JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-04053-0 (2025)

Title: Feasibility, effectiveness, and safety of simultaneous side-by-side deployment of
uncovered self-expandable metal stents for malignant hilar biliary obstruction: a retrospective
single- center study
Version: 2 Date: 29 Apr 2025
Reviewer:  Zhaohui Tang
Reviewer's report:
The author has answered my question very well
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-04053-0 (2025)

Title: Feasibility, effectiveness, and safety of simultaneous side-by-side deployment of
uncovered self-expandable metal stents for malignant hilar biliary obstruction: a retrospective
single- center study
Version: 2 Date: 17 May 2025
Reviewer's report:
All suggestions have been addressed. The manuscript can be accepted for publication.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03851-w (2025)

Title: Quantitative literature analysis on efficacy and safety of balloon-occluded transarterial
chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma
Version: 2 Date: 17 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
Major revision required.
This meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy and safety of balloon-occluded transarterial
chemoembolization (B-TACE) compared to non-B-TACE (C-TACE/D-TACE) in
hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). While the study addresses an important clinical question and
employs rigorous methodology, several limitations affect the robustness of its conclusions.
Below are detailed critiques and recommendations.
Strengths:
1.. The authors conducted a systematic search across major databases (PubMed, Cochrane,
EMBASE) with clear inclusion/exclusion criteria.
2. Appropriate use of Review Manager 5.3, heterogeneity assessment (I² statistic), and funnel
plots for publication bias.
3.  Focus on tumor response (CR, PR, SD, PD), treatment effect (TE4/TE3-1), and safety (PSE,
AEs) aligns with key endpoints in HCC management.
4. Use of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for non-randomized studies adds credibility to the
included evidence.
Major Weaknesses
1.  Six of seven included studies are retrospective, introducing potential selection and reporting
biases. Retrospective designs limit causal inferences and may overestimate treatment effects.
2. Moderate-to-high heterogeneity (I² = 60–76%) in CR and PSE outcomes undermines the
reliability of pooled estimates. The authors acknowledge tumor size and embolization techniques
as sources but lack subgroup analyses to address this.
3.  Combining C-TACE and D-TACE into a single "non-B-TACE" group is problematic. These
techniques differ in mechanisms (e.g., drug-eluting beads vs. lipiodol), and pooling them may
obscure distinct efficacy/safety profiles.
4. Small sample sizes for safety outcomes (e.g., grade 3 AEs: 19 vs. 77 events) reduce power
to detect rare adverse events.
5. The analysis focuses on short-term outcomes (1-month tumor response). Long-term metrics
(e.g., overall survival, recurrence rates) are critical for HCC management but omitted.
Minor Issues
1. Writing and Presentation:
- Typos (e.g., "B-TACE was safety" # "B-TACE was safe").
- Inconsistent formatting (e.g., missing axis labels in figures).
2. Exclusion of grey literature (e.g., conference abstracts, trial registries) risks publication bias.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03851-w (2025)

Title: Quantitative literature analysis on efficacy and safety of balloon-occluded transarterial
chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma
Version: 3 Date: 27 Mar 2025
Reviewer:  Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr
Reviewer's report:
The responses are satisfactory
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-04048-x (2025)

Title: Expression of kinetochore component NDC80 promotes esophageal squamous cell
carcinoma cells proliferation and migration
Version: 1 Date: 11 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
I read this manuscript and it seems possible for publication after a minor revision at the below-
mentioned.
The usefulness sources include:
doi: 10.17179/excli2018-1847
doi.org/10.1007/s12253-019-00711-3
PMCID: PMC3558201; PMID: 23407878
doi.org/10.1007/s11033-018-4556-2
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-04048-x (2025)

Title: Expression of kinetochore component NDC80 promotes esophageal squamous cell
carcinoma cells proliferation and migration
Version: 1 Date: 11 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript is not well written although the study is well conducted. There are a of typing
mistakes, grammatical errors, and inconsistent terms in the text, for instance, wound heal,
wounding heal, wound healing.
The format of Reference is not consistent.
There is no figure or evidence to show the SNP, mutation, or CNV in the first paragraph of
Results.
The numbers in the Figure 4 are typed incorrectly. What is the number on vertical-axis? The
Method stated that migration rate was quantified by the percentage of wounding area.
What is the genotype AAB and if any evidence to show the genotype?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-04048-x (2025)

Title: Expression of kinetochore component NDC80 promotes esophageal squamous cell
carcinoma cells proliferation and migration
Version: 2 Date: 17 Apr 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors do not include the articles that advise the references.
doi: 10.17179/excli2018-1847;
doi.org/10.1007/s12253-019-00711-3; PMCID: PMC3558201; PMID: 23407878;
doi.org/10.1007/s11033-018-4556-2
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-04048-x (2025)

