JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02152-w (2022)

Title: Clinical implications and molecular mechanisms of Cyclin-dependent kinases 4 for
patients with hepatocellular carcinoma
Version: 7 Date: 07 Feb 2022
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed all of my queries and concerns satisfactorily. Thankyou and well
done on an interesting and well performed study.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02158-4 (2022)

Title: Maintaining work life under threat of symptoms: A grounded theory study of work life
experiences in persons with Irritable Bowel Syndrome
Version: 1 Date: 21 Dec 2021
Reviewer:  Salaazar Luke Joshua
Reviewer's report:
I  would like to commend the authors on the efforts they have made in conducting the  research
and preparing this manuscript.
In general, the paper  is technically sound and utilizes the appropriate study design to address
a relevant research question. The findings are supported by the experimental data and are
adequately discussed in light of the extant literature. However, the paper does require a more
detailed description of the methods employed, to enhance the 'trustworthiness' of the qualitative
analysis. I suggest the authors use the COREQ reporting standards as a framework to address
these issues. I present more specific comments below.
The major issues that require to be addressed are:-
1. In the "Data collection" section:
-What was the relationship between the interviewers and the respondents? Were the respondents
known to the interviewers prior to the commencement of the study?
-Did the interview proceed as per an Interview Guide (IG)? What were the questions in the IG?
What were the specific probes used to elicit answers to questions on particular aspects? Was
the IG pilot tested?
-What language were the interviews conducted in? Were the transcripts translated prior to
analysis?
-Were transcripts returned to the respondents for correction/comment?
2. In the "Data analysis" section:
-Who generated the codes? Who generated the categories? How were differences in coding
structure and categories resolved?
-Did participants provide feedback on the findings?
The minor issues are:-
In the "Results section":
1. In the "Results" section of the Abstract, in the interest of clarity, begin by mentioning the four
categories of processes for balancing work life, then add a sentence or two on the relationship
between them.
2. In the last paragraph of the "Background" section, the word "knowledge" may be replaced by
the word "data", and the words "not focused" must be replaced by the words "focused neither".
3. Under "Balancing work life while being under threat of symptoms", in the sentence
"Reconciliation of work and IBS was understood as a successful outcome from being prepared
and restricting impact and was influenced by outlook on life.", a comma must be inserted after
the word "impact", for clarity. In the same paragraph, the word "challenge" must be changed
to plural- "challenges".
In conclusion, I am of the opinion that the paper may be accepted after the revisions have been
made.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02158-4 (2022)

Title: Maintaining work life under threat of symptoms: A grounded theory study of work life
experiences in persons with Irritable Bowel Syndrome
Version: 1 Date: 28 Dec 2021
Reviewer:  Johnson Pradeep
Reviewer's report:
Overall the study is done well and worth publishing. A few minor revisions are required.
1. In the overall study design, basic information of the grounded theory can be avoided.
2. What is the age group postulated for the inclusion criteria of the participants?
3. The details of the residence of the participants are given in the discussion, a brief description
of participants should be given in the methodology. It is very important to give a brief description
of the participant characteristics even previous studies do mention it. It will set the stage and
flow of the manuscript
4. Also, it is important to mention where the study was conducted?
5. Any incentives were paid for the participants since this was an invitation to participate?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02158-4 (2022)

Title: Maintaining work life under threat of symptoms: A grounded theory study of work life
experiences in persons with Irritable Bowel Syndrome
Version: 2 Date: 06 Feb 2022
Reviewer:  Johnson Pradeep
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for making all the corrections for the queries.
One last clarification about the query 3 which I asked, what I meant by residence is from where
the participants  were recruited. It is mentioned that the details are available from a previous
study. Please mention from where the participants were recruited? Is it from the hospital settings
(place, country) or other settings
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02154-8 (2022)

Title: Gastric Polyps: A 10-Year Analysis Of 18496 Upper Endoscopies
Version: 1 Date: 04 Sep 2021
Reviewer's report:
I consider this study well conducted and well written. It is a descriptive study that allows us to
know better the reality in that country. I agree with its publication.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02154-8 (2022)

Title: Gastric Polyps: A 10-Year Analysis Of 18496 Upper Endoscopies
Version: 1 Date: 14 Dec 2021
Reviewer's report:
just one doubt: The authors declare that they didn't exclude the revisional or follow-up
endoscopy
So how this statement does affect the casuistic
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02154-8 (2022)

Title: Gastric Polyps: A 10-Year Analysis Of 18496 Upper Endoscopies
Version: 1 Date: 02 Jan 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you very much for your consideration so that I can review good research.
Here are some basic suggestions to the authors of this case.
1. Various studies have been conducted on the link between Gastric polyp and H. pylori.
What is the association between the two in your study?
2. What is the relationship between Gastric Polyp and atrophic changes and Intestinal Metaplasia
in your study?
3. What is the relationship between Gastric Polyp and pepsinogen I/II in your study?
Again, thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02146-8 (2022)

