JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03330-8 (2024)

Title: The causal relationship between inflammatory bowel diseases and erythema nodosum: a
bidirectional two-sample Mendelian randomization study
Version: 2 Date: 02 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors have  put sincere efforts in addressing the concerns pointed out. I have no further
comments.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03330-8 (2024)

Title: The causal relationship between inflammatory bowel diseases and erythema nodosum: a
bidirectional two-sample Mendelian randomization study
Version: 2 Date: 05 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thanks to the author for addressing my concerns. I have still some minor comments. The authors
did not take into account the effect of immunosuppression on the results. Please add this part of
the analysis, or add a relevant description in the discussion section (cite the following article:
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1203707).
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03326-4 (2024)

Title: Amyloid A and lactic acid as a predictor in patients with sepsis in patients with liver
cirrhosis
Version: 1 Date: 26 Nov 2023
Reviewer:  Hanan Mahmoud Fayed
Reviewer's report:
many typing mistakes have to be corrected
better to write in brief through out the paper,
some data is missing in table 5
unify writing style in references
Write 6 authors then et al
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03326-4 (2024)

Title: Amyloid A and lactic acid as a predictor in patients with sepsis in patients with liver
cirrhosis
Version: 1 Date: 19 Jan 2024
Reviewer:  Haidi Karam-Allah Ramadan
Reviewer's report:
In this article, the authors wanted to assess the risk factors of sepsis in patients with liver cirrhosis
and to identify the prognostic role of serum amyloid A/Lactate ratio in these patients. The
study included patients with cirrhosis and sepsis as cases and cirrhosis without sepsis as control.
However some comments are to be addressed.
1. In the title, we don't mention the type of the used statistical test, besides the word "in patients"
is repeated twice. This makes the title weak and not understandable.
2. In the introduction, the authors didn't mention any paragraphs on amyloid A or lactate and
its relation to sepsis.
3. In the methods, the authors recruited a big number of control (3 fold that of cases), which
could result in statistical errors. How was the sample size calculated in this study?
4. Exclusion of patients who had no history of antibiotic exposure is not correct, because
sepsis could occur after many community acquired infections in those vulnerable patients before
receiving antibiotics.
5. Similarly, the authors excluded patients with gastric or lung malignancies but didn't exclude
patients with HCC which could be a cause of mortality away from sepsis.
6. English editing is highly required for the manuscript.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03310-y (2024)

Title: Fetuin-A: A Relevant Novel Serum Biomarker for Non-Invasive Diagnosis of Metabolic
Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease (MASLD): A Retrospective Case-control Study
Version: 2 Date: 26 May 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors present a n interesting article regarding the continuos struggle regarding non-
invasive biomarkers on MASLD. The article, though interesting, should be substantially
improved to reach publication status. Below are some of my major suggestions.
1. Fetuin-A is the major point of this article and should be present on full title and not only in
running title.
2. In background section, MASLD should replace NAFLD (ref: DOI:10.1097/
HEP.0000000000000520)
3. Also in background, the authors should add CAP as a non-invasive biomarker for the presence
of liver steatosis (ref: doi:10.1007/s00261-024-04347-z; doi:10.1002/dmrr.3787), even though
liver biopsy is still the gold standard method
4. In study design and settings the line "This investigation is planned to be conducted between
December 2021 and December 2022" should be at a past tense
5. Inclusion and exclusion criteria should be better explained: U/S does not show liver function,
unless the authors mean that no steatosis was found; the part regarding cirrhotic patient should
be narrowed down to just saying that patients with liver cirrhosis were not exluded; "minor
patients 'below 18Y' "should be replaced with patients under 18 years of age; chronic heavy
alcohol drinkers with patients with an alcohol intake of more than.... . Overall, the whole part
should be written in a more professional way
6. In the same part, metformin is not a treatment for MASLD; no liver assocations recommend
it due to lack of large scale studies. If patients under metformin were ecluded this should be
explained. Likewise, no GLP-1 or SGLT2 drugs are seen in this list. Why is that? Especially,
regarding GLP1 drugs much data exist (ref: doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2028395)
7. In 'clinical and biochemical characterization' part, why was only NFS score used? At least,
APRI and FIB-4 should also be included
8. Instead of using f0-f4 for transient elastography results, the authors are advised to use the
new EASL cutoffs as how or low risk for advanced liver disease patients (ref:   doi: 10.1016/
j.jhep.2021.05.025)
9. In discussion section, relevant article regarding non-invasive scores in patients with MASLD
should be added (ref: doi:10.1007/s00109-024-02448-2; doi:10.1097/HEP.0000000000000842;
doi:10.2174/1570162X17666190809153245)
10. Also in discussion section, lines 276-319 take too much space. Each one
of the authors' findings should not exceed 5 lines. giving more space for a
brief explanation of MASLD pathogenesis and give more space to fetuin-a in that
process (ref: doi:10.3390/cells11162511; doi:10.1080/1744666X.2023.2294046; doi:10.3390/
metabo12070625; doi:10.1007/s10787-021-00837-4 among others)
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03310-y (2024)