Title: Expression of kinetochore component NDC80 promotes esophageal squamous cell
carcinoma cells proliferation and migration
Version: 2 Date: 03 May 2024
Reviewer:  Mehdi Montazer
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
Thank you for the responses and revisions you have made to the manuscript. I believe it is now
improved.
Sincerely,
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-04048-x (2025)

Title: Expression of kinetochore component NDC80 promotes esophageal squamous cell
carcinoma cells proliferation and migration
Version: 2 Date: 31 May 2024
Reviewer's report:
I can find English editing track change?
there are some grammar and  English mistakes yet?
what does this sentences mean? The average output of each sample was 13.71G#average Q30
of 89.85%#average mapped 94.29%. The expression and mutations of the NDC80 gene were
analyzed in tissues from 52 patients of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).
where is the flowcytometry figures?
some sentences are vague?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-04048-x (2025)

Title: Expression of kinetochore component NDC80 promotes esophageal squamous cell
carcinoma cells proliferation and migration
Version: 3 Date: 27 Aug 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: I need to start with the disclaimer that I was not involved in the
original review of this manuscript, and was called to evaluate the revised submission.
I have carefully evaluated the concerns of reviewers from the earlier round of review, and
the responses of the authors. I have also evaluated the revised manuscript. It is clear from the
submitted manuscript that it has been extensively modified and proof-read to improve grammar
and readability. The responses to reviewers’ concerns are adequate. Looks like the references
of a single scientist were asked to be added by one of the reviewers and the authors refused.
In my judgment, the authors rebuttal regarding this particular concern is understandable and
acceptable. One reviewer apparently wanted authors to provide some flow data but the question
was not asked in a proper way.
As a bottom line, authors have responded well to reviewers’ concerns and the manuscript can
be accepted for publication."
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-04044-1 (2025)

Title: A Study on the Timing of Small-Bowel Capsule Endoscopy and Its Impact on the
Detection Rate of Bleeding Sources
Version: 1 Date: 16 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
Authors proposed a retrospective analysis of a cohort of patients undergoing small bowel capsule
endoscopy for suspected small bowel bleeding. They aimed to identify if the timing could affect
the diagnostic yield.
Actually, paper's results do not reach a statistically significance to provide a such a conclusion,
that the timing do not impact on diagnostic yield.
It could be due to a beta error, the observations between 8-14, 15-28 and after 29 days are limited.
Moreover, inflammatory lesions are the most represented positive finding after 14 days , this
result could depend on whether authors are considering different populations.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-04044-1 (2025)

Title: A Study on the Timing of Small-Bowel Capsule Endoscopy and Its Impact on the
Detection Rate of Bleeding Sources
Version: 1 Date: 29 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
I have read with interest the paper by Kametaka et al. It is a retrospective analysis of the
diagnostic yield of SBCE according to the timing of the examination. Authors found no
significant difference in the diagnostic yield across the four time groups evaluated. All the
vascular lesions were found in the examinations performed in the first 14 days following the
bleeding event.
I have some observations:
- The choice of the time frames appears somehow arbitrary. First of all, considering that
European guidelines recommend small bowel examination within 48 hours, I would have
considered including patients who underwent SBCE within 48 hours from presentation (if any)
as a separate group. Secondly, was it really necessary to evaluate 4 different groups? Why not
to consider only “early SBCE” (within 2 weeks”) vs “delayed SBCE” (and, if possible, “very
early/urgent SBCE” – within 48 hours)?
- The paper lacks some clinical data related to the severity of bleeding (Hb at presentation,
syncope at presentation, shock status/hemodynamic instability, need for blood transfusion,
ongoing bleeding…). These data could be particularly useful to better understand the results
of your paper. For example, it may better clarify why vascular lesions were only found in the
first 2 weeks (It is likely that these patients had more severe presentations that lead to an earlier
examination; if this is true, it should be discussed in the paper)
- You should provide a comparison of the different demographic, anamnestic and clinical
characteristics of the different study groups (for example in table 1)
- It is stated that patients with hematemesis were included into the study. However, hematemesis
is a clear sign of upper gastrointestinal bleeding, and I would generally not consider a patient
presented with hematemesis for small bowel study.
- In 17/68 patients with a negative SBCE a bleeding cause outside the small bowel was finally
found. This is not a small percentage (25%), moreover some of the bleeding causes found in
these patient
Should be quite easy to diagnose (duodenal ulcer, gastrojejunal anastomotic ulcers, colonic
diverticula) during standard endoscopic procedures. Did all the patients undergo upper and lower
endoscopy before receiving SBCE? It should be clearly stated in the method section. Were
some of these extra-small bowel findings visible at SBCE (especially the gastric and duodenal
findings?)
- It would be interesting to have post-SBCE follow-up data (how many patients received
an endoscopic or non-endoscopic treatment after a positive SBCE, how many experienced
rebleeding). In particular a rebleeding-rate comparison of the different study group would be
interesting (similar to the analysis provided in the study by Zhao et al. The role of early video
capsule endoscopy in the diagnosis and prognosis of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding: A multi-
center propensity score matching study. JGH doi:10.1111/jgh.15491)
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-04028-1 (2025)

