JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02384-w (2022)

Title: Clinical applicability of a new scoring system for population-based screening and risk
factors of gastric cancer in the Wannan region
Version: 4 Date: 03 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
Overall, this could be a good study to illustrate the distribution of biomarker indifferent gastric
pathology among Chinese male. There are several questions that remains to be clarify.
Although gastric cancer often presented as gastric ulcers, most gastric ulcers are not associated
with malignancy. The term precancerous disease is misleading. Furthermore, gastric polyps is
a very diverse entity, the risk of malignancy vary significantly. I am also curious about why the
author would group all gastric ulcers and all gastric polyps into one entity.
It is well established that proton pump inhibitor will rise the level of pepsinogen and gastrin. In
recent years, level of pepsinogen and gastric are affected by PPI far more often than underlying
disease. Although the author has excluded patient with antacid within 2 weeks, it would be very
helpful to elucidate further along with PPI status prior to that.
It would be helpful to know if this is a prospective or retrospective study and how enrollment
is done.
Overall the scoring system might have built-in bias including gender bias. The scoring system
weighted male four times higher than H. pylori, resulting in disproportionately high male to
female ratio. It would be very helpful if the author could explain further about the study design
to justify the bias. The author would need to clarify the discrepancy between Table 2 and table 3.
There are 186 male with medium to high risk on table, out of which 853 underwent gastroscopy?
There is a missing data on table 3, unknown patient number on column G-17  (1.50-5.70).
Interestingly, author did not include biomarker in risk analysis, which is the soul of the project.
Many practitioners would be curious about the hazard ratio of biomarker which would help
incorporating the new scoring system to daily practice.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02384-w (2022)

Title: Clinical applicability of a new scoring system for population-based screening and risk
factors of gastric cancer in the Wannan region
Version: 5 Date: 01 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for your time to clarify my confusion. This study is a great example to validate a
novel national scoring system in a local community in China. I believe it would be a valuable
piece of work for practitioner in Wannan region.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02384-w (2022)

Title: Clinical applicability of a new scoring system for population-based screening and risk
factors of gastric cancer in the Wannan region
Version: 5 Date: 12 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
The authors have responded to most of my comments.
But I still have concerns about the conclusion. What does "valuable" mean? Authors need
to revise this sentence. Secondly, the sentence "Frequent consumption of green vegetables
frequently was an independent protective factor against GC and precancerous lesions" should
read, "Frequent consumption of green vegetables was an independent protective factor against
GC and precancerous lesions".
Secondly, I am still skeptical about the classification.  Authors have combined histological
classification with anatomical classification. I would  assume that the "gastric ulcer group"
also had gastritis, which could have been non-atrophic or atrophic. Therefore, these groups are
overlapping. Or are authors suggesting that gastric ulcer patients had no inflammation at all? If
that was the case then an explanation is warranted.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02385-9 (2022)

Title: Association between the LRP5 rs556442 gene polymorphism and the risks of NAFLD
and CHD in a Chinese Han population
Version: 1 Date: 29 Jan 2022
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript was interesting and well written but there are some points that should be
addressed
1- Although the manuscript has a language certificate but it has some writing and grammar errors
for example:
Line 22: The comma before “this” should be changed to point
Line 257: This findings should be changed to these findings
The authors should explain the rationale for selecting LRP5 rs556442 among other variants in
the same gene.
Table 1 title: “characteristicses” should be changed to “characteristics”
2- There are some mistakes in the citations:
Line 76: Nima et al. is should be changed to Montazeri-Najafabady et al.
Line 80 and 220: Elham et al. should be changed to Adabi et al.
3- Give the eligibility criteria, and the sources and methods of case ascertainment
and control selection
4- It is better to explain the statistical analyses presented in Table 3 below the table.
5- Describe any efforts to address potential sources of bias
6- Explain how the sample size was calculated
7- It is better to report the results for Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium in the text instead of table
8-It is better to report the main findings of the study in the first paragraph of discussion section.
9- It is important to include some discussion on the implications of other polymorphism in strong
LD with the present variant
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02385-9 (2022)

