JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03503-5 (2024)

Title: Clinical application of capsule sponge testing in symptomatic reflux disease: a national
prospective cohort study
Version: 3 Date: 19 Sep 2024
Reviewer:  Giuseppe Losurdo
Reviewer's report:
I read with interest the revised version of the paper by Chien et al about capsule sponge test to
screen for preneoplastic lesions in patients with esophageal reflux.
The answer to previous comments are fine in my opinion.
My main additional comments are:
1) “capsule sponge tests were performed for symptomatic reflux (24.8%)” why? Which was the
indication for the remaining cases?
2) Modality of capsule administration should be described.
3) Concordance for atypia between capsule and metaplasia/Barrett should be also calculated by
k concordance index and possibly specificity and sensitivity.
4) Please describe which genetic alterations were tested.
5) Please define the role of TFF3 in the pathogenesis and diagnosis of UGI cancers, possibly
in the Discussion section.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03503-5 (2024)

Title: Clinical application of capsule sponge testing in symptomatic reflux disease: a national
prospective cohort study
Version: 4 Date: 03 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Sarah K. Thompson
Reviewer's report:
I am satisfied with the author replies and revised manuscript. This will be a very good addition
to the current literature on reflux.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03524-0 (2024)

Title: Effectiveness and safety of vonoprazan and amoxicillin dual regimen with Saccharomyces
boulardii supplements on eradication of Helicobacter pylori
Version: 1 Date: 01 Jul 2024
Reviewer:  Zohreh Bari
Reviewer's report:
Thank the authors for their study. They have introduced the protocols, interpreted and discussed
the results precisely.
However, I have some minor comments to be addressed.
1- In results, it is mentioned that 11 patients reported adverse events in the ECAB group,
including six cases melena. Since Bismuth can cause dark stool, was the bismuth-related dark
stool differentiated from real melena?
2- It would be better to include and compare the endoscopic findings of the patients of both
groups as their baseline characteristics in table 1, since patients with non-ulcer dyspepsia are
more resistant to H. pylori eradication than those with peptic ulcer disease.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03524-0 (2024)

Title: Effectiveness and safety of vonoprazan and amoxicillin dual regimen with Saccharomyces
boulardii supplements on eradication of Helicobacter pylori
Version: 1 Date: 18 Sep 2024
Reviewer:  Dmitry S. Bordin
Reviewer's report:
The presented study is extremely interesting and relevant. In general, it deserves to be published.
At the same time, I would recommend making some corrections to the text:
1. on line 54, the authors refer to the Maastricht V cosensus report. Perhaps they mean Maastricht
VI, published in 2022? The link is not formatted neatly.
2. on lines 134-135, I would ask you to clarify the criteria for the UBT. The authors first indicate
that a positive result is at a DOB level> 4. Then that at delta 4-6 the test was repeated after a
month. For what reason? Apparently, they mean a positive result at a DOB level> 6?
3. on line 208 "ECAB group, including six cases melena". When taking bismuth preparations,
the stool turns black, but this is not melena. The term should be clarified. Melena is a symptom
of bleeding.
4. on line 266 "preventing H. pylori adhesion in the duodenum" - apparently the authors wanted
to say about the antral part of the stomach?
5. The last remark concerns the choice of the dose of amoxicillin in dual therapy with
vonoprazan. Usually it is 3000 mg per day and the duration is 14 days. Probably, with such
a regimen with the addition of S. boulardii the efficiency would significantly exceed 90%.
However, this is discussed in the limitations section and cannot be eliminated by the authors.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03524-0 (2024)

Title: Effectiveness and safety of vonoprazan and amoxicillin dual regimen with Saccharomyces
boulardii supplements on eradication of Helicobacter pylori
Version: 2 Date: 08 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Dmitry S. Bordin
Reviewer's report:
Having read the article again, I can note that all my removable comments have been taken into
account and corrected. The article is of great interest. Therapy with vonoprazan and amoxicillin,
enhanced with S. boulardii  seems promising. I believe that the article can be published in the
form presented.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03526-y (2024)

Title: Causal Relationship Between Major Depressive Disorder, Anxiety Disorder and
Constipation: A Two-sample Mendelian randomization study
Version: 0 Date: 08 Jul 2024
Reviewer:  Shikai Wang
Reviewer's report:
Mendelian randomization is a research method that has emerged in recent years. Depression,
anxiety often combined with the problem of constipation, the difference is that depression
patients more often occur constipation, and anxiety patients often appear diarrhea, or diarrhea
and constipation alternating irritable bowel syndrome. This study uses big data to study the
correlation between them from an evidence-based perspective, which appears to be more clinical
value. I think the manuscript can be published after minor revisions.
1. “With a worldwide prevalence exceeding 300 million people,  MDD is a prevalent psychiatric
condition . The lifetime prevalence of MDD in adults in the United States is  estimated to be
17% . An increasing body of research has revealed a link between MDD and constipation.  In
a cross-sectional study by Wang et al.,  depression of all severities was significantly associated
with constipation . The incidence of constipation in  patients with varying severity of depression
was 7.8% (mild depression), 13.0% (moderate depression), and 22.6% (moderately severe to
severe depression)  ". This section should be integrated into the introduction.
2. "CRF, stress pathways, brain-gut axis, dysregulation of the intestinal flora" The contents of
these mechanisms should be included in the prospects for further research and implementation.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03526-y (2024)