Title: Prognostic Value of Platelet-to-Lymphocyte Ratio in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients
Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Version: 1 Date: 15 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor, thank you so much for inviting me to revise this manuscript about liver tumors.
This study addresses a current topic.
The manuscript is quite well written and organized. English could be improved.
Figures and tables are comprehensive and clear.
The introduction explains in a clear and coherent manner the background of this study.
We suggest the following modifications:
• Introduction section: although the authors correctly included important papers in this setting,
we believe the evolving systemic treatment scenario for liver tumors should be further
discussed and some recent papers added within the introduction (PMID: 32772560; PMID:
39518127 ;PMID: 36579504; PMID: 36232663; PMID: 37819422  ), only for a matter of
consistency. We think it might be useful to introduce the topic of this interesting study.
• Methods and Statistical Analysis: nothing to add.
• Discussion section: Very interesting and timely discussion. Of note, the authors should expand
the Discussion section, including a more personal perspective to reflect on. For example, they
could answer the following questions – in order to facilitate the understanding of this complex
topic to readers: what potential does this study hold? What are the knowledge gaps and how do
researchers tackle them? How do you see this area unfolding in the next 5 years? We think it
would be extremely interesting for the readers.
However, we think the authors should be acknowledged for their work. In fact, they correctly
addressed an important topic, the methods sound good and their discussion is well balanced.
One additional little flaw: the authors could better explain the limitations of their work, in the
last part of the Discussion.
We believe this article is suitable for publication in the journal although major revisions are
needed. The main strengths of this paper are that it addresses an interesting and very timely
question and provides a clear answer, with some limitations.
We suggest a linguistic revision and the addition of some references for a matter of consistency.
Moreover, the authors should better clarify some points. e authors should better clarify some
points.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-04028-1 (2025)

Title: Prognostic Value of Platelet-to-Lymphocyte Ratio in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients
Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Version: 1 Date: 19 Apr 2025
Reviewer's report:
In this article, Zhou and colleagues performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on the
prognostic significance of the platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) on hepatocellular carcinoma
patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors. Their results suggest that a high PLR is
associated with worse prognosis; these results seem to be consistent across multiple subgroup
analyses.
I have the following comments and suggestions:
1) I recommend that the authors clearly identify this article as a systematic review and meta-
analysis (not just a meta-analysis) in both the title and the abstract
2) A specific strategy rather than keywords should be presented to ensure reproducibility of their
search methodology.
3) The use of random vs. fixed effects models should depend on the authors' assumptions
regarding the different study populations and the presence of one or multiple true effect
sizes rather than the use of statistical heterogeneity metrics. The authors clearly demonstrate
significant differences between the study populations, such as country and treatment agent used.
Therefore it becomes imperative that a random effects model be used in all analyses.
4) The authors use the terms predictive and prognostic interchangeably, however the two terms
have very different meanings - a biomarker that forecasts a clinical outcome vs. a  biomarker that
forecasts the outcome after the exposure to a therapeutic agent. The latter requires a comparative
design that includes a control group by default (in this case, it would require a comparison of
HCC patients NOT receiving ICIs). Therefore, PLR in this meta-analysis  is being investigated
as a prognostic, not a predictive biomarker; therefore all references to "predictive" need to be
changed to prognostic.
5) Important prognostic variables that act as confounders as well as sources of heterogeneity
need to be reported in  Table  1 - including Child-Pugh stage,  BCLC stage; line of treatment;
performance status if available; hepatitis status. These also need to further studied in subgroup
analyses if they significantly differ between studies.
6) Pooling effect estimates from different multivariable analyses can be problematic if the
adjusted variables were not uniform across all studies, as they have different interpretations.
I suggest that the authors specify which variables were included in each of the multivariable
models in a table as well as mention this limitation in the limitations section.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-04028-1 (2025)

Title: Prognostic Value of Platelet-to-Lymphocyte Ratio in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients
Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Version: 2 Date: 22 May 2025
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed all my concerns raised during the first round of review adequately
and therefore the article can be published in its current form.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-04022-7 (2025)