Title: Excess fatty acids induce pancreatic acinar cell pyroptosis through macrophage M1
polarization
Version: 0 Date: 29 Sep 2021
Reviewer:  Undurti N. Das
Reviewer's report:
Well conducted study. But the manuscript need to be reorganized.
1. First describe the in vitro studies, then animal study and finally clinical study. By combining
all the studies in a random fashion it is rather confusing and logical sequence of study is lost.
2. Describe the in vitro studies and form a hypothesis or logical argument as to what you wish
to do in an in vivo study and why.
3. The describe the animal studies with clear hypothesis and form arguments as to how they
have been verified and how the results obtained are in support of the same.
4. Finally describe how the in vitro and animal study results have been verified are supported
by the human studies.
This logical sequence of arrangement of the manuscript is needed to make it to make it more
appealing. In the same sequence even the experimental procedures also need to be arranged. The
same sequence need to be followed to describe results and discussion sections as well.
5. I wonder why plasma levels of cytokines were not measured in patients with pancreatitis to
reestablish wat they have obtained in the animal model.
6. Assuming that hyperlipidemia occurs or precedes the occurrence of pancreatitis, why plasma
levels of unsaturated fatty acids was not measured. Is it possible that palmitic acid induced M1
generation can be prevented by unsaturated fatty acids?
7. Does this mean unsaturated fatty acids infusion is of help to those with acute pancreatitis.
8. If the model developed/used by the authors in the animals is right, can the pancreatitis be
reversed by u=suitable intervention(s). If so, what measrues or interventions the authors propose
9. I would appreciate if the manuscript is complete with all the figures as one file instead of all
the figures being submitted or sent to the reviewer separately.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02155-7 (2022)

Title: Brand interchangeability of pepsinogen tests in the real-world setting after eradication of
Helicobacter pylori: A community-based study
Version: 1 Date: 11 Dec 2021
Reviewer's report:
Review on the manuscript by Chiang TH, et al., entitled “Effectiveness and brand
interchangeability of pepsinogen tests in the real-world setting after eradication of Helicobacter
pylori.”
This study was aimed to evaluate the performance of two different brands of PG testing in the
prediction of the premalignant gastric lesions.
The following comments are for the reference of authors:
Major comments
1. The topic of this manuscript is not novel. Reference 11 and 13 are the papers with the similar
topic. Nevertheless, this manuscript was conducted in a real-world setting and a larger cohort
to validate the performance of the PG testing.
2. According to Figure 1, among the subjects with positive results (n=284), only the half of them
(49.6%, n=141) who tested positive for both tests. The authors should discuss these.
3. It was a pity that only 37% (n=105) of the subjects who tested positive for either one of the two
tests received endoscopic examination. I suggest the authors to present a supplementary table,
which compared the baseline characteristics between the subjects who received endoscopic
examination and those who tested positive but did not receive endoscopic examination.
4. Table 1 showed that “A history of hypertension was more common in those who tested positive
than those who tested negative (38.7% vs. 29.9%, P=0.002).” This may be because the subjects
who tested positive were older than those who tested negative. The authors should address some
explanations for these to avoid misleading.
5. In the paragraph of “Performance of the whole program,” please add the rates in detail for
the comparisons of “the positivity rate of the parallel combination was higher than that of the
individual tests (both P<0.05)” and “the positivity rates were slightly higher for males (P=0.43),
but were significantly higher in the older-age group (#50 years) than the younger-age group
(30-49 years) (P=0.016).”
6. Figure 3 showed the results of endoscopic examination, which was performed in the subjects
who tested positive for either one of the two tests. If the definition of “positive” were PG-I <30
ng/mL or PG-I/II ratio <3 for The GastroPanel® test and PG-I #70 ng/mL and PG-I/II ratio #3
for The LZ-Test®, why the rates of OLGA stage 0 and OLGIM stage 0 were 87.6% and 81.9%,
respectively ? The rates were too high to be unreasonable.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02155-7 (2022)

Title: Brand interchangeability of pepsinogen tests in the real-world setting after eradication of
Helicobacter pylori: A community-based study
Version: 1 Date: 26 Dec 2021
Reviewer:  Yoshio Yamaoka
Reviewer's report:
The authors examined the importance of PG testing for mass screening after eradication of H.
pylori infection. The number studied are huge and the design is also well-done. This is very
important study and include many information for researchers in this field.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02155-7 (2022)