Title: Association between the LRP5 rs556442 gene polymorphism and the risks of NAFLD
and CHD in a Chinese Han population
Version: 1 Date: 18 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear author:
Your study is a good one in the field. You showed the association between  LRP5 rs556442
variants and NAFLD and CHD.
There is a comment: In line 115 you forget to write "total cholesterol" please add these words.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02386-8 (2022)

Title: TEADs Serve as Potential Prognostic Biomarkers and Targets for Human Gastric Cancer
Version: 1 Date: 26 Oct 2021
Reviewer's report:
In the manuscript “TEADs Serve as Potential Prognostic Biomarkers and Targets for Human
Gastric Cancer “, Wang et al. investigated expression of TEADs in human gastric cancers and
their potential prognostic value. Unfortunately, the authors did not include any validation of in
silico data and that should be addressed for the manuscript to be suitable for publication.
Specific comments:
1. It is not clear which dataset(s) was/were used for the Kaplan-Meier.
2. Which TEADs were used for enrichment analysis in GC patients?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02386-8 (2022)

Title: TEADs Serve as Potential Prognostic Biomarkers and Targets for Human Gastric Cancer
Version: 1 Date: 23 Dec 2021
Reviewer's report:
In this manuscript, the authors conducted research on “TEADs Serve as Potential Prognostic
Biomarkers and Targets for Human Gastric Cancer”. The study is clear and interesting. The data
are adequate. Recommended for acceptance with Minor Revision. Some issues:
1. TEADs and Hippo signaling pathway are closely related, so authors should focus on
background information of Hippo signaling pathway in INTRODUCTION.
2. The authors should provide more detailed information about the function and structure of
TEADs.
3. the authors should describe the experimental methods in more detail.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02386-8 (2022)

Title: TEADs Serve as Potential Prognostic Biomarkers and Targets for Human Gastric Cancer
Version: 3 Date: 14 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
My concerns have been addressed.  With minor english correction, I recommend manuscript
"TEADs Serve as Potential Prognostic Biomarkers and Targets for Human Gastric Cancer", by
Wang et al. to be accepted for publication.
Specific concerns:
1. The added text during revision is not clear throughout the manuscript.  The authors should
correct that.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02363-1 (2022)

Title: Prediction and management of strangulated bowel obstruction: A multi-dimensional
model analysis
Version: 2 Date: 13 Mar 2022
Reviewer:  Enrico Mossotto
Reviewer's report:
Authors described a statistical model employing radiological and clinical variables to
discriminate patients presenting with strangulated bowel obstruction from those with a simple
bowel obstruction. Furthermore, they investigate the discriminatory effect of such features and
select the most relevant for constructing two models: one uniquely based on radiological features
and one including both radiological and clinical features.
While the manuscript clearly shows the advantage of using multiple types of features (the
"multiomics" model performs significantly better than the radiomics model), the following
points should be addressed and taken in consideration:
1. Authors refers to their approach as multiomics, however none of the ‘omics were actually
employed. The term radiomics is misused as none of the radiological features were extracted
using artificial intelligence/machine learning methods and raw images were not included in
the model. In this manuscript, authors use radiological reports as source of their radiological
features. Therefore, the use of the term ‘multiomics’ should be avoided throughout the
manuscript.
2. With regards to the predictive model, authors should disclose which approach they employed
to avoid overfitting the model (e.g. was cross validation applied?).
3. Overall, the statistical models should be described more in depth in the method section
indicating the parameters used.
4. Authors should indicate their approach to feature correlations and co-linearity as it might
highly bias the results from the multivariate regression.
5. p-values should also be corrected for multiple tests (e.g. Table 1 reports 24 tests) and authors
should carefully interpret unadjusted results.
6. Authors do not provide results with regards to the validation of the risk score on independent
(or set-aside) data.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02363-1 (2022)