Title: Treatment Sequences, Outcomes, Healthcare Utilization and Costs in Patients with
Inflammatory Bowel Diseases Requiring Advanced Treatment—Real World Comparative
Effectiveness from German Claims Data
Version: 0 Date: 23 Mar 2025
Reviewer:  Christian Agboton
Reviewer's report:
This is a an interesting paper addressing the notion of sequences of therapies in IBD, a topic that
is more and more prevalent given the large number of drugs available.
The authors managed to avoid the  main pitfalls in this type of analyses by having a precise
definition of sequences and applying propensity score matching  to ensure comparability across
the treatments.
The  results are largely in line with the recently published results, especially for vedolizumab.
The Discussion part is well done with a good summary of the evidence available so far.
The use of "inadequate response" is a novel approach to treatment evaluation.
I would just suggest adding :
- 1. Gros B, Ross H, Nwabueze M, Constantine-Cooke N, Derikx LAAP, Lyons M, et al. Long-
term outcomes and predictors of vedolizumab persistence in ulcerative colitis. Therap Adv
Gastroenterol. 2024;17:17562848241258372.
-2. Bouguen M.D.- PhD. G, Nachury M, Nancey S, Bouhnik Y, Bourreille A, Altwegg R, et al.
OP38 Comparative efficacy of infliximab and vedolizumab after failure of a first anti-TNF in
patients with ulcerative colitis: a double-blind randomized controlled trial (EFFICACI). Journal
of Crohn’s and Colitis. 2025 Jan 1;19(Supplement_1):i74.
A few remarks for clarification :
1. Line 189: what is the difference between the number of sick leave and the number of sick days?
2. Line 250: Why are you so sure that missing data are unlikely in your study?
3. Line 300: Does it mean that 20% of patens receiving advanced therapies for induction are not
using them for maintenance? If so, are they switching to another advanced therapy?
4. The costs of UST are surprising to me. Given the low sample for UST, are you sure that these
data are representative?
Finally, with the data collected, would it be possible to define a  "path of least resistance", i.e an
"optimal sequence" that would optimize  the outcomes in most patients?
Overall a serious contribution to the topic.
Well done.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-04022-7 (2025)

Title: Treatment Sequences, Outcomes, Healthcare Utilization and Costs in Patients with
Inflammatory Bowel Diseases Requiring Advanced Treatment—Real World Comparative
Effectiveness from German Claims Data
Version: 0 Date: 28 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
General comments
Utilizing data from claims databases, the study investigated the drug persistence of biologics/
targeted small molecule in treatment of IBD. The research question is clearly clinically relevant
and as such the study is welcomed. In general, the methods are considered appropriate and the
analyses sufficient (please see specific comments below). Considering, the highly selected study
population, the external validity is unclear. The economical analyses are problematic as drug
prices varies from country to country. This is also the case for non-drug related health expenses.
It is unclear if the results can be extrapolated to other settings than Germany. This limitation ( as
well as others) need to be discussed in detail. The manuscript is lengthy and difficult to read.
Specific comments
The manuscript needs thorough linguistic revision by a native English speaker
Introduction
The meaning of the sentence “ For recurring flare-ups, steroid-dependent or steroid refractory
IBD courses conventional treatment escalation should be followed by
initiating advanced therapy [3, 4].” is difficult to understand. Deleting  “courses” would improve
readability.
The introduction is unnecessarily long and full of details not necessary for understanding the
clinical problem. Could be shortened without losing clarity.
Material and methods
For readers unfamiliar with the German health care system, a brief description would be
beneficial. Is there a non-SHI population? Is the SHI population representative of the entire
German population?
“ TTNT is defined as the number of days from index date (start of 1L treatment) to start of
2L treatment or censoring date” Censored patients did not meet the endpoint. The sentence is
misleading. Please rephrase
Statistical analyses
A large number of statistical comparisons were made. Did the authors correct for multiplicity?
Results
Please add a diagram depicting patient disposition. There is quite a big loss of patients not
fulfilling inclusion criteria. What are the implications for the external validity of the study.
Ulcerative colitis: it is assumed that the results are from 1L treatment? If this the case it should
be clearly stated
Discussion is unnecessarily long and complex. Please revise, shorten and simplify.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-04022-7 (2025)