Title: Brand interchangeability of pepsinogen tests in the real-world setting after eradication of
Helicobacter pylori: A community-based study
Version: 2 Date: 27 Jan 2022
Reviewer's report:
Review on the manuscript by Chiang TH, et al., entitled “Brand interchangeability of pepsinogen
tests in the real-world setting after eradication of Helicobacter pylori: a community-based
study.”
All the concerns have been answered. The manuscript is accepted.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02147-7 (2022)

Title: Effects of a 12-week home-based exercise training program on aerobic capacity, muscle
mass, liver and spleen stiffness, and quality of life in cirrhotic patients: A randomized controlled
clinical trial
Version: 1 Date: 13 Oct 2021
Reviewer:  Gopal Nambi
Reviewer's report:
Reviewer comments
Thank you for giving me this opportunity to review this article.
Abstract:
1. Include the objective of the study.
2. Mention the study design, study setting, type of randomization, and allocation procedure.
3. Mention the intervention parameters.
4. Include the duration of measuring outcome variables.
5. Mention the reports with 95%CI (Upper – lower limit) for all the variables.
6. The conclusion of the study is not precise and related to the study title.
Manuscript
1. How come this trial is differing from references number 6-11 and 12-14? – please justify.
2. The authors fail to find and report the research gap with recent references in this session.
3. Include the clinical significance of this trial over clinicians, patients, and researchers.
4. Mention the randomization and allocation procedure in detail.
5. In the methods section HIIT was prescribed by the sports scientist, but the participants are
getting moderate-intensity exercise – please justify.
6. Who has recorded the heart rate and what is the reliability and validity of this measurement?
7. Mention the details of intervention (parameters) obtained in the intervention group for study
replication.
8. Include the reliability and validity of all the outcome measures used in the study.
9. Mention the blinding procedure.
10. Describe the acronym of abbreviations, when it is used for the first time.
11. Mention about the demographic details of the participants in the results section.
12. Mention the reports with 95%CI (Upper – lower limit) for all the variables.
13. Report the effect size and MCID values of all the primary and secondary variables.
14. Summarize the discussion part and include the mechanism of interventions on different
variables with recent references.
15. Avoid abbreviations in the conclusion and it should be concise.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02147-7 (2022)

Title: Effects of a 12-week home-based exercise training program on aerobic capacity, muscle
mass, liver and spleen stiffness, and quality of life in cirrhotic patients: A randomized controlled
clinical trial
Version: 2 Date: 26 Nov 2021
Reviewer:  Gopal Nambi
Reviewer's report:
1. Mention who has diagnosed the condition and is included in the trial?
2. 60 – 80 % of MHR is considered as high-intensity aerobic training – please correct the level
of training.
3. Include the blinding details of the study.
4. In the results section, please discuss about the treatment compliance rate, adverse effects, and
the number of dropouts.
5. In the discussion, indicate MCID for the primary outcome and explain it.
6. Table 1 – did not include any aerobic exercises also the exercises which mentioned in table
1 do not come under isometric exercises – The authors must justify this part in clear because
this is the core part of the study.
7. Include a detailed description of all exercises and their parameters with suitable figures.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02147-7 (2022)

Title: Effects of a 12-week home-based exercise training program on aerobic capacity, muscle
mass, liver and spleen stiffness, and quality of life in cirrhotic patients: A randomized controlled
clinical trial
Version: 2 Date: 29 Nov 2021
Reviewer's report:
The authors have done a thorough job addressing the remaining concerns.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02115-1 (2022)

Title: Gut microbiome alterations in colitis rats after moxibustion at bilateral Tianshu acupoints
Version: 0 Date: 14 Sep 2021
Reviewer's report:
Moxibustion is a common treatment in traditional Chinese medicine. It really has a good effect
on regulating gastrointestinal function. It is an interesting and meaningful direction to study
the therapeutic mechanism of moxibustion for corresponding diseases. However, its therapeutic
mechanism should be extensive, including neural and endocrine pathways. Intestinal flora
should be an aspect of its therapeutic mechanism.  This paper has the following problems:
1. This paper should first clarify the curative effect of moxibustion. As a treatment method, it is
meaningless not to discuss the changes of intestinal flora on the basis of curative effect.
2. Although the experimental grouping has certain significance, I think the grouping design lacks
an important control, that is, the group of moxibustion on other parts of the body should be set up
to identify whether the changes in the body come from  Moxibustion corresponding acupoints
or the stimulation of simple moxibustion?
3. I think the change of intestinal flora is a chronic process, and the acute model may not truly
reflect the pathological changes and flora characteristics of ulcerative colitis. Therefore, it is
recommended to apply the chronic UC model, that is, DSS and distilled water are recycled for
three cycles at an interval.
4. The experimental results do not support some conclusions of the paper. For example, the
conclusion states that moxibustion protects mucosal injury, and the experimental results do not
show any evidence of Mucosal pathological repair.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02115-1 (2022)