Title: Fetuin-A: A Relevant Novel Serum Biomarker for Non-Invasive Diagnosis of Metabolic
Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease (MASLD): A Retrospective Case-control Study
Version: 2 Date: 12 Jun 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors  present an interesting, though not novel, manuscript regarding the role of fetuin a
as a serum biomarker for NAFLD. Please find below my remarks:
1. In introduction section the change in nomenclature from NAFLD to MASLD should be
mentioned and later on the new definiton of MASLD should replace the definition of NAFLD
and NASH
2. In introduction section, a brief paragraph regarding structure, biosynthesis and role of fetuin a
should be added (ref: doi:10.3389/fcell.2022.945287; doi:10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2020.11.004)
3. In materials and methods section 'cases' should be defined through CAP, U/S, C/T or MRI.
Liver biochemistry and transient elastography are worthless for defining MASLD patients.
Moreover the sentence 'Patients with ascites, jaundice, enlarged spleen, exhaustion, and red
palms are among those included in the study' should be substituted with a sentence saying that
patients with cirrhosis were included in the study.
4. In same section, 'minor patients below 18 Y', should be substituted with 'patients under 18
years of age'
5. Diseases within quotation marks in materials and methods section (HBV, HCV, iron overload,
hepatolenticular degeneration) should be deleted, as they are only repeating the previous
diseases, while in medications, quotation marks should be deleted and t.ex. or like should be
before these medications
6.  FIB-4, a very commonly used score, should also be calculated for all patients and correlated
with fetuin a levels (ref: doi:10.3390/life11020143; doi:10.1111/liv.14669)
7.  In table 5, the authors show univariable results? If so, multivariable analysis regarding the
role of various parameters and/or diseases should be made
8. In discussion section, NAFLD should be substituted with MASLD and diagnosis etc
substituted with those of MASLD (ref: doi:10.1016/j.aohep.2023.101133)
9. In discussion section the results of non-invasive scores on various MASLD patients whould be
added (ref: doi:10.1111/liv.14669; doi:10.2174/1570162X17666190809153245; doi:10.3389/
fnut.2024.1284509)
10. Moreover, in discussion section the authors analyze already known results, like the role of
BMI in liver steatosis. I think they should instead focus on the results regarding fetuin a and
inform the readers on studies regarding BMI, transaminases etc and fetuin a.
11. Last, but not least, the advantages of the study should be highlighted
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03310-y (2024)

Title: Fetuin-A: A Relevant Novel Serum Biomarker for Non-Invasive Diagnosis of Metabolic
Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease (MASLD): A Retrospective Case-control Study
Version: 2 Date: 14 Jun 2024
Reviewer:  Anwar Abouelnasr
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors, please address the following points below :
-The switch from NAFLD to MASLD nomenclature should be noted in the introduction section.
Later on, the description of MASLD should take the place of the definitions of NAFLD and
NASH.
-You should provide a brief essay explaining the composition, synthesis, and function of fetuin
A.
- 'Cases' in the materials and techniques section should be defined using radiological techniques.
- All patients should also have their FIB-4 score, which is widely used, calculated and associated
with their fetuin A levels.
-The outcomes of the non-invasive scores on different MASLD patients might be contributed
to the discussion area.
-In the discussion section, it would be beneficial to highlight the findings related to fetuin and
provide readers with information on related research including BMI, transaminases, and fetuin.
-The benefits of the research ought to be emphasised.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03310-y (2024)

Title: Fetuin-A: A Relevant Novel Serum Biomarker for Non-Invasive Diagnosis of Metabolic
Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease (MASLD): A Retrospective Case-control Study
Version: 3 Date: 20 Jun 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors have made substantial improvement ot their paper, which I beleive is now fit for
publication
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03310-y (2024)

Title: Fetuin-A: A Relevant Novel Serum Biomarker for Non-Invasive Diagnosis of Metabolic
Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease (MASLD): A Retrospective Case-control Study
Version: 3 Date: 20 Jun 2024
Reviewer:  Anwar Abouelnasr
Reviewer's report:
Changes are done , please change the name of the title of your submission
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03283-y (2024)

Title: Single center assessment of the role of Oakland score among patients admitted for acute
lower gastrointestinal bleeding
Version: 3 Date: 31 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
An article entitled "Single center assessment of the role of Oakland score among patients
admitted for acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding" by Luis M. Nieto describe the association
between Oakland score and safe discharge in LGIB patents.
Although this is an interesting study, there are several issues that need to be addressed.
1) The authors present the patent's diseases using ICD codes, however, the association between
diseases causing LGIB and the Oakland score is unclear. Please specify the breakdown of
diseases in the 108 patients.
Is there a difference in the Oakland score based on the underlying diseases?
2) The authors list mortality as the primary endpoint; however, there is insufficient description
regarding the causes of death.
3) Please specify the diseases that were the cause of readmission.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03283-y (2024)