Title: Prediction and management of strangulated bowel obstruction: A multi-dimensional
model analysis
Version: 2 Date: 03 May 2022
Reviewer:  Ernst Fredericks
Reviewer's report:
Review Report: Prediction and management of strangulated bowel obstruction: A multi-omics
model analysis.
Thank you for asking me to review the above retrospective review of small bowel obstruction
comparing simple vs strangulated bowel obstruction. Sixteen percent of the study population had
strangulation while the majority had simple obstruction. Clinical and radiological parameters
were evaluated for significance to predict outcome.
I cannot recommend the publication of this manuscript in its current form on the following
grounds: The authors oversimplify an otherwise complex clinical management problem. My
biggest concern is with the patient characteristics. The majority of patients presenting with small
bowel obstruction managed conservatively are those who previously had abdominal surgery –
the adhesive small bowel obstruction group. This is the challenging group where conservative vs
operative management is often a dilemma. History of previous surgery in this study was also high
at 70% as shown in the demographic details table. It would have been useful to review the data
of those patients with adhesive small bowel obstruction, at least as a subgroup. The indications
for the previous surgery, type of surgery performed as well as the number of operations should
have been included in the analysis. Lumping all patients in 1 group does not allow to generate
a clear management pathway for each of the 2 divergent groups.
The clinical and radiological parameters evaluated for significance are all well known and
have been described in previous publications (Tong et al 2020, Zielinski et al 2016). Logistic
regression analysis between those and this study is comparable, although an exclusion from this
study was the CRP, which others have found useful in guiding earlier operative intervention
(Ten Broek et al 2017, Deng et al 2019).
It is not clear from the text what treatment the patients received and what their outcomes were.
Did everyone receive surgical exploration? How was the applicability of the model judged? How
accurately did the model predict need for surgery and avoiding re-operation? Re-admission rates
post admission for adhesive small bowel obstruction are high and it is valuable to know whether
prediction with this model could accurately prevent this.  Too many important factors are not
addressed by this retrospective analysis.
The data analysis and language use are generally acceptable in this manuscript.
Thank you.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02363-1 (2022)

Title: Prediction and management of strangulated bowel obstruction: A multi-dimensional
model analysis
Version: 3 Date: 29 May 2022
Reviewer:  Ernst Fredericks
Reviewer's report:
Some of the points raised by the reviewers were addressed by the authors in full. Certain aspects
remain but to their credit they added a validation dataset which is a great help. Prospective
studies will evaluate the usefulness of this algorithm.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02380-0 (2022)

Title: Clinico-pathological Characteristics of Obstructing Colorectal Cancer and its
Management Outcomes at a Tertiary Referral Center of Eastern Nepal
Version: 1 Date: 28 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript mainly focus on the clinical characteristics of obstructing colorectal cancer in
a tertiary referral center of Eastern Nepal. The manuscript have a few major concerns prior to
its acceptance.
1. The study is lack of novelty, and may not bring new insights to the filed.
2. There are limited CRC patients included in the current studies and the statistical analysis may
not bring rigorous conclusions to the study.
3. The language of the manuscript is arcane.  The manuscript should be polished prior to next
submission.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02380-0 (2022)

Title: Clinico-pathological Characteristics of Obstructing Colorectal Cancer and its
Management Outcomes at a Tertiary Referral Center of Eastern Nepal
Version: 1 Date: 01 May 2022
Reviewer:  Audrius Dulskas
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
I would like to thank you for opportunity to review your abstract.
I have some queries.
INTRODUCTION
-this part is rather short. I would like to get some more information on CRC incidence in Nepal,
screening program, coverage. How does the medical care system works in Nepal (this paragraph
may go to Methods)
-most of references are rather old - please renew.
-this part is very scarce, needs to be improved
METHODS
-how was bowel obstruction diagnosed? what test did you perform before the treatment? how
did you differentiate between the total or partial obstruction?
-what was the treatment strategies of the bowel obstruction?
RESULTS
-only tables are shown, I lack some information added - how about pathological results: l/n
harvest, specimen length, quality of the specimen, etc
DISCUSSION
-first paragraph should be your results
-limitation section is missing - retrospective, small sample size, etc
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02380-0 (2022)