Title: Gut microbiome alterations in colitis rats after moxibustion at bilateral Tianshu acupoints
Version: 0 Date: 02 Nov 2021
Reviewer:  Junkun Niu
Reviewer's report:
This study explored the effect of moxibustion on microbiome in a rat colitis model. Generally
speaking, it was lack of innovation and there were many modifications to be made.
1. The article title is inappropriate because the study subjects were DSS-colitis rats, not ulcerative
colitis patients. Maybe it could change to be “Gut microbiome alterations in colitis rats after
moxibustion intervention”.
2. In animals and experimental procedure part, the time schedule of DSS-colitis model
establishment and intervention was poor description. The exact time point of moxibustion and
mesalazine intervention should be explanation. A schematic diagram may be helpful.
3. In results part, the DAI score, colon tissues pathological section and histology score of five
groups must be show. These results are very important, because they are the evidence of DSS-
colitis model establishment and intervention.
4. A large number of studies on the gut microbiome of ulcerative colitis suggest that the diversity
and abundance of microbiome are reduced in UC relative to the normal population. In this study,
your results showed that the average number of species detected in UC group was the highest
(4926), while the lowest was found in NG group (2896). This seems to be different from other
studies. The reason should be address.
5. The mechanism of moxibustion on gut microbiome should be further discussed in discussion
part. The interaction between enteric nervous system, neurotransmitter and gut microbiome
maybe a research interests. Moreover, the potential value of moxibustion in clinical application
should be emphasized.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02115-1 (2022)

Title: Gut microbiome alterations in colitis rats after moxibustion at bilateral Tianshu acupoints
Version: 2 Date: 07 Dec 2021
Reviewer's report:
1. Changes have not been  marked in the revised manuscript.
2. The DAI score, colon tissues pathological section and histology score of five groups  are very
important.  This revised version supplements these results, but does not answer the reason why
the first manuscript is not showed.
3. The authors answered that it is well known that the application of acute model will change the
intestinal flora, but did not explain whether this model can reflect the characteristics of intestinal
flora of chronic ulcerative colitis.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02115-1 (2022)

Title: Gut microbiome alterations in colitis rats after moxibustion at bilateral Tianshu acupoints
Version: 2 Date: 07 Dec 2021
Reviewer:  Junkun Niu
Reviewer's report:
The result "Correlation between the gut microbiota in species level and cytokines"shuold add
to abstract.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02115-1 (2022)

Title: Gut microbiome alterations in colitis rats after moxibustion at bilateral Tianshu acupoints
Version: 2 Date: 13 Dec 2021
Reviewer's report:
The author needs to explain why the microbiome changed? Did moxibustion promote the
repair of mucous membrane in UC rats and thus improve the microbiome, or did the heat of
moxibustion change the living environment of microbiome and thus promote the change of biota
and thus improve the pathological state?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02136-w (2022)

Title: Diagnosis and treatment of traumatic duodenal rupture in children
Version: 0 Date: 12 Nov 2021
Reviewer's report:
I congratulate the authors on their ability to manage a challenging pediatric problem.  However,
the manuscript has several critical flaws regarding publication.  The small series is not additive
to the literature and reports will described problems and presentations in this population.
If this was intended to be a review article it requires re-structuring, improved discussion on the
current surgical controversies and addition of relevant references.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02136-w (2022)

Title: Diagnosis and treatment of traumatic duodenal rupture in children
Version: 0 Date: 05 Dec 2021
Reviewer:  Sergey V. Minaev
Reviewer's report:
The article is fascinating for specialists involved in helping children with duodenum trauma. The
manuscript is written in good language. However, the work should carry out a minor revision.
You need to pay attention to the following points:
35 line - indicate the error of the arithmetic mean (48.25 days ±???);
48 line - The noun phrase small intestine seems to be missing a determiner before it. Consider
adding an article;
67 line - The numeral 1 is used instead of the word spelled out. Consider spelling out the number;
68 line – removed “for example”: Replace with this version “(punched, kicked)”;
69 line – The numeral 3 is used instead of the word spelled out. Consider spelling out the number;
70 line – The numeral 2 is used instead of the word spelled out. Consider spelling out the number;
86 line – The phrase “surgical exploration by us” may be wordy. Replace with this version ”our
surgical exploration”;
100 line – The phrase “Their prognosis was good” may be wordy. Replace with this version
“Their results was good” ;
137 line – It appears that the form of the participle “interrupted” is not correct in this context.
Replace with this version “interrupting”;
142 line – The abbreviation “et al” seems to be incorrectly punctuated. Consider changing the
punctuation;
165 line – The phrase “Secondary operation” may be wordy. Replace with this version “A
secondary operation”;
191 line – The plural verb “include” does not appear to agree with the singular subject “The
treatment principle”. Consider changing the verb form for subject-verb agreement;
204 line – The numeral 4 is used instead of the word spelled out. Consider spelling out the
number;
243 line – The numeral 1 is used instead of the word spelled out. Consider spelling out the
number;
270 line – The numeral 2 is used instead of the word spelled out. Consider spelling out the
number;
354 line – Describe Figure 2. Wound healing. What can readers and should see in each of the
four photos?;
The Table 2 and Table 3 indicate the source in square brackets on the table
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02136-w (2022)

