manganese levels and MAFLD, and then current research
has used the data from the NHANES to assess the association. This study is also not more
innovative or otherwise different than previous studies.
(Associations of multiple toxic metal exposures with metabolic dysfunction associated fatty liver
disease: NHANES 2011-2018. DOI 10.3389/fnut.2023.1301319)
2. The full name needs to be used when the abbreviation first appears.
3. There is a difference in the definition of MASLD from previous studies, which requires further
confirmation.
(Association between the skeletal muscle mass to visceral fat area ratio and metabolic
dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease: A cross-sectional study of NHANES 2017–2018)
4. When performing regression analysis, each quartile of lead and manganese levels
corresponded to P trend values, which was inaccurate.
5. The statistical P-value needs to be shown in italics.
6. The English writing and grammar as well as the tables and figures might be further carefully
corrected or modified to increase the quality of this manuscript.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03731-3 (2025)

Title: Impact of blood lead and manganese levels on metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic
liver disease prevalence: insights from NHANES (2017–2020)
Version: 2 Date: 06 Feb 2025
Reviewer:  Amira A A Othman
Reviewer's report:
the response file does not work. Please resubmit.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03731-3 (2025)

Title: Impact of blood lead and manganese levels on metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic
liver disease prevalence: insights from NHANES (2017–2020)
Version: 3 Date: 12 Feb 2025
Reviewer:  Amira A A Othman
Reviewer's report:
I want to extend my congratulations to all those involved in this work. All the required
amendments have already been made carefully and satisfactorily. I hope that the research will
be presented to science.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03731-3 (2025)

Title: Impact of blood lead and manganese levels on metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic
liver disease prevalence: insights from NHANES (2017–2020)
Version: 3 Date: 23 Feb 2025
Reviewer:  Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr
Reviewer's report:
Changes are satisfactory.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03707-3 (2025)

Title: Comparing the bowel cleansing efficacy between sodium picosulfate vs. 2L polyethylene
glycol electrolyte lavage solution for colonoscopy: A prospective observational study
Version: 1 Date: 06 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the submission
1. How were the patients assigned to PICO and PEG groups?
2. Since this is observational, did you use propensity score matching to minimize bias?
3. The PICO group is younger. What about co-morbidities and gender characteristics between
the two groups?
4. Does a younger population have any bearing on bowel prep? What is your hypotheses
5. Why is the PICO group much smaller than the PEG?
6. How did you assess compliance and satisfaction?
7. How do compare to other similar studies?
8. What new insights have you provided compared to other similar studies?