Title: Causal Relationship Between Major Depressive Disorder, Anxiety Disorder and
Constipation: A Two-sample Mendelian randomization study
Version: 0 Date: 28 Sep 2024
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?
No - there are minor issues
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: This is a review of the manuscript titled " Causal Relationship
Between Major Depressive Disorder, Anxiety Disorder and Constipation: A Two-sample
Mendelian randomization study" where its authors used Mendelian Randomization (MR)
approach to dissect relationships between MDD, anxiety disorder  and constipation in a
bidirectional way. A significant link between MDD and constipation was found, but not vice
versa. No relationship between anxiety and constipation were found.
I found this to be interesting, well written MS, where i have especially like the Discussion
section, where authors emphasize on action of CRF. Pitifully, two recent papers were published
on the same link of depression and constipation, both done by MR ( PMID: 38973539; PMID:
38806066); authors should acknowledge and discuss these papers. Also, please edit a line
in Abstract : " According to the inverse MR analysis (constipation to MDD: p=9.37×10-1;
constipation to AXD: p=8.51×10-1), all the results were negative." Please change to " In the
inverse MR analysis, no causal associations were found (constipation to MDD: p=9.37×10-1;
constipation to AXD: p=8.51×10-1)." Also, there is two phrases in Discussion, where word
"prevalence" is found three times in two lines of text. Please edit for word replacement.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
please see notes above. MS is of good quality.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
this is a very good quality MS that, unfortunately, is of confirmatory nature
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03526-y (2024)

Title: Causal Relationship Between Major Depressive Disorder, Anxiety Disorder and
Constipation: A Two-sample Mendelian randomization study
Version: 1 Date: 30 Oct 2024
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: This is a repeat review of the manuscript titled "Causal
Relationship Between Major Depressive Disorder, Anxiety Disorder and Constipation: A Two-
sample Mendelian randomization study". Authors used Mendelian randomization (MR) to
extract significant causal relationships between anxiety phenotypes, depression phenotypes,
constipation, and have also discussed contribution of varius microbial species of the gut to each
of these phenotypes. MS has greatly improved since last review, and is ready to be published now
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Thank you for doing the corrections highlighted by our previous review and be Rev 1
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03528-w (2024)

Title: Analysis of risk factors related to acute exacerbation in patients with chronic pancreatitis:
a retrospective study of 313 cases from a single center in China
Version: 3 Date: 10 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
This study is extremely valuable in identifying independent risk and protective factors for
ACP in patients with CP. There are no universally accepted criteria for the diagnosis of
chronic pancreatitis and ACP. Although this is an important study that clarified the clinical
characteristics of ACP in patients with chronic pancreatitis, there are several issues that need
to be addressed.
1# The authors used the Asia Pacific consensus to diagnose chronic pancreatitis, but other
diagnostic criteria are commonly used worldwide.
1) Hoffmeister A, Mayerle J, Beglinger C, et al. English language version of the S3-consensus
guidelines on chronic pancreatitis: definition, aetiology, diagnostic examinations, medical,
endoscopic and surgical management of chronic pancreatitis. Z Gastroenterol 2015; 53: 1447–
95.
2) Whitcomb DC, Shimosegawa T, Chari ST, et al. International consensus statements on
early chronic pancreatitis. Recommendations from the working group for the international
consensus guidelines for chronic pancreatitis in collaboration with The International Association
of Pancreatology, American Pancreatic Association, Japan Pancreas Society, PancreasFest
Working Group and European Pancreatic Club. Pancreatology 2018; 18: 516–27.
3) Shimizu K, Ito T, Irisawa A, et al. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines
for chronic pancreatitis 2021. J Gastroenterol 2022; Oct;57(10):709-724. doi: 10.1007/
s00535-022-01911-6..
4) Löhr JM, Dominguez-Munoz E, Rosendahl J, et al. United European Gastroenterology
evidence-based guidelines for the diagnosis and therapy of chronic pancreatitis (HaPanEU).
United European Gastroenterol J 2017; 5: 153–99.
Georg Beyer, Aida Habtezion, Jens Werner, Markus M Lerch, Julia Mayerle Chronic
pancreatitis Lancet 2020; 396: 499–512
2# Continued alcohol consumption is thought to contribute to the development of ACP or RAP.
Please consider whether to continue or stop drinking alcohol.
3# Please state whether or not there was pancreatic stones, and in patients who have them, the
location of the stones.
4# Patients with chronic pancreatitis not only suffer from endocrine dysfunction, but also from
exocrine dysfunction. Clinical findings such as weight loss and diarrhea were clearly stated, but
did you evaluate exocrine function? For example, PT-PABA test, fecal elastase 1, and so on.
Please describe if there is any.
5# In addition to reducing pain and prohibiting alcohol consumption, patients with chronic
pancreatitis might be treated with pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy. Please discuss the
preventive effects of ACP in patients who have received pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy.
6# In the results section, Table 4 states that pancreatic atrophy was a protective factor, but it
was not shown. Please check it carefully.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03528-w (2024)