Title: Diagnosis and treatment of traumatic duodenal rupture in children
Version: 2 Date: 22 Jan 2022
Reviewer:  Sergey V. Minaev
Reviewer's report:
The presented version of the work is completed. The manuscript may be recommended for
publication. Thanks to the authors for the precise correction in the work
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02139-7 (2022)

Title: Endoscopic Retrograde Appendicitis Therapy Versus Laparoscopic Appendectomy
Versus Open Appendectomy for Acute Appendicitis: A Pilot Study
Version: 3 Date: 16 Nov 2021
Reviewer's report:
The Authors performed an interesting prospective, open-label, randomized controlled study
aiming to compare Endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy (ERAT) with Laparoscopic
Appendectomy (LA) and Open Appendectomy (OA), and to evaluate the feasibility and safety
of ERAT in treating acute uncomplicated appendicitis.
Their efforts should be recognized as there is a substantial lack of prospective studies about
treating uncomplicated acute appendicitis with ERAT.
However, there are some considerations to do:
1) The evidence that LA is the gold standard of care for acute appendicitis is reported in the most
updated international guidelines published in the literature (Di Saverio S et al. Diagnosis and
treatment of acute appendicitis: 2020 update of the WSES Jerusalem guidelines. World J Emerg
Surg. 2020 Apr 15;15(1):27.) and comparing ERAT with OA is not useful in my opinion; it may
be useful to compare ERAT with Non-Operative-Management (NOM) with antibiotics because
there are more recent and high-level evidence that demonstrated that antibiotic therapy could
represent a feasible treatment option for image-proven uncomplicated appendicitis.
2) The small sample size of the group of patients treated with ERAT that it does not allow to
draw conclusions on the efficacy and feasibility of the endoscopic treatment versus surgery.
3) It is obvious that the more rapid re-oral intake and the less pain after treatment are better in
the endoscopically treated group: therefore, I suggest to remove these two secondary outcomes
from the manuscript.
4) The second colonscopy in patients treated with ERAT to retrieve the stent is included in the
overall cost? This point is not clear into the manuscript.
5) The report of the two tumors found during ERAT, the diagnosis and their treatment is not
useful for this prospective pilot study: I suggest to remove it.
6) Lastly, the right reference number one is: Lancet. 2015 Sep 26; 386(10000):1278-1287.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02139-7 (2022)

Title: Endoscopic Retrograde Appendicitis Therapy Versus Laparoscopic Appendectomy
Versus Open Appendectomy for Acute Appendicitis: A Pilot Study
Version: 3 Date: 30 Nov 2021
Reviewer:  Taras Nechay
Reviewer's report:
This is a well-designed and conducted study with a sufficient follow-up period (22 months). The
idea of a non-surgical treatment for appendicitis is tempting. The total effect of ERAT is almost
80%, which is high and can be compared with the success rate of a conservative approach to
the treatment of appendicitis.
But I have a few questions and comments.
Modern theories of the pathogenesis of acute appendicitis question the obstruction of its lumen
as an etiological factor and regard it as a consequence of the onset of inflammation (Bhangu A,
Søreide K, Di Saverio S, Assarsson JH, Drake FT. Acute appendicitis: modern understanding of
pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management. Lancet. 2015 Sep 26; 386 (10000): 1278-1287. doi:
10.1016 / S0140-6736 (15) 00275-5)
The conformity assessment for ERAT shows applicability at 20% (99 out of 514, although 258
declined themselves). In 12% of patients, the procedure was ineffective. In this case, the patients
were operated on. Another 20% developed a relapse. What is the real proportion of patients with
acute appendicitis in whom this method can be used? Does it outperform antibiotic treatment?
The main ethical issue.
Preparation for colonoscopy is essential for successful cannulation. For abdominal pain, you give
the patients laxatives (PEG) and 2 liters of water, and then observe repeated bowel movements.
How ethical is it? How many hours does this preparation take? Is there any pain relief given
to patients?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02139-7 (2022)

Title: Endoscopic Retrograde Appendicitis Therapy Versus Laparoscopic Appendectomy
Versus Open Appendectomy for Acute Appendicitis: A Pilot Study
Version: 4 Date: 08 Jan 2022
Reviewer's report:
I have  carefully read the author's responses: I have valued the corrections on the paper and the
literature reported in the same responses. Therefore, I consider the paper suitable for publication.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02139-7 (2022)