Title: Single center assessment of the role of Oakland score among patients admitted for acute
lower gastrointestinal bleeding
Version: 3 Date: 30 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
the manuscript entitled "Single centre assessment of the role of Oakland score among patients
admitted for acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding" raises a crucial point which makes Oakland
score low helpful in some specific clinical settings like chronic anaemia. Anemia has indeed a
high weight in calculating the final score, without specifying its onset. Consequently, I agree
with the author's conclusion suggesting the consideration of a modified version of the score.
However, I have some major concerns which are given by the nature and design of the study.
The single-centre retrospective design with the use of registries carries a high degree of biases
which are already stated by the authors. Moreover, the absence of possible readmission rates to
other hospitals makes it more difficult to encounter this study.
For this reason, I do not suggest this paper for original paper publication. I'd rather suggest
submitting it as a Comment or Letter.
Kind regards
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03283-y (2024)

Title: Single center assessment of the role of Oakland score among patients admitted for acute
lower gastrointestinal bleeding
Version: 3 Date: 18 Mar 2024
Reviewer's report:
The problem of the diagnostic and managerial difficulty of low intestinal bleedingis is a real
problem and it’s difficult to resolve. In the article there are good suggestions on how to begin
the low gastrointestinal bleeding patients’ safe discaharge.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03283-y (2024)

Title: Single center assessment of the role of Oakland score among patients admitted for acute
lower gastrointestinal bleeding
Version: 5 Date: 23 Apr 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
For the reasons I already explained, I do not suggest this paper for original paper publication.
I'd rather suggest submitting it as a Comment or Letter.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03283-y (2024)

Title: Single center assessment of the role of Oakland score among patients admitted for acute
lower gastrointestinal bleeding
Version: 5 Date: 24 Apr 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors the article is very interesting to define the better criteria for a low gastrointestinal
bleeding patients’ safe discarge. In according to the letterature the bleedind causes are various
specially in the fraility patients. A severe Low Intestinal Bleeding with high Oakland score is
very difficult to manage.
Following my specific comments;
1) The structure of the paper is very clear.
2) The topic addressed is consistent with current literature.
3) In the body of the text, however, the complexity of the management is stressed.
4) The bibliography is in line with the topic of the article.
5) Although this article can provide useful guidance for clinical practice, some critical issues
should be addressed:
a) specify better the type of treatment
b) determine whether active bleeding was completely resolved at the time of discharge
d) stress better the role of the CCI
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03322-8 (2024)

Title: Analysis of factors related to recanalization of portal vein thrombosis in liver cirrhosis:
a retrospective cohort study
Version: 1 Date: 24 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
This study reports the predictive factors of PVT recanalization in cirrhosis. Anticoagulant
therapy may increase the PVT recanalization rate and reduce the PVT progression rate without
increasing the bleeding rate. But there are some problems in the manuscript.
1.Mentioned in the abstract that We aimed to further explore the predictors of recanalization
in cirrhotic PVT to facilitate accurate prediction of patients' clinical status and timely initiation
of appropriate treatment and interventions. However, the article did not cover the timing and
duration of anticoagulation therapy. How to grasp the timing and duration of anticoagulation
during treatment?
2.The exclusion criteria include Malignancy-related portal vein thrombosis, but what is the data
on History of Hepatic carcinom in Table 1? How to explain? Please check the data for accuracy.
3.Studies have shown that partial portal vein thrombosis has the possibility of spontaneous
dissolution. Was this the case in your study?
4.In patients undergoing anticoagulation therapy, is it an acute thrombosis or a chronic
thrombosis? What is the outcome of the separation?
5.The formatting problem is serious. Please check the formatting and punctuation in the text
and charts.
6.Please correct the grammatical problems in the language and sentences in the accepted
manuscript, such as in the abstract: We also further investigated the benefits and risks of
anticoagulation therapy in patients with cirrhotic PVT are further investigated. Can be revised
to: We further investigated the benefits and risks of anticoagulation therapy in cirrhotic patients
with PVT.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03322-8 (2024)

Title: Analysis of factors related to recanalization of portal vein thrombosis in liver cirrhosis:
a retrospective cohort study
Version: 1 Date: 08 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
The study adds up to the literature  supporting anticoagulation therapy for portal vein thrombosis.
The limitations of the study  being retrospective have been put forth.  The following queries
can be addressed
1. whether endoscopy and management of varices have been done before starting on
anticoagulation.  Whether any bleeding risk  was assessed by HAS BLED before anticoagulation.
2. malignant PVT was excluded but is part of the table. (history of previous malignancy- to be
clarified)
3. infectious shock can be replaced by the term septic shock
4. Typing errors - in text and tables to be corrected.  "smoking " and "Rivaroxaban" in tables
5. The meaning of sentences not clear or incomplete.
Abstract: We also further investigated the benefits and risks of anticoagulation therapy in
patients with cirrhotic PVT ."are further investigated" can be  removed.
To further investigate the benefits and risks of anticoagulant therapy in cirrhotic PVT patients.
(Rephrase)
Clinicians often choose not to "anticoagulants" or to reduce the dose of anticoagulants because
they are concerned about the occurrence of bleeding. (Rephrase- anticoagulate)
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03322-8 (2024)