Title: Analysis of risk factors related to acute exacerbation in patients with chronic pancreatitis:
a retrospective study of 313 cases from a single center in China
Version: 3 Date: 19 Sep 2024
Reviewer:  Sushila Kumar Pattanaik
Reviewer's report:
Very good concept. It will add to the limited literature on this controversial topic. Under authors'
contribution, meaning of the last sentence is not clear. And, please look into publication ethics
as per  ICMJE and author guidelines of the journal, if funding only can satisfy the criteria of
authorship. If yes, I like to give you few suggestions to revise the manuscript.
1. Reference No 3 may be rewritten in Vancouver style. 2023;23(2):143-150.
2. In Table 1, the p-value is 0.000 under age and abdominal pain. No much difference, but you
can go beyond 3 decimal points if you achieve it.. Please correct the spelling 'Diabetes'.
3. In Table 2 and in text, CA 19-9 instead of CA 199 may be better appreciated.
4. Under Patient selection: 'Asia Pacific consensus diagnosed all patients'  may be changed to
'All patients were diagnosed as CP as per Asia Pacific consensus'. I think, you mean that.
Why you excluded suspected cases of groove pancreatitis before confirmation. ACP may have
similar symptoms as you mentioned.
6. Under Statistics:  'risk factors involving the 11 indices above', but the 11 indices have not
been mentioned above.
7. Under Discussion para 1: -Diagnosis was established through 'physical examination' or
'investigation' to get the pancreatic calcification, please rectify.
-163 ACP out of 313 CP- Incidence is higher than earlier literature. please explain why.
-less pancreatic fibrosis in younger individuals with lower age- 'with lower age' may be omitted.
8. Under Discussion para 3: 35% shows history of RAP, but percentage is not shown in table
or in result section. You can write 110 out of 313 (35%) here.
9. Under Discussion para 4: 'With the continuous.....late stage of the disease; pancreatic
atrophy, fibrosis is serious;.......acute inflammation.'- Please break the sentence or use correct
punctuations.
10. Under Discussion para 7: 'In the study of risk factors' may be replaced by 'In this study of
risk factors' .
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03528-w (2024)

Title: Analysis of risk factors related to acute exacerbation in patients with chronic pancreatitis:
a retrospective study of 313 cases from a single center in China
Version: 4 Date: 06 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Sushila Kumar Pattanaik
Reviewer's report:
Although most of the points are revised, the following still remains incomprehensible.
Point 6.  Risk factors for ACP involving the 11 indices mentioned above (..............). These
11 indices have not explicitly been mentioned above, you are mentioning for the first time.
Therefore, you can omit "mentioned above", or you can replace "mentioned above" by  "as
described in Table- 1".
Point 7. You can replace ['physical examination' or 'investigation'] by the name of the
investigation that established the diagnosis of pancreatic calcification, say simply  [radiological
investigations]
Explanation of higher incidence of ACP in your study than earlier literature need not mean for
me alone. It should be added to the discussion section of your manuscript to explain the validity
of your results.
Point 11. I could not get satisfactory answer to my query on authorship criteria. As per ICMJE
criteria of authorship, funding only cannot satisfy the criteria of authorship. In this context, YF,
C, surprisingly  the corresponding author, cannot be an author. You can add some significant
contribution against the name to include YF, C as an author, otherwise it goes against publication
ethics.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03528-w (2024)

Title: Analysis of risk factors related to acute exacerbation in patients with chronic pancreatitis:
a retrospective study of 313 cases from a single center in China
Version: 4 Date: 09 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
Although it is unfortunate that some of the points I pointed out have not been corrected, I believe
the concept is interesting and the paper should be published.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03528-w (2024)

Title: Analysis of risk factors related to acute exacerbation in patients with chronic pancreatitis:
a retrospective study of 313 cases from a single center in China
Version: 5 Date: 31 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Sushila Kumar Pattanaik
Reviewer's report:
Now the manuscript looks fine. A minor revision in the newly added paragraph may be more
scientific and grammatically correct.
'This study was taken up to the new position statement on ACP issued in 2023.' may be changed
to 'This study was taken up based on the new position statement on ACP issued in 2023[3].'
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03527-x (2024)