Title: Treatment Sequences, Outcomes, Healthcare Utilization and Costs in Patients with
Inflammatory Bowel Diseases Requiring Advanced Treatment—Real World Comparative
Effectiveness from German Claims Data
Version: 0 Date: 29 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
This was a longitudinal retrospective observational study examining treatment effectiveness of
advanced therapies in IBD from German claims data. A total of 2948 patients were included.
Vedolizumab was shown to be more effective than infliximab in UC with regards to longer
persistence and less inadequate response. In Crohn's disease, both ustekinumab and vedolizumab
showed superior persistence to infliximab over 3 years. It was concluded that although anti-
TNF agents are most commonly used, vedolizumab was a preferred choice given its superior
persistence.
Comments:
1. In the abstract, please outline what 'WIG2' stands for
2. Could patients have had an advanced therapy more than 1 year prior to the index year, and
hence not be naïve? E.g they had a longer treatment break
3. Many patients have another immunological condition diagnosed with the CD or UC, including
rheumatological conditions. How did you confirm whether the use of an advanced therapy was
not for the e.g. rheumatological condition, as opposed to an IBD diagnosis?
4. What if steroid use was for a non-IBD reason? As such, ‘inadequate responders’ may be
incorrectly classified. There are many other reasons why patients may use steroid medications,
particularly if they have co-existing rheumatological conditions.
5. The use of a concomitant immunomodulator would be important to capture and describe, as
this would impact on anti-TNF persistence. This should be included and described.
6. When reviewing data from other countries, do they mandate that anti-TNF has to be a first
line therapy? Would this impact on prescribing practices?
A major limitation is the lack of data on oral small molecules. There are multiple publications
with large numbers of patients that examine persistence of advanced therapies. A more up-to-
date analysis that included more patients on tofacitinib and upadacitinib (+/- S1P inhibitors in
UC) would be more interesting.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-04047-y (2025)

Title: ZBTB10 as a potential prognosis biomarker and correlates with tumor immune
microenvironment in stomach adenocarcinoma
Version: 1 Date: 09 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
In this study, Jiang and colleagues investigated the role of ZBTB10 in gastric cancer. They
identified that ZEBTB10 was overexpressed in GC and predicted a poor prognosis. Also,
ZEBTB10 could be a prognosis biomarker in GC. In addition, they found a close correlation
between ZEBTB10 expression and microenvironment. In vitro experiments revealed that the
capacities of tumor cells proliferation, organoid morphologically area and migration ability were
significantly inhibited after ZBTB10 knockdown. In general, this work is interesting and has
innovation. However, some major issues need to be addressed before publication.
1. The figure 1B in results should be placed to supplementary files, as it did not provide effective
information.
2.  What is the difference between Figure 1A and Figure 2A. These results are duplicated.
3. The description “significantly upregulated” in Figure 2D is wrong, as only one case could
not conduct statistical analysis.
4. In Figure 3, it is necessary to specify between which two groups the comparison shows
significance with the significance symbols.
5. The authors should investigate the role of ZBTB10 in EMT signaling of gastric cancer cells,
as knockdown of ZBTB10 inhibited cell migaration. I think this reference (36808651) may be
helpful to you.
6. Some key references (38806480, 38479160, 36681667) regarding on tumor
microenvironment and metastasis should be included.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-04047-y (2025)

Title: ZBTB10 as a potential prognosis biomarker and correlates with tumor immune
microenvironment in stomach adenocarcinoma
Version: 2 Date: 06 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
Most of the concerns were addressed.
Overall, this study provides valuable insights into the role of ZBTB10 in STAD, and addressing
a few minor errors will further enhance the clarity and readability of the manuscript:
1. The study suggests that ZBTB10 is involved in tumor progression through the PI3K-Akt and
MAPK signaling pathways. However, no mechanistic validation (e.g., Western blot or functional
rescue experiments) is provided. The authors should either include additional experimental
evidence to confirm whether ZBTB10 directly regulates these pathways or acknowledge this
limitation in the discussion.
2. The authors should also discuss the importance of overexpressed ZBTB10 in gastric cancer
(GC) tissues compared to normal tissues and why ZBTB10 is overexpressed in cancerous tissues
should also be discussed.
3. The manuscript requires language polishing, as multiple typographical and grammatical errors
are present. Some examples include:
Line 34: Duplicate use of "in" in a single sentence.
Line 40: "appeared to negatively associated with" # "appeared to be negatively associated with."
Line 64: "ZBTB proteins family" # "ZBTB protein family"
Line 72: "the functions of ZBTB10 in STAD remains poorly studied" # "the functions of
ZBTB10 in STAD remain poorly studied"
Line 135: "biologic process" # "biological process."
Line 275: "a potential a risk factor" # "a potential risk factor."
Line 355: "identified the following several correlative pathways" # "identified several correlated
pathways"
Line 373: "was subjected to validated by" # "was validated by"
some simple tools such as "Grammarly" or other AI apps can help to improve the writing errors.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-04047-y (2025)

Title: ZBTB10 as a potential prognosis biomarker and correlates with tumor immune
microenvironment in stomach adenocarcinoma
Version: 2 Date: 08 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
1. figure 9C, cell line MKN-45 is written as MNK-45.
2. Figure 9 only verified whether ZBTB10 was successfully knocked down at the mRNA level,
which is not rigorous enough. It is suggested to supplement WB test to further confirm that
ZBTB10 protein was also successfully knocked down at the protein level.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-04047-y (2025)

Title: ZBTB10 as a potential prognosis biomarker and correlates with tumor immune
microenvironment in stomach adenocarcinoma
Version: 2 Date: 08 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
The revised manuscript has addressed the questions I raised to the best of the authors' abilities.
I recommend accepting this manuscript at this time.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-04047-y (2025)