Title: Endoscopic Retrograde Appendicitis Therapy Versus Laparoscopic Appendectomy
Versus Open Appendectomy for Acute Appendicitis: A Pilot Study
Version: 4 Date: 11 Jan 2022
Reviewer:  Taras Nechay
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for clarifying my issues.
I think you should add some kind of the following state "the need to prepare for colonoscopy in
patients with abdominal pain requires further study and is a limitation of the study".
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02145-9 (2022)

Title: Development and validation of a model to predict rebleeding within three days after
endoscopic hemostasis for high-risk peptic ulcer bleeding
Version: 1 Date: 29 Dec 2021
Reviewer's report:
1.The nomogram successfully included several clinical parameters to predict early rebleeding
after endoscopic hemostasis for peptic ulcer bleeding. These parameters are easy to collect, and
are also compatible with previous studies. Further validation is needed in larger scale multi-
center trial.
2.The equation built for model was LogitP = -0.148- 0.21 * albumin +1.763 * PT +1.873 *
shock-1.363 * haematemesis/melena -0.281 * Forrest classification (Table 4). Please explain
how the  variables were put into the equation. Are they categorical variables or continuous
variables?
3.There are some errors in tenses in the description of methods . Besides, "emergency
"endoscopic hemostasis should be "emergent" endoscopic hemostasis. Some other errors in
English typos should also be examined carefully.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02140-0 (2022)

Title: Safety and efficacy of non-fluoroscopic endoscopic dilatation of gastrointestinal
tuberculosis related strictures
Version: 4 Date: 27 Dec 2021
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS:
The authors describe an interesting case series where GI TB strictures have been managed
endoscopically. The main strength is the sample size.
One of the biggest limitation is the lack of objective diagnosis of TB in the participants.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The authors have satisfactorily responded to most of the queries raised by previous reviewer. I
have indicated some of my thoughts below.
* What is the reason to include patients over 12 years? Is it the admission policy of the hospital?
* ""The dilatation was judged technically successful if the stricture could be negotiated using
a wire guided CRE and the endoscopist proceeded with the initial dilation"". – Do you mean
passing the scope through the dilation?
* quantitative variables – do you mean scale variables
* 7 were confirmed cases based on microbiological positivity – what were the tests Biopsy/
culture/interferon
* imminent need for surgery because of non-relenting obstruction were excluded from the study
- In 4 patients (three having terminal ileal stricture and one having stricture at the ileocecal
junction), TTS-CRE balloon dilator could not be passed across the stricture and this was
considered as technical failure (11.8%) – Shouldn’t they have been excluded according to your
criteria?
* Table 1 shows the outcomes of endoscopic dilatation in definite GITB, probable GITB and
Crohn’s disease related strictures – Was there a statistically significant difference? Can you
calculate one?
Writing style - Usual convention is to have the full stop after the citation."
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02140-0 (2022)

Title: Safety and efficacy of non-fluoroscopic endoscopic dilatation of gastrointestinal
tuberculosis related strictures
Version: 6 Date: 02 Feb 2022
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 have satisfactorily answered my questions and made
the necessary changes. The article is of publishable quality now.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
None"
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02137-9 (2022)

Title: Contribution of classification based on ferroptosis-related genes to the heterogeneity of
MAFLD
Version: 3 Date: 01 Nov 2021
Reviewer:  Guo-hua Huang
Reviewer's report:
1. There are a large number of typo or grammatical error in the current manuscript. For example,
(1) In the abstract section, the necessary space between sentences is missing.
(2) In the Methods section of abstract, the authors should one capitalize the word weighted in
“……, Weighted gene coexpression network analysis (WGCNA) and enrichment analyses.”
(3) In the introduction “In this study, we systematacially analyzed the expression of widely
reported ferroptosis”, the word “systematacially” should be corrected as systematically.
(4) In the sentence “The inclusion criteria including i age 18 and above; ii the diagnosis of
MAFLD was based on liver”, a bracket should be added before I and ii to avoid the ambiguity
2. The abbreviation is not subject to the normal standard, the firstly appearing abbreviation
should be with full name.
3. In the Method section, the authors concluded finding, like that “Principal component analysis
(PCA) was performed to downscale sample data to identify differences in distribution between
subtypes.” This is extremely outrageous.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02137-9 (2022)