Title: Risk factors and prognostic analysis of microscopic positive margins after radical surgery
for proximal gastric cancer
Version: 1 Date: 09 Jul 2024
Reviewer:  Shunji Endo
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for giving me such a great opportunity to review your paper entitled "Risk factors and
prognostic analysis of microscopic positive margins after radical surgery for proximal gastric
cancer." I read it with great interest.
However, while reading it, I felt a contradiction in the content of the discussion. I think that
readers will be unsure of how to apply this paper to their daily clinical practice after reading it.
1. The conclusion, "Patients with proximal gastric cancer whose tumors are located in the
esophagogastric junction, Borrmann type 3/4, Lauren diffuse/mixed type, margin distance <3
cm, pT4 stage, and vascular invasion are more likely to have positive margins, and intraoperative
frozen pathology is recommended for patients with a combination of these risk factors to ensure
negative margins, especially for patients with early-stage disease," is difficult to understand. It
is contradictory to say that patients with type 3/type 4 and pT4 have early-stage cancer. What
kind of patients should be subjected to intraoperative frozen pathology diagnosis?
2. Please provide a breakdown of the surgical procedure. Please state the indications for proximal
gastrectomy.
3. I think that proximal margin positive and distal margin positive should be discussed
separately. Actually, additional esophageal resection is sometimes difficult in case of positive
proximal margin, but in proximal gastrectomy, intraoperative pathological diagnosis of distal
margin should be performed proactively, and total gastrectomy should not be hesitated if the
margin is positive.
4. What does "constant" mean in Table 2?
5. Please state the classification method and version used for staging of gastric cancer. What
is pPn staging?
6. Was the SPSS version used 22.0 or 24?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03527-x (2024)

Title: Risk factors and prognostic analysis of microscopic positive margins after radical surgery
for proximal gastric cancer
Version: 2 Date: 05 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Shunji Endo
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for your sincere response to the reviewer's comments. I think that the authors' point
has become clearer by focusing on the proximal margin.
Although they are minor points, please make the following corrections.
1. In the inclusion criteria, it says "positive positive distal surgical margins."
2. In Table 2, do NM and PM mean R0 and R1?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03527-x (2024)

Title: Risk factors and prognostic analysis of microscopic positive margins after radical surgery
for proximal gastric cancer
Version: 2 Date: 10 Nov 2024
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: Authors responded adequately to each of the questions and to each
of mine comments.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
No the manuscript is correct
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03519-x (2024)

Title: Diagnostic Performance of Procalcitonin for Bacterial Infection in Severe Alcoholic
Hepatitis Compared with C-Reactive Protein
Version: 1 Date: 16 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
The study is of interest. The authors have attempted to determine the prognostic value of
procalcitonin (PCT) and C reactive (CRP) for detecting bacterial infections in patients with
severe alcoholic hepatitis (AHH). The results of the study showed that procalcitonin seems to
perform better than CRP in the early detection of bacterial infections. The results may be useful
in clinical practice. However, the study has some drawbacks that should be addressed:
MAJOR COMMENTS:
1. One of the main problems with the study is the diagnostic criteria used for diagnosis of
severe acute alcoholic hepatitis (AHH). Patients with AHH often present systemic inflammatory
responses, which includes elevated markers of inflammation. While the diagnosis of AHH
was made based on NIAAA criteria, it was not confirmed by liver histology, making the
diagnosis possible rather than definitive. Therefore, this limitation should be acknowledged in
the discussion of the study.
2. Another significant concert is that 40% of infections were culture-negative. It raises the
possibility that the inflammatory markers observed might be attributable to AHH itself rather
than an actual bacterial infection. It may be interesting to perform a subanalysis of culture
positive bacterial infections. And it should be highlighted in the discussion.
MINOR
3. Table 1 should include the number of patients treated with corticoids.
4. According to the text, the number of patients with infections were 31, but the number of types
of infections were 30. The authors should clarify which infection is unaccounted for.
5. Authors should clarify that causes of sepsis discussed in the previous paragraph are also
included in patients with sepsis.
6. It would be valuable to compare the characteristics of patients with bacterial infections
who developed sepsis and AHH versus those with bacterial infections without sepsis. This
comparison could enhance the understanding of clinical characteristics of groups illustrated in
Figure 3.
7. Fig 4. Evaluated patients with sepsis and SIRS. In methods, sepsis is defined as bacterial
infection and SIRS. Figures 3 and 4 appear to overlap, the authors should clarify this.
8. It may be interesting to correlate CRP and PCT with organ failure and ACLF and mortality,
if authors had the data.
9. In the discussion authors mention that only one study has evaluated PCT in AHH. However,
authors should include in the discussion the study by Altamirano et al., (PMID: 25761863),
which may provide further support for the results.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03519-x (2024)