Title: ZBTB10 as a potential prognosis biomarker and correlates with tumor immune
microenvironment in stomach adenocarcinoma
Version: 2 Date: 09 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
This study presents an interesting investigation into the potential role of ZBTB10 as a prognostic
biomarker for STAD. The authors utilized different bioinformatic analyses and in vitro studies
to indicate that ZBTB10 plays a significant role in STAD prognosis and is associated with the
immune microenvironment. However, several concerns need to be addressed to strengthen the
authors’ findings.
Major:
1. In the methods, lines 234-238, the authors demonstrated that 3 pairs of tumor and adjacent
normal tissue were used to evaluate the ZBTB10 expressions. However, in Fig. 2D, lines
282-283, there were only 2 pairs of tissues, and the quantification result was missing. My
suggestion is to show the present tissue images with quantified results in Fig. 2D.
2. Line 290-293, in Fig 3A, the expression level of ZBTB10 in normal was higher than that
in Grade 1 tumor. Also, the expression of ZBTB 10 in Grades 2 and 3 looked similar. Could
the authors explain more about the relationship between ZBTB10 expression and tumor grade?
Furthermore, could the authors explain the statistical analysis methods used in Figure 3? If you
compare multiple groups, the T-test is not a good choice.
3. The protein expression of ZBTB10 in different cell lines before and after treatment should
be added for better clarity in Fig. 9A.
4. The quantification of the organoid area after different treatments is required to draw the
conclusion in Fig. 9D and Fig. 10.
5. What’s the effect of ZBTB10 overexpression on these in vitro validation experiments?
Minor:
1. Please correct the relevant pattern numbers in Figure 1 to be consistent with those described in
this manuscript. For example, there’s no Fig. 1C in your figure but appeared in your results part.
2. In Fig 9, please add related units to the bar figure. In Fig 9E, please double-check the image
label of different cell lines. 0
3. Language. There’re several grammar mistakes in this manuscript.  It is best to have a native
speaker read it in advance. For example, in the abstract (line 22), “using various bioinformatics
tool including….” should be “tools”. Similarly, in line 34, “expressed in in various tumors”,
there’s a repeated “in” in the sentence. There’re too many similar grammar mistakes in the
article. Please correct them.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-04047-y (2025)

Title: ZBTB10 as a potential prognosis biomarker and correlates with tumor immune
microenvironment in stomach adenocarcinoma
Version: 2 Date: 11 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
The author revised and responded to the previous review comments accordingly, so I re-
reviewed the article and found that there were still some small problems:
1. The reference Global cancer statistics 2018 has been updated, and it is recommended to make
corresponding changes to the article.
2. Some grammatical problems in the article are worrying. For example, the line 40 should be
revised to “to be negatively associated with” and the use of present tense and past tense in many
places is wrong. It is suggested that people whose mother tongue is English or professional
institutions should be sought to modify and polish the language of the article.
3. The progress related to this study needs to be paid attention to. For example, a new article
published in January 2025 on the mechanism of ZBTB10 in gastric cancer through the ARRDC3/
ITGB4/PI3K/AKT pathway can be cited in the pathway enrichment section of article and
discussed accordingly.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-04047-y (2025)

Title: ZBTB10 as a potential prognosis biomarker and correlates with tumor immune
microenvironment in stomach adenocarcinoma
Version: 3 Date: 10 Apr 2025
Reviewer's report:
The author revised and responded to the previous review comments accordingly, so I re-
reviewed the article and found that there were still some problems:
1. The WB method, Lines 180-187, is described too simply. The authors should add some
detailed information, such as the loading amount of protein and the incubation time and
temperature of primary and secondary antibodies.
2. Fig 9B, WB of ZBTB10, could authors confirm the molecular weight of ZBTB10? In
Figure, the MW of ZBTB10 is 130kDa, however, the MW of ZBTB10 in the antibody product
information is 95kDa. Could authors explain the MW difference?
3. Some grammatical problems in the article still need to be fixed. For example, line 243 should
be revised to “Two pairs of gastric tumors” and line 386 should be revised to “migration assay
showed an obvious reduction of cell migration”. There are some other grammatical problems in
the manuscript. My suggestion is to ask for a native speaker or change to another professional
institution to modify and polish the language of the article if the manuscript has been edited.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-04041-4 (2025)