Title: Analysis of factors related to recanalization of portal vein thrombosis in liver cirrhosis:
a retrospective cohort study
Version: 1 Date: 04 Mar 2024
Reviewer's report:
**** Report no longer needed ****
I had very explicitly and detailed explained why I recommend rejection of this manuscript.
Now the authors provide a revision which does not even include a point by point answer to the
issues that I had raised. In the scientific community it  is common to provide a point-by-point
answer explanation to the reviewers comments. Additionally, the authors do not even provide
a file which helps to track the changes that they have made to the manuscript. This lack of
transparency and unwillingness to communicate is unacceptable. I do not see any reason to revise
my recommendation to reject this manuscript with the documents provided.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03322-8 (2024)

Title: Analysis of factors related to recanalization of portal vein thrombosis in liver cirrhosis:
a retrospective cohort study
Version: 2 Date: 02 May 2024
Reviewer's report:
1.Please provide detailed information on these six previous patients with liver cancer, including
the size of the liver cancer, staging, the distance between the liver cancer and thrombus,
the specific AFP values during postoperative follow-up, whether there is portal vein dilation,
whether there are neovascularizations, and whether there was thrombus at the time of liver cancer
diagnosis. Or, how long after liver cancer surgery did the thrombus appear?
2.There are still some issues regarding formatting and punctuation, such as spaces and
punctuation marks.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03303-x (2024)

Title: Association between different obesity patterns and the risk of NAFLD detected by
transient elastography: A cross-sectional study
Version: 1 Date: 12 Apr 2024
Reviewer:  Giuseppe Guido Maria Scarlata
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript addresses the relationship between various types of obesity and NAFLD. The
analysis highlights good diagnostic accuracy, which is quite relevant in clinical settings.
I suggest some revisions to improve the manuscript:
1. Emphasize the role of ultrasound in the diagnosis of NAFLD (doi: 10.3390/
medicina59111935).
2. Please use the term "gender" instead of "sex" to indicate males and females.
3. Improve your Discussion section comparing your results with the results of other research
groups.
4. Add some lines to introduce the new nomenclatures of NAFLD (DOI:
10.20517/2394-5079.2023.134).
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03303-x (2024)

Title: Association between different obesity patterns and the risk of NAFLD detected by
transient elastography: A cross-sectional study
Version: 1 Date: 14 Apr 2024
Reviewer's report:
Sun and colleagues explored the association between different obesity patterns (increased BMI
with normal WC; increased WC with normal BMI; increased BMI and WC) in the NHANES
2017-2020 cohort. The topic is well-acknowledged and investigated, since obesity is closely
link to MASLD. Indeed, positive associations were found for different obesity patterns across
multiple adjustments.
Major points:
- BMI and WC cut-offs are described univocally as for Asian individuals, but more ethnicities
are included in the dataset. This datum should be adjusted when considering BMI and WC cut-
offs for the analysis
- This paper holds the outdated nomenclature NAFLD, which should be accommodated to the
novel SLD guidelines with subgroups (MASLD, metALD, ALD). There is a conceptual mistake,
where steatosis is one entity and NAFLD/MASLD a consequence. In the paper it should be clear
that liver fat content is defined by CAP thresholds and that presence of steatosis along with
metabolic co-factors define MASLD (please see the first lines in the introduction, for instance).
Viral infection were excluded: other etiologies including toxic medications or autoimmune/
cholestatic liver diseases were considered?
- In 17.2% of cases, MASLD was present also in lean individuals: I suggest performing an
additional analysis on the variables associated with liver fat content in this population
- It is not clear if WC was evaluated as continuous variable for the regression analysis across
the three models (e.g. WC quartiles were inside the normal ranges? – Table 3)
- I suggest performing a ROC curve also for BMI and for compound obesity and a comparison
of ROC curves (DeLong test); Se, Sp, PPV, NPV and type of cut-off chosen (Youden Index?)
should be reported.
- What do “fibrosis; non-fibrosis” mean in Figure 2 with regard to MASLD risk? Fibrosis is
an intrinsic feature/consequence of MASLD, why was treated as an independent/external co-
factor?
- Since the Authors collected data on LSM (which is stressed also in the title), I would suggest
performing an analysis of obesity patterns and risk for significant fibrosis.
- Why were malignancies excluded for a sensitivity analysis (Table S1)? This is also not clear
from the paper: were hepatic malignancies included in the analysis?
- Why were overweight and general obesity analyzed together? They belong to a different risk
class for MASLD and should be separated for the analysis.
Minor:
- Please report alcohol intake in grams/day or grams/week
- Please correct in the first lines of results: Prevalence, and not incidence of MASLD is examined
here
- The subgroup analysis in the main text does not report any quantitative results, please amend
- In the abstract, types of obesity patterns should be explained
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03313-9 (2024)