Title: Diagnostic Performance of Procalcitonin for Bacterial Infection in Severe Alcoholic
Hepatitis Compared with C-Reactive Protein
Version: 1 Date: 17 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
This is a very nice manusript of a very-well done study on an important subject.
I congratulate the authors of this very fine piece of work!
I have got only minor remarks
Minor remarks
- for at not very attentive reader who is a liver expert, it may be unclear how severe alcoholic
hepatitis was definded. Perhaps the authors could repeat this fact in the introduction / discussion
section
- I am confused why cholecystitis was among the causes of sepsis, but not of bacterial infection
- last part of the result section: the authors might clarify by giving the patient number that the last
calculation of sepsis among SIRS patients is a sub-analysis, which otherwise may be confusing
- Sensitivity, specificity and so on are very important, the authors give these data only in the
tables. I would advise mentioning the key data either in the text or indicating directly that this
information is given in the tables
- it is unclear, where the numbers of specificity and NPV of 84.4 and 85.5% come from in the
discussion section
- the neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (PMID: 31313853 DOI: 10.1111/apt.15335) has been
implicated in severity of alcoholic hepatitis and indirectly to the risk for bacterial infection. Can
we authors present data on neutrophils and lymphocytes in their patients?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03519-x (2024)

Title: Diagnostic Performance of Procalcitonin for Bacterial Infection in Severe Alcoholic
Hepatitis Compared with C-Reactive Protein
Version: 1 Date: 23 Aug 2024
Reviewer:  Iliana Mani
Reviewer's report:
This is a well conducted study examining the predictive role of procalcitonin in identification
of infections and sepsis in patients with severe alcoholic hepatitis. The cohort is larger than that
of other studies in the same era. However, there are some limitations, mainly in regard to the
time-points at which markers of interest were measured.
Major comments:
• In my opinion, the reason why authors chose to diagnose sepsis based on older criteria should
be mentioned briefly also in section method instead only at study limitations.
• Authors should specify the time-point at which they obtained PCT, CRP and all other laboratory
tests
• Authors should clarify at which time-point they diagnosed infections. Did they also include
hospital infections? In such case, at which time-point lab tests were assessed?
• A multivariate logistic regression analysis would strengthen results of the study.
• Table 2. It would be preferable if authors could provide the complete characterization
for the isolated bacteria. For example enterococcus faecalis or enterococcus spp if further
characterization was not feasible instead of enterococcus
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03519-x (2024)

Title: Diagnostic Performance of Procalcitonin for Bacterial Infection in Severe Alcoholic
Hepatitis Compared with C-Reactive Protein
Version: 3 Date: 17 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed the majority of the raised questions. However, the legends for
Figures 3 and 4 should be clearly improved.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03519-x (2024)

Title: Diagnostic Performance of Procalcitonin for Bacterial Infection in Severe Alcoholic
Hepatitis Compared with C-Reactive Protein
Version: 3 Date: 26 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
- I have doubts about the title because it is a comparative work between PCT and CRP in the
diagnosis of infection in patients with alcoholic hepatitis.
- Definitions of the different infections should be added
- It has been shown that the infection criteria of sepsis-3 and qSOFA have more sensitivity and
specificity than the SIRS criteria, which have limitations, especially in cirrhotic patients.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03519-x (2024)

Title: Diagnostic Performance of Procalcitonin for Bacterial Infection in Severe Alcoholic
Hepatitis Compared with C-Reactive Protein
Version: 3 Date: 30 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting study, but I have a number of comments:
1) in statistics, the authors write that they used the Student t-test and the Mann-Whitney test,
please clarify where exactly which test was used and why
2) numerical data from tables should not be duplicated in the text;
3) it is better to transfer the  causes of bacterial infection  to Tables
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03519-x (2024)

Title: Diagnostic Performance of Procalcitonin for Bacterial Infection in Severe Alcoholic
Hepatitis Compared with C-Reactive Protein
Version: 4 Date: 07 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you again for revising this manuscript, which does not need any further improvement,
in my opinion.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03519-x (2024)

Title: Diagnostic Performance of Procalcitonin for Bacterial Infection in Severe Alcoholic
Hepatitis Compared with C-Reactive Protein
Version: 4 Date: 13 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
#############################PCT#############################CRP##########
###############PCT#CRP####################################################
#############PCT#CRP######################################################
###########################PCT#CRP########################################
########################
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03519-x (2024)

Title: Diagnostic Performance of Procalcitonin for Bacterial Infection in Severe Alcoholic
Hepatitis Compared with C-Reactive Protein
Version: 4 Date: 16 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
The requested changes were made.
Although I would have preferred the definitions of sepsis according to the Sepsis-3 criteria,
which are the most recently defined, I have no major objections to the use of SIRS.
For my part, I have no further objections.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03393-7 (2024)