Title: Comprehensive Evaluation of Clinical Phenotypes and Pathogenic Features in Late-Onset
Monogenic Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Comparative Study with Infantile-Onset Cases
Version: 1 Date: 02 Apr 2025
Reviewer's report:
This paper is a well thought-out and wellwritten systematic review of infantile onset and late
onset monogenic IBD. The clinical conclusions are clearly presented, and the statistical analysis
is convincing and robust.
My main concern arises from the genetic analysis, which pools data from 1990 to 2023. This
means combining genetic data from completely different eras. More importantly, genetic data
from before 2015 and after 2015 differ significantly, as the introduction of ACMG criteria
for variant classification had a major impact on many genetic conditions. Papers published
before 2015 typically reported variants or mutations in genes, but their roles must now be re-
evaluated according to current standards. For example, in many monogenic autoinflammatory
conditions, variants reported in the original papers, where a gene was first discovered, may still
be considered pathogenic, while others are now classified as of unknown significance or benign.
After 2015, population databases such as ExAC and gnomAD, as well as other tools, have been
instrumental in this reclassification process. For this reason, I appreciated the effort to focus on
the top 14 genes, but even for these genes, there may be a mix of variants that, according to
today’s standards, would need to be individually reclassified. I would suggest maintaining the
clinical conclusions, but the correlation between genes, their reported variants, and the clinical
outcomes must undergo intense scrutiny in terms of variant classification.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-04041-4 (2025)

Title: Comprehensive Evaluation of Clinical Phenotypes and Pathogenic Features in Late-Onset
Monogenic Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Comparative Study with Infantile-Onset Cases
Version: 3 Date: 29 Apr 2025
Reviewer:  Fabienne Charbit-Henrion
Reviewer's report:
The authors took my suggestions into consideration. I think the Discussion is still a bit too long
but otherwise the manuscript was improved.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-04041-4 (2025)

Title: Comprehensive Evaluation of Clinical Phenotypes and Pathogenic Features in Late-Onset
Monogenic Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Comparative Study with Infantile-Onset Cases
Version: 5 Date: 27 May 2025
Reviewer's report:
The authors have successfully addressed all remaining issues raised during the previous review.
The manuscript is now ready for publication.
No further revisions are necessary.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03934-8 (2025)

Title: A risk prediction model for nausea and vomiting after TACE : a cross-sectional study
Version: 1 Date: 29 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
The study investigated the factors associated with nausea and vomiting after TACE and
developed a predictive model to predict these adverse events. Though interesting, unfortunately,
nausea and vomiting after TACE is not an important end point for HCC patients. Nausea and
vomiting could be affected by tumor size, use of chemotherapy drugs and dosages of drugs, use
of DC bead and use of anti-emetic, prior history of vomiting after C/T. These factors are familiar
for most hepatologists  who ever cared of TACE p'ts.  The so-called post-TACE syndrome has
been shown to be reduced by use of steroid.  Thus, the current study adds little value for the
care of TACE p'ts.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03934-8 (2025)

Title: A risk prediction model for nausea and vomiting after TACE : a cross-sectional study
Version: 1 Date: 11 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
Overall this is an interesting study and I think it is important to determine risk factors in order to
better help alleviate symptoms for patients.  Below are thoughts and comments to help improve
the delivery of the content determined.
Abstract – This is a relevant topic.  To say it has good clinical efficacy may be a strength at this
point and would not include this within the abstract
Intro – need to include a source for the statement “TACE should be performed along an extended
vascular route in order to achieve the benefits of reducing local tumor burden, preventing
postoperative recurrence, and improving overall survival rates”
Paragraph 3 needs to be streamlined and unsure if we need to describe systemic chemotherapy
passing through the venous blood, too simplistic.
Typo “Therefore, considering the hazard of nausea and vomiting after TACE, his study
integrated personal”
Methods
Please describe ‘severe complications’ a bit more clearly
Perhaps a graph describing patient selection would help clarify the methods
The time frame of the patients symptoms are not clear
Was there a difference between nausea, vomiting and both?
Results
Vomiting is misspelled several times in this section including in table 1
Please describe nausea and vomiting separately, they can be very different symptoms or describe
it as nausea and/or vomiting
Typo, evaluation is listed 2 times : Accuracy evaluation evaluation of the risk model
Discussion
Sections 1 and 2: These sections are not really helpful and I’m unsure of its importance to what
was actually studied. These seem more like introduction paragraphs.  Somehow need to bring
back that these risks lead to more nausea/vomiting.
The 4 grades of side effects to chemo medications needs to be put in the methods when stating
why grade >2 was chosen
The discussion should highlight more of the risk factors.
Nursing implications
-Are you suggesting this questionnaire should be used clinically?  Or to know the top predictors
in order to best take care of patients/
Conclusion -  the term ‘most’ would not be appropriate given it was only 32%.  I would use
the term a third only here.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03934-8 (2025)