Title: Self-Assembled Nanoparticles of Costunolide and Glycyrrhizic Acid for Enhanced
Ulcerative Colitis Treatment
Version: 3 Date: 16 Jun 2024
Reviewer's report:
Self-Assembled Nanoparticles of Costunolide and Glycyrrhizic Acid for Enhanced Ulcerative
Colitis Treatment
Type of Paper: Research Article
Abstract:
The abstract is well written but please add full forms of abbreviation in the abstract.
Introduction:
1) The introduction is well written. Please mention the studies that have already reported the
self-assembly properties of COS and GA because along with the other perspectives the whole
concept lies behind the self-assembly properties of COS and GA and then their mutual capability
to serve as an anti-inflammatory agent.
2) In the introduction section (line#64) Studies have demonstrated that COS alleviates symptoms
of UC in mice. Please add Reference studies
Methodology:
1) The methodology section is fine but in 2.1 Preparation of COS-GA NPs please rewrite it is
not clear.
2) Rewrite method 2.3.
3) 2.6: DSS-induced UC mice model establishment
Please clearly mention that how many study group were used (name it)
How many mice used in each group?
How the therapeutic group received the dose (dispersion media)
For how many days
The author mentioned that UC via DSS was induced for day 1-7. However, therapy was started
from day 3-10?. I believe at first the induction of colitis must be confirmed and then the treatment
must be initiated to monitor the overall progress of how the treatment is working
Result and discussion:
1) Section 3: Results and Discussion
and then section 4: Discussion (Please correct the titles)
2) In section 3.1 Preparation and morphological characterization of COS-GA NPs there is a
difference between TEM and Zeta Results as in zeta the average diameter is mentioned to be
369nm. Plz add a discussion
3) Add new figure for 1E.
4) Explanation required for section F of Figure 1. Two different groups are being plotted in the
graph.
5) In section 3.3,  30 minutes to assess the storage stability of the particles is not enough time,
the minimum period ranges from one week up to 3 months. Please check the literature and
accordingly report the stability study.
6) 3.4; Change uc to UC
7) The discussion is very short. The author need to discuss each result and compare their results
with similar studies.
The overall study is designed and conducted well. However, in my opinion, after reading this
article, I am thinking that what could be the mechanism of self-assembled NPs to relieve colitis.
These NPs will degrade in the Colitis site? Since these NPs will pass the stomach, small intestine
to reach the colon, any pH-dependent stability or degradation could be an important study. Please
add an explanation in the discussion part
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03313-9 (2024)

Title: Self-Assembled Nanoparticles of Costunolide and Glycyrrhizic Acid for Enhanced
Ulcerative Colitis Treatment
Version: 3 Date: 20 Jun 2024
Reviewer's report:
line 11: provide an official email address, not a personal one.
line 66: provide more than one evidence for the therapeutic effect
line 81-104: provide little more details in the procedure for better understanding
line 115: describe what ICR mice are
Figure 3, 4: How significant is the COS-GA NPs compared to other controls like GA, COS and
5-ASA? Because it looks like the level of each inflammatory parameter doesn't make too much
difference in some data. Please elaborate on what makes the COS-GA NP special.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03318-4 (2024)

Title: Conditional survival and the prognostic value of serum carcinoembryonic antigen level
in oldest old with colorectal cancer
Version: 2 Date: 03 Mar 2023
Reviewer's report:
The conclusion of this paper that high CEA levels in elderly patients have a worse prognosis
does not have any clinical impact.
In the abstract, the context flow is awkward, and there is no mention of stages according to
CEA levels in the method part. Furthermore, it seems unnecessary to mention the Kaplan-Meier
method.
In Table 2, it seems strange that chemotherapy was seen as a poor prognostic factor in the
univariate analysis, but was seen as a good prognostic factor in the multivariate analysis.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03318-4 (2024)

Title: Conditional survival and the prognostic value of serum carcinoembryonic antigen level
in oldest old with colorectal cancer
Version: 2 Date: 03 Apr 2023
Reviewer:  Rongbo Wen
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript used the SEER database to evaluate the conditional survival for the oldest-old
patients and the serum CEA level was a useful indication for the prediction of survival. The
study was well-organized and had clinical guidance for the management for the oldest-old CRC
patients. Here were the advices for this manuscript.
1. The language should be improve by the native English speakers for there were many grammar
mistakes.
2. The authors used the SEER database which was a American database, what were the results of
the conditional survival in the authors’ center? Could the authors provide the external validation
by using other data?
3. The author found that C-stage combining TNM stage was meaningful, but what about the
prediction accuracy for the other patients? If the C-stage was also meaningful in all patients, the
clinical meaning of C-stage in oldest-old patients would be doubted.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03318-4 (2024)