Title: Developing and Validation a Prognostic Model for Predicting Prognosis Among
Synchronous Colorectal Cancers Patients Using Combined Log Odds Ratio of Positive Lymph
Nodes: a SEER Database Study
Version: 2 Date: 06 Jul 2024
Reviewer:  Ioannis Gkekas
Reviewer's report:
Congratulation to authors for their effort to performe the study.
Here comes my comments:
1: Does the use of abbreviation LODDS in the tittle really help the reader to understand the
meaning of the study?
2. The author should check again the manuscript for the pinpointed gramatical errors.
3. It needs to somehow cut down this big study.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03393-7 (2024)

Title: Developing and Validation a Prognostic Model for Predicting Prognosis Among
Synchronous Colorectal Cancers Patients Using Combined Log Odds Ratio of Positive Lymph
Nodes: a SEER Database Study
Version: 2 Date: 15 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
I commend the authors for their innovative approach in identifying prognostic risk factors
associated with overall survival and cancer-specific survival in patients with synchronous
colorectal cancer. The creation of functional nomograms to predict overall and cancer-specific
survival is particularly noteworthy and represents a significant advancement in personalized
medicine for this patient population. The results are well-represented, and the manuscript
adheres commendably to most of the TRIPOD statement’s checklist (doi: 10.7326/M14-0698).
In my opinion, this great work deserves some revisions to increase the quality of reporting:
1. The title should identify the study as developing and validating the prediction model. Also,
the outcome should be mentioned in the title. The LODDS should not be written abbreviated
in the title.
2. The purpose in the abstract: Since the purpose is prognostic and not diagnostic, the purpose
was not to identify risk factors for the disease, this should be corrected to show that the purpose
was to  identify factors associated with survival in synchronous colorectal cancer. Additionally,
the purpose should clearly include that it was a development and validation study.
3. The methods in the abstract: “Risk factors for synchronous colorectal cancer were determined
using univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses”: Again, this should be corrected to
show that the purpose was to  identify factors associated with survival in synchronous colorectal
cancer using univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses (they are associated with death
in those patients and not with the occurrence of synchronous colorectal cancer.
4. The results in the abstract: The results should identify the predictors included in the final
model. The grammar should be checked.
5. The background section: At the end you mentioned: “Given the special characteristics
mentioned above, a more comprehensive and specific tool to predict SCRCs is needed”. The
tool is not for predicting SCRCs but for predicting prognosis of SCRCs (survival). Include
the potential clinical uses or decisions related to SCRCs patients that could be based on the
developed nomograms.
6. Patients and Methods section:
• The start and end dates of the training cohort should be specified. Additionally, more
information about the type, number, and location of the centers from which the training cohort
data were retrieved using the SEER database.
• Provide explanation about how the study sample size was arrived at for both the training and
external validation cohorts
• Provide details on how risk groups were divided to low, medium and high risk groups; for
example, using the 25th and 75th percentiles of the model’s risk score distribution
7. In the results section: Provide the full model equation; the one used to calculate the survival
probabilities.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03393-7 (2024)

Title: Developing and Validation a Prognostic Model for Predicting Prognosis Among
Synchronous Colorectal Cancers Patients Using Combined Log Odds Ratio of Positive Lymph
Nodes: a SEER Database Study
Version: 3 Date: 25 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
Thank you for your diligent revisions and the improvements made to the manuscript. Your
responses to the feedback have significantly enhanced the quality of the work. I particularly
appreciate the following:
Abstract and Methods Clarification:
The correction in the abstract to reflect that the purpose was to identify factors associated
with survival in synchronous colorectal cancer using univariate and multivariate Cox regression
analyses was well done.
Background Section:
The revision to clarify that the tool is for predicting the prognosis (survival) of SCRCs.
Patient and Methods Section:
Including the start and end dates of the training cohort.
Results Section:
Identifying the predictors included in the final model and providing the full model equation has
made the results more transparent.
These revisions are commendable and have greatly strengthened the manuscript. However, there
are two remaining points that need to be addressed:
1- Title:
Please revise the title to "Development and validation of a prognostic model for survival
among…" rather than "predicting prognosis." Including "validation" is essential as your study
encompasses both the development and validation phases, with an excellent job done on the
external validation. This should not be overlooked in the title.
2- Equations:
Please exchange the equations for the hazard  h(t#X) with the equations for survival probability
S(t#X).
Addressing these points will further enhance the clarity and accuracy of your manuscript. I look
forward to your revised submission.
Best regards,
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03393-7 (2024)