Title: Clinico-pathological Characteristics of Obstructing Colorectal Cancer and its
Management Outcomes at a Tertiary Referral Center of Eastern Nepal
Version: 4 Date: 27 May 2022
Reviewer:  Audrius Dulskas
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
The manuscript improved a lot.
Only minor issue:
margin status of the harvested specimen- whether reported to be free of tumour or not - does
not describe the quality of the surgery (l/n, quality of the specimen are the key factors reported
by the pathologist).
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02380-0 (2022)

Title: Clinico-pathological Characteristics of Obstructing Colorectal Cancer and its
Management Outcomes at a Tertiary Referral Center of Eastern Nepal
Version: 4 Date: 29 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
The revised manuscript did not solve my previous concerns satisfactorily. Instead, it bring new
issues.
1. In Figure 1, how can the authors diagnosis partial bowel obstruction or complete obstruction
via X-ray examination?  The figure 1 should be scheme, instead of Algorithm.
2. Page 7, the sample size calculation should be utilized to solve the scientific problems raised
by the authors, instead of giving the excuse for limited sample size. The authors should carefully
check their statement. The calculation methods for identifying sample size of clinical trials were
reported by many publications (e.g. 10.1002/ncp.10674).
3. The authors stated that "The treatments provided at our center and their outcomes are not
inferior to that of the developed world". However, no comparison study could be found in current
version of  manuscript. The SEER database or other open-access databases should be included.
4. The current study included 28 CRC patients. However, no ethic approval number was
provided in the manuscript.
5. The language was poor. The manuscript is arcane for most readers.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02380-0 (2022)

Title: Clinico-pathological Characteristics of Obstructing Colorectal Cancer and its
Management Outcomes at a Tertiary Referral Center of Eastern Nepal
Version: 5 Date: 09 Jun 2022
Reviewer:  Audrius Dulskas
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
I have no further comments.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02381-z (2022)

Title: Identification of Helicobacter pylori-Related Gastric Cancer Risk Using Serological
Gastritis Markers and Endoscopic Findings: A Large-Scale Retrospective Cohort Study
Version: 1 Date: 06 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
I read with interest  the paper on "Identification of gastric cancer risk using serological gastritis
markers and endoscopic findings: a large-scale retrospective cohort study"
The paper is well written and the study is well conducted.
I have some comments:
- Abstract: Results: non easy to read, group is not defined; not clear when and in who endoscopy
was performed
- Methods: I wonder why autoimmune gastritis has been excluded. When the scope of the study
was that to investigate Hp-related GC risk, this should be expressed in the title of the paper
- Mehtods & Results: Iwould suggest to include the diagnostic performance (sensitivity,
specificity, PPV, NPV) of serological markers  alone versus serological marker plus endoscopy
to highlight the diagnostic gain when both diagnostic methods were combined.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02381-z (2022)

Title: Identification of Helicobacter pylori-Related Gastric Cancer Risk Using Serological
Gastritis Markers and Endoscopic Findings: A Large-Scale Retrospective Cohort Study
Version: 3 Date: 13 Jun 2022
Reviewer's report:
I carefully considered the revised manuscript titled "Identification of Helicobacter pylori-
Related Gastric Cancer Risk Using Serological Gastritis Markers and Endoscopic Findings: A
Large-Scale Retrospective Cohort Study".
In their point-by-point letter, the authors addressed all main methodological criticisms raised by
the initial version of the manuscript.
However, the general implant of the study is substantially unchanged, which significantly limits
the novelty of the obtained results. Consequently, my comments on the general structure of this
study, its results, and its conclusions remain unmodified.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02374-y (2022)

Title: Validation of the new ABC score for predicting 30-day mortality in gastrointestinal
bleeding
Version: 1 Date: 26 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
The Authors compare the ability of ABC score to predict mortality in patients admitted because
of upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding in a selected population.
The results of the study is in agreement with data present in the literature in larger cohort of
patients
-It could be interesting to show the cause of bleeding of the patients in a table
- when the endoscopic examination was performed (time from UGB and LGB)
- How the patients were followed after demission to gain data at one month)? What were the
causes of death?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02374-y (2022)