Title: Conditional survival and the prognostic value of serum carcinoembryonic antigen level
in oldest old with colorectal cancer
Version: 4 Date: 23 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
Young patients benefit significantly from aggressive treatment due to their favorable
performance status, making the inclusion of the C stage meaningful. However, for older patients,
even with the addition of the C stage, there may be minimal impact on the treatment outcomes.
It seems more meaningful to present results along with indicators of the patient's condition, such
as performance status and nutritional status, which can reflect the patient's overall health.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03318-4 (2024)

Title: Conditional survival and the prognostic value of serum carcinoembryonic antigen level
in oldest old with colorectal cancer
Version: 4 Date: 18 Mar 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?)
No - there are minor issues
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors responded to many comments of reviewers but there are
still insufficient ones in the rebuttal.  1) The language and grammatical errors: There are still
some mistakes or awkward expression in the revised manuscript. For instance, ""oldest old ""
sounds strange and could be replaced with for instance extremely or very old with defining the
concept. The revised manuscript should be proofed by those whose primary language is English.
2) In the abstract, the definition of the stage according to CEA level should still be described in
more clear fashion. In addition, CEA levels in each TNM stages could also provide meaningful
insights. 3) The limitation of SEER database as American database should be mentioned in the
last part of Discussion. 4) The comments regarding prediction accuracy was not responded in
the satisfactory fashion.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
As mentioned above."
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03318-4 (2024)

Title: Conditional survival and the prognostic value of serum carcinoembryonic antigen level
in oldest old with colorectal cancer
Version: 5 Date: 06 May 2024
Reviewer's report:
While this manuscript has limitations regarding its application to the treatment of geriatric
patients, I hope that future studies will build upon these research findings to conduct studies
with improved designs.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03318-4 (2024)

Title: Conditional survival and the prognostic value of serum carcinoembryonic antigen level
in oldest old with colorectal cancer
Version: 5 Date: 08 May 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: The authors responded to the comments of this reviewer in the
satisfactory fashion.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03317-5 (2024)

Title: The expression and clinical significance of CFAP65 in colon cancer
Version: 0 Date: 30 Jan 2024
Reviewer:  Leili Rejali
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript entitled: “The expression and clinical significance of CFAP65 in colon cancer.”
Is concluded that CFAP65 is a potential predictive marker for tumor progression in colon cancer.
The manuscript is well designed but there are some extra points which can help the manuscript
to be improved further.
1-The introduction is weak it must be improved
2-CFAP65 was not evaluated in any other pathological malignancy? The references were all
about spermatogenesis and male infertility.
3-Please define how CFAP65 is relevant with colorectal cancer.
4-Bioinformatic data are not shown, how does the CFAP65 selected through enrichment?
5-Precision medicine is defined in discussion of the manuscript, please discuss about adjuvant
therapy
6-The t-Test is necessary and must be added in the statistics analysis
7-The Roc curve is not designed to designate CFAP65 as a prognostic or diagnostic biomarker.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03317-5 (2024)

Title: The expression and clinical significance of CFAP65 in colon cancer
Version: 0 Date: 09 Feb 2024
Reviewer:  Pramod Kumar Tiwari
Reviewer's report:
Report:
In this manuscript the authors have investigated the prognostic significance of CFAP65 in
colon cancer. Based on their observations (IHC and GO analysis), they suggest CFAP65 to be
a potential predictive prognostic marker for colon cancer. While the present investigation is
interesting, it has several limitations, as mentioned under comments.
Comments:
1. The objective of the study needs to be made clearer and more directed. It should be based
on the facts or some previous indications on direct or indirect involvement of the target gene/
protein (e.g., CFAP65) in the said pathology, e.g., colon cancer. There are so many molecules
or genes associated with cancer, the relevance of choosing one, e.g., CFAP65, in this case, for
detailed study should be explained. Thus, ‘introduction’ section needs to be revised.
2. High and low expressions are only virtual (visual perception) values and may not be of much
use in quantitative estimation, unless cytophotometrically estimated, even being in arbitrary
units. For a decisive evaluation the values should be close to actual, which can be obtained by
several methods, such as quantitative immunoblots and QRT-PCR. Authors could have taken
recently available fresh samples for this analysis. This could provide strength to the present
observation and inference drawn. Further, a stage-wise quantitative evaluation may be able to
indicate the expression values (threshold) critical for prognostic decision.
3. What is the expression level in non-tumor or healthy control samples? For a comparison it is
essential. The low expressing samples or high expressing samples may create confusion on the
pathological state (normal, early or late) of the samples analyzed.
4. Unless IHC results are validated with advanced quantitative biochemical or molecular
techniques, any decision based solely on IHC is likely to inherit errors and raise doubts of
reproducibility.
5. The authors should also discuss the likely physiological role that CFAP65 might be playing
in colon cancer and the effect of its poor expression. Moreover, it is very likely that CFAP65
may not be acting alone, but in association with other genes/molecules. Hence, the GO results
should be discussed in the light of the above.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03317-5 (2024)