Title: Developing and Validation a Prognostic Model for Predicting Prognosis Among
Synchronous Colorectal Cancers Patients Using Combined Log Odds Ratio of Positive Lymph
Nodes: a SEER Database Study
Version: 3 Date: 25 Jul 2024
Reviewer:  Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr
Reviewer's report:
Changes are done , accepted for publication
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03393-7 (2024)

Title: Developing and Validation a Prognostic Model for Predicting Prognosis Among
Synchronous Colorectal Cancers Patients Using Combined Log Odds Ratio of Positive Lymph
Nodes: a SEER Database Study
Version: 3 Date: 31 Jul 2024
Reviewer:  Ioannis Gkekas
Reviewer's report:
Congratulation to authors, they managed to reform the article as my comments pinpointed. I
have no other argumentations.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03393-7 (2024)

Title: Developing and Validation a Prognostic Model for Predicting Prognosis Among
Synchronous Colorectal Cancers Patients Using Combined Log Odds Ratio of Positive Lymph
Nodes: a SEER Database Study
Version: 3 Date: 01 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
The overall content of the manuscript is complete, with data from the SEER database for
modeling and its own data for external validation. But there are still some minor issues to be
modified:
1.The nomogram of OS in Figure 3 shows that gender is an independent risk factor for predicting
OS, but the results of the multivariate analysis in Table 3 show no significant difference in
gender.
2.It is recommended to add the external verification section to the flow diagram.
3.The third paragraph of the discussion part mentioned: radiotherapy and chemotherapy were
identified as protective factors in both OS and CSS Nomograms. However, according to the
results of Figure 3 and Figure 5, chemotherapy is a protective factor for OS and CSS, but
radiotherapy is a risk factor for OS, and radiotherapy is meaningless for the prognosis of CSS.
Tables 3 and 4 also confirm the results in the nomograms. The author discussion section does
not consistent with the results of the nomogram and table, and the authors are attention to check
and modify it. If radiotherapy is really a risk factor for OS, this is not consistent with clinical
experience, and the authors should explain it.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03393-7 (2024)

Title: Developing and Validation a Prognostic Model for Predicting Prognosis Among
Synchronous Colorectal Cancers Patients Using Combined Log Odds Ratio of Positive Lymph
Nodes: a SEER Database Study
Version: 3 Date: 01 Aug 2024
Reviewer:  Dakui Luo
Reviewer's report:
I commend the authors for their innovative approach in identifying prognostic risk factors
associated with overall survival and cancer-specific survival in patients with synchronous
colorectal cancer. The creation of functional nomograms to predict overall and cancer-specific
survival is particularly noteworthy and represents a significant advancement in personalized
medicine for this patient population. Here are my some comments:
1. “LODDS ”did not differ in the univariate analysis (p=0.11), and why it was included in the
multivariate analysis?In addition, the caliper value of univariate analysis is not clearly set, so I
default your caliper value to p=0.05.
2.What is the form of the LODDS index in other reports, and what is its prognostic hint? In this
report, is the cutoff value set to 0.35 different enough from the other reports?
3. Among the included factors, "unknown" appeared in the results of "radiation". Does this have
an impact on the prediction results of the model?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03393-7 (2024)

Title: Developing and Validation a Prognostic Model for Predicting Prognosis Among
Synchronous Colorectal Cancers Patients Using Combined Log Odds Ratio of Positive Lymph
Nodes: a SEER Database Study
Version: 4 Date: 09 Aug 2024
Reviewer:  Ioannis Gkekas
Reviewer's report:
Congratulation to authors,
they have reviewed the manus to the point.
I have no other comments.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03393-7 (2024)

Title: Developing and Validation a Prognostic Model for Predicting Prognosis Among
Synchronous Colorectal Cancers Patients Using Combined Log Odds Ratio of Positive Lymph
Nodes: a SEER Database Study
Version: 4 Date: 14 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thanks, all comments were addressed.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03522-2 (2024)