Title: Contribution of classification based on ferroptosis-related genes to the heterogeneity of
MAFLD
Version: 3 Date: 12 Nov 2021
Reviewer:  Tasnuva D Kabir
Reviewer's report:
The 60 gene signature for ferroptosis was selected from a published work on human liver
cancer (HCC) from the TCGA dataset. MAFLD is a major risk factor for HCC but to associate
ferroptosis to MAFLD development and consequences I would like the researchers to use an
established  ferroptosis signature from C2 molecular signature database which has a list of 40
genes of ferroptosis which could be used to find its association with disease pathogenesis. The 60
gene signature from TCGA could be used as a supplementary validation as it is more associated
with ferroptosis related to HCC  progression. I believe may be this is one of the reasons why
only 2 genes validated to be significantly up in the validation cohort. The design of the study
otherwise was all right.
Also the K clustering used to define 2 clusters need to be increased. Based on Fig 1B which looks
very similar to elbow method of cluster determination and supplementary figure 1 I feel at least
6 clusters could classify the disease better than 2. I understand the authors are trying to classify
the disease based on presence and absence of steatohepatitis. But I guess the disease could be
sub-typed more in detail depending on how much clinical information they have such as diabetic
origin, obesity, metabolic disorders, cirrhosis, steatohepatitis, plus minus inflammation etc.
Regarding looking for immune cell enrichment is it possible for the authors to deconvolve the
bulk microarray data and look for enrichment of immune cell markers using tools similar to
Cibersort ? There is single cell sequencing data available for NAFLD/NASH. The author could
use those data to deconvolve their microarray data and look for immune cell enrichment markers
which I believe will be more accurate.
In the validation cohort is there any more clinical information available? Please tabulate them
and add it and show if the gene expression signature can define MAFLD subtypes.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02112-4 (2022)

Title: Identification of SCN7A as the key gene associated with tumor mutation burden in gastric
cancer
Version: 1 Date: 28 Aug 2021
Reviewer's report:
Li et al. provide a bioinformatic approach combining many algorithms to find out the target gene
associated with patient survival using multiple public datasets from TCGA and NCBI/GEO.
Overall, the study design, data analyses, and conclusion seem logical. I have some questions
regarding their methods and data interpretation as follow:
1. Authors performed multiple algorithms for screening potential gene candidate which
associated with patient survival. I think if they can combine these algorithms into a single
pipeline, the readers will be easier to follow their work. The current format is flushing too many
algorithms into the method section, which is not a good enough presentation.
2. why the authors select MM >0.8 as the threshold for a significant gene? is it a golden standard
for MM value or just a threshold to filter out many genes?
3. Author found SCN7A as the hub gene after filtering and correlate it with patient survival.
However, as we know mRNA expression level of the gene may or may not translate to its protein
function. Thus, even authors have found the genes highly correlated with patient survival, it is
not necessary to become a target for therapy.
4. "We calculated variances of 19525 genes from “TCGA-STAD.” Ranked by decreasing
standard deviation (SD), the top 25% of genes (n= 4881) were selected for further analysis".
why authors select top 25% of genes? why not 30% or 40%? Please clarify this point.
5. Figure 6B shown R values all less than 0.4, is it mean there is no correlation between
SCN7A expression and TIICs? authors concluded SCN7A is positively correlated with these
cell processes. How can authors have that conclusion with these R values?
6. I suggest authors review all the values/thresholds for all the algorithms performed in this
study and explain why they select those values/thresholds in their analyses. Because this study
is purely using dry-lab techniques for suggesting potential candidates, so it is of the essence for
clarification of these numbers.
7. Can authors perform the analyses for other members of this SCN family? I am curious whether
these family members also have low expression in the tumor relative to normal tissue. it would
provide a more comprehensive understanding of this gene family in gastric cancer.
8. Can authors perform more analyses of SCN7A protein expression level in correlation with
gastric cancer? it would make the study conclusion stronger.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02112-4 (2022)

Title: Identification of SCN7A as the key gene associated with tumor mutation burden in gastric
cancer
Version: 1 Date: 14 Oct 2021
Reviewer's report:
In this manuscript, to identify tumor mutation burden (TMB) related genes in gastric cancer
and to explore their prognostic value, the authors analyzed the gastric cancer data in TCGA
database by different tools. The authors screened the differentially expressed genes, found the
most relevant TMB modules and then identified hub genes. Next, the authors analyzed the
relationship among hub genes and immune cells. Finally, the authors identified gene SCN7A
affected the signaling pathways of immune system and revealed the possibility that SCN7A is
a novel biomarker. In general, this study is a routine work. In addition, there are some issues
should be revised.
1. The expression of abbreviations are not properly. Some abbreviations are not attached the full
name when they first appeared such as TMB and GC in “abstract” section, GS in main body.
And the abbreviation of “TNM” is not attached the full name.
2. The authors cited “figure S2 A-D” in the manuscript, however, there is not a figure S2 in
manuscript or related files. And the authors provided a table file, however there is not citation
in the main body. The authors should confirm and revise them.
3. The format of some references are not consistent with others. The authors should revise them
in consistent format.
4. The identification of hub gene in “Functional enrichment analysis and hub gene identification”
section should be described with more details.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02128-w (2022)