Title: The expression and clinical significance of CFAP65 in colon cancer
Version: 2 Date: 17 Apr 2024
Reviewer:  Pramod Kumar Tiwari
Reviewer's report:
The revised version of the manuscript has tried to justify most of the questions raised under
comments with fair degree of satisfaction. However, there still remains a few other points to be
considered appropriately. The authors are suggested to work out on the following for improving
the quality of the manuscript.
1. Were beta-actin bands taken from the same gel for each of the samples or taken from some
other gels and, if all the samples, 1-6, loaded together in the same gel or in different gels? The
intensities of paired actin bands seem to be varying.
2. In order to make a true representative of the total sample size or number of patients analyzed
(n=189), the number of samples used for western blot should have been appropriately increased.
This could also give statistical strength to the result.
3. In my view, for validation of the result, RT-PCR results can provide conclusive support,
including the results of western blot. Properly frozen samples can be used for both RT-PCR and
western blots.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03308-6 (2024)

Title: Construction and validation of a nomogram for predicting survival in elderly patients with
severe acute pancreatitis: a retrospective study from a tertiary center
Version: 2 Date: 28 Apr 2024
Reviewer's report:
#1. The aim of this study is to develop a nomogram for predicting the mortality of severe acute
pancreatitis especially in elderly patients.
The authors collected the laboratory indices on admission. I would like to confirm whether all
patients who included in this study had diagnosed as severe acute pancreatitis on admission.
Are there any patients required to transfer to the ICU during their hospital stay?
#2. (Figure 2A) The numbers shown at the left end of the curves in the graph typically
represent the assigned identifiers for each independent variable (explanatory variable). Whether
an explanation is needed for these numbers or not?
#3. This nomogram model is indeed simple compared to SOFA score. However, this model
includes only factors obtained on admission. It is as if the patient’s prognosis is determined
by the initial condition at admission. I think clinicians usually evaluate the patient’s condition
sequentially and modify treatment strategy. I think it might be a limitation of this study. Please
#4. Authors should mention how this nomogram model demonstrate an effect in clinical setting.
#5. Please check for several typographical errors. For example, “academia (line 243)”.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03308-6 (2024)

Title: Construction and validation of a nomogram for predicting survival in elderly patients with
severe acute pancreatitis: a retrospective study from a tertiary center
Version: 2 Date: 04 Jun 2024
Reviewer's report:
This study identified the factors associated with the survival in elderly patients with severe
acute pancreatitis and constructed a nomogram model to predict their mortality. This study is
interesting and valuable because the nomogram model has the potential to be a useful tool in
the management of elderly patients with SAP. However, there are several concerns about this
manuscript.
Major
1. After reading the manuscript, it is not clear why the authors construct a nomogram model
limited to the elderly rather than all cases. Please provide a more understandable background
targeting only the elderly patients in the introduction.
2. As stated by the authors in lines 73, C-reactive protein (CRP) has been reported to be
associated with the severity of AP. Why the did the authors not include CRP, which is easily
assessable, as an analyzed factor in this study?
Minor
1. The P-values of 0.000 in Table 1 and 2 are not incorrect; changing them to < 0.001 is desirable.
2. It is recommended to increase the font size in Figure 4A.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03295-8 (2024)

Title: The Prevalence of Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease (MASLD)-
Related Advanced Fibrosis and Cirrhosis in the United States Population Utilizing AGILE 3+
and AGILE 4 Scores: Analysis of the NHANES 2017-2018 Cycle
Version: 0 Date: 20 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors used the NHANES 2017-2018 survey to determine the prevalence of NASH-related
advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis in the general US population. They fou  that the prevalence of
AF and cirrhosis in the general prevalence was 8.1% and 1.1% respectively.
This is an important question to answer however there is a need to present more information
to clarify the percentages and the resulting absolute numbers of Americans living with NASH-
related AF and cirrhosis. The authors report that "The overall prevalence of AF due to NAFLD
was 8.1% (6.2-10.6) corresponding to 4.5 million Americans. ". This is somewhat confusing as
8.1% of Americans is not 4.5M. Is the 8.1% the prevalence of AF due to NAFLD in the general
US population or is this the prevalence of AF in the NAFLD population in this NHANES survey
and using this and back calculations using survey weights, the absolute number thus came about?
This same question applies to the statement "The overall prevalence of NASH cirrhosis was 1.1
% (95% CI: 0.5-2.3) corresponding to 610,000 Americans."
This is further confused by the statement "We further stratified based on steatosis (CAP # 248
dB/m) to identify NAFLD. Our final sample was 1244 participants. Obesity was defined as a
Body Mass Index (BMI) of 30 kg/m2 or more." So the 1244 was the final denominator? And
they were not all NAFLD (CAP >248)? What was the prevalence of NAFLD then?
Looking at Figure 1, would it not be better to have excluded only the participants aged <18,
did not have transient elastography and Agile 3+/4+ calculation and used the resulting sample
as the denominator  (general population) for the prevalence of NAFLD using CAP>248 and
excluding the ones with HBV, HCV, and alcohol.? Then applying Agile 3+/4+ then gives both
the prevalence of NAFLD and fibrotic NAFLD in the general US population. Perhaps with this
analysis, the authors can also look at the predictors of NAFLD and fibrotic NAFLD in the US
population.
A more detailed description of this particular iteration of NHANES will also be helpful. We
all the patients offered VCTE? How many accepted and had successful VCTE?  What was the
proportion of missing data? There seems to be a very large number who had missing data and
should be mentioned as a limitation.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03295-8 (2024)