Title: A risk prediction model for nausea and vomiting after TACE : a cross-sectional study
Version: 2 Date: 30 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
Abstract – This is a relevant topic.  The updated conclusion is much improved and states the
strength and the empirical benefits.
Intro – I like the flow of the intro and the summary of the purpose of the study
Discussion
Add the term patient “patient’s vomiting history” will help clarify
Paragraph: Prophylactic antiemitic drugs – please clarify if all patients should have prophylactic
meds or just ones who have high risk?  I would add some data from your study to this paragraph
to better support your recommendation.
Paragraph post op pain and combination platinum and anthracycline– again would pull in data
from your study to further support this paragraph.
The discussion is somewhat difficult to read and needs more results pulled in some more.  The
nursing and clinical implications are helpful .
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03934-8 (2025)

Title: A risk prediction model for nausea and vomiting after TACE : a cross-sectional study
Version: 4 Date: 04 Apr 2025
Reviewer's report:
Abstract
Purpose – add tace ‘for liver cancer’
The study “will” should be in past tense.  “The study included”
Intro – define all cancers you are including in ‘liver cancer’ definition
I like the comparison to CINV and PONV.
Last sentence in intro  says “his study”  Needs to be “this study”
Methods
Its somewhat confusing to have inclusion exclusion lumped together especially in the last
paragraph regarding nursing procedures.
Discussion
The review of what TACE is, although helpful, perhaps can be shortened or added to the
introduction instead.
Overall provides information on what the risk factors would be for nausea and vomiting.  Would
also suggest adding proposed next steps to validate this tool and use in trial to see if it can
decrease actual nausea and vomiting.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03934-8 (2025)

Title: A risk prediction model for nausea and vomiting after TACE : a cross-sectional study
Version: 4 Date: 07 Apr 2025
Reviewer's report:
The authors constructed a model predicting nausea and vomiting after TACE. However, there
are some questions to be answered:
1. In TACE, nausea and vomiting are common complications which were easily to control. So
even if we predict the risk, how can it influence the clinical decision making?
2. This is a study with internal validation, a AUC difference from 0.839 to 0.742 indicates
significant overfitting problem, which further limit the application of this study.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03996-8 (2025)

Title: The potential value of serum pepsinogen and gastrin-17 for the diagnosis of chronic
atrophic gastritis at different stages of severity: a clinical diagnostic study
Version: 0 Date: 24 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
1. In lines 132, 198.  You write “NCAG group”. I think this means the non-atrophic gastritis
group. Maybe this is a misspelling. Please correct this word.
2. In Table 1, does it need to write the proportions of female and HP-negative groups? I think that
they are visible from the male and HP-positive groups' proportions. Please discuss the authors
and revise if you agree.
3. I recommend that Figure 2, named “PGI, PGII, PGR, and G-17 are among the different
histology status groups”, be more suitable in the subtitle “Serum PG and G-17 differences among
the various groups”. Because this figure describes the differences in serum biomarkers among
the groups. Please discuss this with the authors. If you agree with this, you should change the
figure number (Figure 1).
4. Findings in the subtitle “Analysis of Serum PG and Gastric Cancer Risk Determination” do
not describe the risk determination of serum biomarkers. There are no analyzed risk assessment
indicators, including Odds ratio or Relative risk. So, I recommend combining the first two
subtitles of the Results under the name “Serum PG and G-17 differences among the various
groups”. Please discuss this with the authors and revise if you agree.
5. In lines 153-157, paragraphs may be related to Figure 3a-c and Figure 3d-f. Please correct
the Figure number.
6. In Table 4, is there the first group CAG (chronic atrophic gastritis) or NAG (non-atrophic
gastritis)? Please review this.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03996-8 (2025)

Title: The potential value of serum pepsinogen and gastrin-17 for the diagnosis of chronic
atrophic gastritis at different stages of severity: a clinical diagnostic study
Version: 1 Date: 08 Apr 2025
Reviewer:  Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr
Reviewer's report:
The responses are satisfactory
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03996-8 (2025)

Title: The potential value of serum pepsinogen and gastrin-17 for the diagnosis of chronic
atrophic gastritis at different stages of severity: a clinical diagnostic study
Version: 1 Date: 21 Apr 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
Well done. After revision, it looks more concise and clear. I suggest that review the full
manuscript before publication to check spelling and other minor mistakes.
Good luck
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-04035-2 (2025)

Title: PREDICTIVE ACCURACY OF FECAL CALPROTECTIN IN ASSESSING
CLINICAL ACTIVITY AND DISEASE SEVERITY IN PATIENTS WITH ULCERATIVE
COLITIS AND CROHN’S DISEASE
Version: 2 Date: 03 Apr 2025
Reviewer's report:
1. Approval of ethical committee and consent should have been mentioned in the materials and
methods section.
2. Predictive value of ESR and CRP in the same patients should have been evaluated and
compared with FCP for better understanding.
3. Although FCP is a noninvasive test still it is a costly test with financial implication for the
patient.
4. The FCP value was following a nonparametric distribution. Hence Spearman's correlation test
would have been a better statistical method than Pearson's correlation.