Title: Validation of the new ABC score for predicting 30-day mortality in gastrointestinal
bleeding
Version: 1 Date: 28 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
Validation of the new ABC score for predicting 30-day mortality in upper and lower
gastrointestinal bleeding
Thank you for the opportunity to review this study. This manuscript validated the newly
developed scoring system for predicting 30-day mortality of patients who presented with upper-
or lower gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB or LGIB). However, the authors should be commended
on their work. There are a few areas where additional information would enhance the manuscript.
1. Because the etiologies of GIB are the important factor that contributes to the outcome of
patients with GIB. It is important to reveal the etiologies of GIB in both UGIB and LGIB. And
among patients with UGIB, what is the proportion of portal hypertension-related UGIB (such
as variceal bleeding).
2. As described, 26 (8.4%) patients had GIB of unspecified location. Is it from mid-GIB?
3. The 30-mortality rate of patients with UGIB and LGIB were 16.3% and 10.1%, respectively.
Is it comparable to the previous studies? If not, please provide the reason.
4. What was the cause of mortality, GIB-related, non-GIB related?
5. Because the severity of the disease is another factor that influences the mortality rate, the
author should provide this information. Please provide the mean or median of the prognostic
score according to the location of bleeding (UGIB and LGIB), including AIMS65, Rockall score,
Glasgow-Blatchford score, ABC, Oakland score.
6. The study was conducted between 2013-2020. Did the COVID-19 pandemic occur in your
country at that time? If yes, is its influence on the patients’ outcome.
7. Please recheck the statistical program that the author described in the manuscript. Is it the
same program that the author used in figure generation?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02374-y (2022)

Title: Validation of the new ABC score for predicting 30-day mortality in gastrointestinal
bleeding
Version: 4 Date: 23 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for revising the manuscript and resubmitting it. The changes have strengthened the
work. A few additional questions and comments:
1. In the last sentence of the “Patients characteristics” section. As the author mentioned that
“The causes of death for upper and lower GI bleeding patients are shown in Table 4”. Please
recheck the table in which you demonstrated the causes of death.
2. The manuscript’s title is “Validation of the new ABC score for predicting 30-day mortality in
upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding”. According to the author explain that “there are five
patients who suffered from mid-GIB, but the baseline characteristic included the cases of mid-
GIB, which may not correlate with the manuscript’s title.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02374-y (2022)

Title: Validation of the new ABC score for predicting 30-day mortality in gastrointestinal
bleeding
Version: 4 Date: 09 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
I saw the revised manuscript changed according to the suggestions of the reviewers. I further
suggest to include in a table  the value of  ABC ( mild, miderate,severe) compared to the relative
risk of mortality
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02374-y (2022)

Title: Validation of the new ABC score for predicting 30-day mortality in gastrointestinal
bleeding
Version: 6 Date: 11 Jun 2022
Reviewer's report:
The paper  has been improved
1. please specify further in the text how many patients were missed a 30  day if any
2.please add in the conclusions that data need further validation in larger group  of patients
bleeding from varices
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02366-y (2022)

Title: Validation and prognostic value of EZ-ALBI score in patients with intermediate-stage
hepatocellular carcinoma treated with trans-arterial chemoembolization
Version: 2 Date: 30 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript entitled ‘Validation and prognostic value of EZ-ALBI score in patients with
intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma treated with trans-arterial chemoembolization ’ by
Prooksa Ananchuensook et al. reported the prognostic value of EZ-ALBI score in in patients
with intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma treated with trans-arterial chemoembolization.
The manuscript is well written and the results shown in this study are informative. Some points
are listed for the authors’ consideration.
Comments
1.Only 166 cases were included in the study, which required the necessary number of cases to
be added.
2. The use of tables in the paper is extremely irregular, for example, three-line tables should
be used to present data; Table 5 should indicate the meaning of “ * ” under the table notes; for
abbreviations, full names need to be added, etc.
3.The use of figures in the paper is extremely irregular, such as figure legend should be placed
under the figure; for abbreviations, full names need to be added, etc.
4.Both bilirubin and albumin are dynamically changing, can the authors present the time of
detection of this indicator?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02366-y (2022)