Title: The Prevalence of Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease (MASLD)-
Related Advanced Fibrosis and Cirrhosis in the United States Population Utilizing AGILE 3+
and AGILE 4 Scores: Analysis of the NHANES 2017-2018 Cycle
Version: 0 Date: 21 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
I'm very grateful for the opportunity to review this interesting manuscript.
Drs. Alkhouri , Noureddin, et al examine the Prevalence of Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis
(NASH)-Related Advanced Fibrosis and Cirrhosis in the United States Population Utilizing
Methods:
AGILE 3 + and AGILE 4 + Scores in the NHANES 2017–2018 Cycle.
1244 adults were included in the final analysis. NAFLD was defined with CAP score > 248
dB/m. NAFLD subjects with AGILE 3 + score of # 0.68 and AGILE4 + score of # 0.57 were
considered to have advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis; respectively. AGILE3 + of 0.45–0.67 and
AGILE4 + of 0.25–0.57 were grey zones, whereas AGILE 3 + < 0.45 and AGILE4 + < 0.25 were
considered a rule-out.
Results:
Based on AGILE3+, 80.3% of the NAFLD population were at low risk for AF and 11.5% were
in grey zone. The prevalence of AF due to NAFLD was 8.1% corresponding to 4.5M Americans.
Based on AGILE4 + score, 96.5% of the NAFLD population were at low risk for cirrhosis and
2.4% were in the grey zone. The prevalence of NASH-cirrhosis was 1.1% corresponding to
610,000 Americans.
This study is the first to report the prevalence of AF and cirrhosis using AGILE3+ and AGILE4+
scores in the US population. This information must be helpful to clinicians, trialists, and
stakeholders.
Comments to transmit.
I've noticed that a CAP>248 instead of 285 was used to identify participants with NAFLD.
Although a CAP>248 is acceptable, I wonder if the authors can elaborate on why they chose
this cutoff.  Perhaps, a sensitivity analysis including a CAP>285 to identify NAFLD would be
reasonable.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03295-8 (2024)

Title: The Prevalence of Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease (MASLD)-
Related Advanced Fibrosis and Cirrhosis in the United States Population Utilizing AGILE 3+
and AGILE 4 Scores: Analysis of the NHANES 2017-2018 Cycle
Version: 1 Date: 26 May 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors have made significant clarifications.
Few additional comments:
1. Since the nomenclature was changed from NAFLD to MASLD upon recommendations of
the editors, the authors did so but the definition of MASLD being a CAP >248 alone would
not be MASLD as MASLD requires hepatic steatosis plus one or more cardiometabolic risk
factors. Hepatic steatosis without cardiometabolic risk factor would be cryptogenic SLD. Can the
authors clarify if the change from NAFLD to MASLD affected their sample size and subsequent
analysis?
2. Must have been missed during the initial review, should it not be AGILE 4 and not AGILE
4+?  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36375686/
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03295-8 (2024)

Title: The Prevalence of Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease (MASLD)-
Related Advanced Fibrosis and Cirrhosis in the United States Population Utilizing AGILE 3+
and AGILE 4 Scores: Analysis of the NHANES 2017-2018 Cycle
Version: 1 Date: 07 Jun 2024
Reviewer's report:
Authors need to be congratulated for addressing all my concerns. I do not have further comments.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03296-7 (2024)

Title: Insights into the Current State of Knowledge, Practice, and Attitudes of Physicians
Regarding Gastrointestinal Motility Disorders in Egypt
Version: 3 Date: 05 Mar 2024
Reviewer's report:
Extensive English language rewriting
Table 1. please change frequency with number
Figure 1 Know GI motility studies (?????please clarify/correct)
Figure 2 I don’t know what long period between motions is (????!!!!)
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03296-7 (2024)

Title: Insights into the Current State of Knowledge, Practice, and Attitudes of Physicians
Regarding Gastrointestinal Motility Disorders in Egypt
Version: 6 Date: 01 May 2024
Reviewer:  Greger Lindberg
Reviewer's report:
The authors have improved their manuscript and accepted all my previous comments. I think
the manuscript is now a lot better and I have only one further comment: It would have been
interesting for the reader to have access to the questionnaire used in the study. I am uncertain if
the questionnaire was given in English or in Arabic. If it was given to respondents in English,
perhaps it could be amended to the manuscript?