Title: Effect of past extensive ulcers on fecal calprotectin in ulcerative colitis
Version: 0 Date: 01 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
The study presents valuable insights into the limitations of using fecal calprotectin (FC) as a
biomarker for ulcerative colitis (UC) patients with past extensive ulcers (PEUs). However, there
are several critical points that need to be addressed to enhance the clarity and robustness of the
conclusions.
1. Microscopic(histologic) Inflammation Consideration:
The observation that FC levels were initially elevated in the PEU group suggests the possibility
of underlying microscopic inflammation, despite the endoscopic remission. This underlying
inflammation might not have been captured by endoscopy but could still influence FC levels.
This is also a point that can be raised based on the results presented in Table 5. The fact that
patients who later experienced relapse had elevated FC values initially might indicate that they
may not have achieved true histological remission at the first place. And as is well known, these
patients would have a higher risk of relapse.
First of all, a discussion regarding this limitation is necessary, as it challenges the study's
assumption that all patients were in true remission.
Second, the conclusion that "the intestinal FC values observed with PEUs in UC may be high,
thus decreasing its usefulness as a biomarker" is somewhat oversimplified. Given the evidence
presented, it would be more accurate to state that FC may not be a reliable biomarker for relapse
prediction in UC patients with endoscopic PEUs due to the potential for underlying microscopic
inflammation. Indeed, the correlation of PEU with underlying inflammation is a novel field
worthy of exploration, and this study succeeds in bringing it to our minds, further pathologic
correlation is warranted for a deeper understanding of the mechanisms behind FC elevation in
PEU patients.
2. Clarification in Line 159:
There is a potential ambiguity in the text (Line 159), where the term "60 patients in the non-
PEU group" seems to refer to the entire cohort of 60 patients encompassing both PEU and non-
PEU groups. This needs to be clearly stated to avoid confusion.
3. Conclusion Refinement:
1) Incorporate Histological Assessments: Future studies should consider including histological
evaluations to detect microscopic inflammation, which could validate the findings and provide
a more comprehensive understanding of the relationship between PEUs and FC levels.
2) Address Bias through Study Design: A more sophisticated study design, possibly involving a
larger sample size and matched controls, could help in disentangling the effects of disease extent
from those of PEUs on FC levels.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03522-2 (2024)

Title: Effect of past extensive ulcers on fecal calprotectin in ulcerative colitis
Version: 0 Date: 03 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors evaluated the difference in biomarker values between UC patients with past
extensive ulcers and those without. I thought this is a very interesting topic that has not really
been highlighted before. I just have some minor comments.
1. Could you be more clear as to how you categorized PEUs and non-PEUs? If a patient had
one small scar, did you still group them into PEUs? Also how many polyps were needed to be
grouped into the “pseudopolyposis” group?
2. You have focused on subgrouping patients with pseudopolyposis but have not discussed this
in detail. Why did you think to subgroup these patients? Also what is your analysis on these
results?
3. For Figure 4, I would still be interested to see the ROC analysis and Kaplan meier curve for
the PEU group as well, presumably showing that there is no significant difference. This would
back up your conclusion.
4. From what I understand from your results, (1) PEUs showing absolute higher FC values
(Fig3), and (2) patients with PEUs who subsequently relapsed showing no difference in FC
values from the patients who didn’t (Table5), are two separate results. Perhaps (1) can be an
explanation for (2), but one cannot conclude this from your study. I would therefore suggest re-
wording the conclusion to something along the following; “UC patients with PEUs have higher
FC values compared to those without PEUs, even in remission. Additionally, FC values do not
predict relapse in PEU patients. Therefore, FC may not be a sufficiently accurate biomarker for
patients with PEUs.”
5. When you refer to “enteroscopic findings”, do you mean “endoscopic”? (line 53)
6. Line 108; I don’t believe the term “white moss” is one that is used in the English medical
literature, please review. (polyps covered in mucous, perhaps?)
7. Figure 1; non-polyposis group should be n=16?
8. Line 159 “Among the 60 patients in the non-PEU group”, do you mean to say ALL patients?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03522-2 (2024)

Title: Effect of past extensive ulcers on fecal calprotectin in ulcerative colitis
Version: 1 Date: 01 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
First, I would like to thank the authors for diligently reviewing and revising the manuscript.
Finally, I would like to offer a few minor comments:
There are a few typographical errors that need correction. Please review and amend as necessary:
"ere -> were" and "scaring -> scarring."
The conclusion in the abstract should reflect the changes made in the conclusion section of the
main text. Please refer to the suggestions made by Reviewer 2.
The mention of the lack of histologic evaluation appears too frequently throughout the
manuscript. It would be beneficial to condense or remove some of these mentions for clarity.
Thank you for your hard work.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03522-2 (2024)

Title: Effect of past extensive ulcers on fecal calprotectin in ulcerative colitis
Version: 1 Date: 16 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
An interesting study evaluating the usefulness of fecal-calprotectin (FC) in UC patients with
inflammatory changes due to irreversible fibrosis is available at. Although the usefulness of F
C has already been established in UC patients, we report that FC is not predictive of recurrence
in all patients with mucosal healing.
However, I believe that this paper should be rejected for the following reasons.
1. As a single-center study, we believe that a multi-center, multifaceted evaluation is necessary
to assess the results fairly.
2. The definition of PEU is ambiguous. When accompanied by fibrilization, the assessment of
activity may be inconsistent.
3. I believe that the analysis should be compared with other inflammatory biomarker s such as
LRG and PG-MUM, which are commonly used in daily practice.
4. PEU itself is difficult to assess for activity, and furthermore, the result that even FC cannot
predict recurrence gives the impression that it is not clinically useful. In general, it would be
desirable to have a biomarker that can evaluate recurrence even in PEU.