Title: Vater’s ampullary carcinoma increases the risk of clinically relevant postoperative
pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: A retrospective and propensity score-matched
analysis
Version: 0 Date: 25 Aug 2021
Reviewer's report:
The lack of stratification by the POPF risk is a great bias. Without an FRS analysis, the paper
have no sense
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02128-w (2022)

Title: Vater’s ampullary carcinoma increases the risk of clinically relevant postoperative
pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: A retrospective and propensity score-matched
analysis
Version: 0 Date: 15 Oct 2021
Reviewer's report:
In this paper, the authors evaluated whether the Vater’s ampullary carcinoma was an independent
risk factor for the development of postoperative complications after pancreticoduodenectomy,
focusing on the clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula. The study is retrospective,
but the authors used the “Propensity Score” method to reduce the differences between the two
compared groups (VAC vs. non-VAC). My suggestions are:
1) I would like to know the pathology of all patients of the non-VAC group. I suggest to report
it in the tables 1 and 3;
2) Considering the author’s choice of using as factors of the propensity score those not distributed
in a homogeneous way between the two groups, regardless their influence in the present study on
the outcome (CR-POPF), I would like to know if the factors of the Clinical Risk Score (Callery et
al., J Am Coll Surg. 2013) not reported (texture, pathology, main duct diameter) and the Clinical
Risk Score value are evenly distributed between the two groups (VAC vs. non-VAC). If they
have not been evaluated in my opinion, it should be done and if they were differently distributed
in the two groups they should be added to the propensity score analysis.
3) I would like to know what is meant by "type of resection" in the "statistical analysis"
paragraph and if you mean the same thing as "surgical method" in the "risk factors for CR-
POPF" paragraph.
Thank you.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02128-w (2022)

Title: Vater’s ampullary carcinoma increases the risk of clinically relevant postoperative
pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: A retrospective and propensity score-matched
analysis
Version: 2 Date: 04 Dec 2021
Reviewer's report:
Paper well revised. No more comments
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02128-w (2022)

Title: Vater’s ampullary carcinoma increases the risk of clinically relevant postoperative
pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: A retrospective and propensity score-matched
analysis
Version: 2 Date: 15 Dec 2021
Reviewer's report:
After the corrections made, I consider the manuscript acceptable for publication.
Just two observation:
1) Would I know the nature of cystic lesions underwent surgery? Were they all suspected for
degeneration? How many had actually degenerated on the final pathological examination? I
suggest to report this data in the manuscript and in the table.
2) pag. 7. In the Propensity score-matched analysis paragraph the sentence should be “As
shown in Table 3, patients diagnosed VAC had higher level of platelet and FRS, lower level of
hemoglobin AND albumin and SMALLER main pancreatic duct diAmeter”.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02128-w (2022)

Title: Vater’s ampullary carcinoma increases the risk of clinically relevant postoperative
pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: A retrospective and propensity score-matched
analysis
Version: 3 Date: 26 Jan 2022
Reviewer's report:
I thank the authors for their effort to make the required changes.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02124-0 (2022)

Title: Extremity risk factors of sepsis for gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients with liver
cirrhosis
Version: 2 Date: 12 Mar 2021
Reviewer:  Gurdal Yilmaz
Reviewer's report:
The authors share their experiences with sepsis associated with GI endoscopy in cirrhotic
patients. The article has been designed quite nicely. The statistical analysis of the data has been
well done. The findings have been written in detail and discussed appropriately. The article is a
good work that readers can benefit from. It is suitable to be published.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02124-0 (2022)

Title: Extremity risk factors of sepsis for gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients with liver
cirrhosis
Version: 5 Date: 23 Dec 2021
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - 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 adequately to all questions except one
concern about criteria for prescription of prophylactic antibiotics in 41 patients of experience
group.
They have made adequate changes in manuscript.
The revised manuscript is good with well highlighted limitations.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Inclusion criteria: ""The study included adult patients aged 18-70 years old with ESLD or
hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)"". Do patients with HCC without liver cirrhosis is included in
the study or presence of cirrhosis is crucial for enrolment?
It would be better if you could clarify criteria for antibiotic prescription in 41 patients in
experience group.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Introduction section includes large paragraph about liver transplantation which could be
summarized as it is not the scope of the manuscript."
Review for 10.1186/s12876-021-02074-z (2022)

Title: Indicators of suboptimal response to anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy in patients from
China with inflammatory bowel disease: Results from the EXPLORE study
Version: 5 Date: 18 May 2021
Reviewer's report:
This study is very interesting and well conducted. The authors investigated efficacy of anti-TNF
first line thrapy in IBD patients. As stated by the authors, the limit of the study is the fat that
infliximab was the only anti TNF approved for IBD in chinese population. However the study
is well conducted and well presented. I recommend it for publication without any revision of
the manuscript.