Title: Validation and prognostic value of EZ-ALBI score in patients with intermediate-stage
hepatocellular carcinoma treated with trans-arterial chemoembolization
Version: 2 Date: 08 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
Thank you for your submission. In my opinion, the major limitation of the study is lack
of novelty. Actually, the application of EZ-ALBI score in clinical practice or clinical trials
is limited. I do not think it has much significance since the ALBI score has shown good
performance for patients treated with TACE during the pase several years.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02366-y (2022)

Title: Validation and prognostic value of EZ-ALBI score in patients with intermediate-stage
hepatocellular carcinoma treated with trans-arterial chemoembolization
Version: 5 Date: 29 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
Thank you for your response and revise. The questions and issues have been resolved.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02369-9 (2022)

Title: Efficacy of AS vs SOX regimen as first-line chemotherapy for gastric cancer patients with
peritoneal metastasis: a real-world study
Version: 2 Date: 19 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
This is a retrospective study on the clinical effects of AS regimen as compared with SOX, one of
the standard regimen, for peritoneal metastases (PM) of gastric cancer. The results contain novel
finding, although data interpretation is limited. I suggest some points to be addressed before
publication.
1. Outcome of the patients with PM is strongly dependent on the severity of macroscopic or
microscopic metastases in peritoneum. Unfortunately, there is no information on peritoneal
tumor burden, such as peritoneal cytology (CY), peritoneal cancer index (PCI) or Japanese
classification (P1a,b,c). As laparoscopy was performed in some patients, comparison in those
selected patients with similar levels of PM is preferable. Similarly, the volume of ascites is
crucial factor to determine their outcome and patients could be divided into high, middle, and
low volume of ascites due to the CT image. Those factors should be included in PSM survival
analysis.
2. The assessment of real progression time is exceedingly difficult in PM. They described
progression was based on RECIST v1.1. However, in most patients with PM, especially in
Lauren diffuse type, PM are too small to be appropriately evaluated by CT image. Therefore,
progression is often determined as the appearance or increase of ascites, appearance of new
lesions in some cases, or even by worsening of clinical findings. The authors should clarify how
they really determine the progression.
3. I suppose the OS of these patients is dependent on the response to the treatment after
progression and thus information on the second line should be presented together. In fact, how
often nabPTX is used in SOX group and how were they treated after the failure to AS?
4. There are many grammatical errors in texts which should be corrected.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02369-9 (2022)

Title: Efficacy of AS vs SOX regimen as first-line chemotherapy for gastric cancer patients with
peritoneal metastasis: a real-world study
Version: 2 Date: 26 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
Major point
ATTRACTION-4 trial and CheckMate 649 trial revealed that Nivolumab plus chemotherapy
improves OS or PFS in patients with advanced gastric adenocarcimoma as compared to
chemotherapy alone. Please relate these important findings to your results in the Discussion
section.
Minor points
Please grade the adverse events in Table 3 as you described in the methods section “Adverse
event (AEs) were graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events
version 5.0”.
Please provide which factors do you use to perform the propensity score matching in the Methods
section.
According to the Results section, some patients seem to be treated with immune checkpoint
inhibitors or trastuzumab as a first line chemotherapy. If so, Please write down these regimens
in the Methods section.
The median OS in the AS group after PSM described in the main text does not match the number
described in Table 2. Moreover, the median OS in the SOX group (non-intestinal) after PSM
described in the main text does not match the number described in Table 2. Please correct these
numbers.
The numbers of OS and PFS in Lauren mixed type described in the main text exactly match the
numbers described as those in Lauren diffuse type in Table 2. Please check these descriptions
again and correct if necessary.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02369-9 (2022)

Title: Efficacy of AS vs SOX regimen as first-line chemotherapy for gastric cancer patients with
peritoneal metastasis: a real-world study
Version: 3 Date: 05 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
Please precisely grade the adverse events in Table 3 as you described in the methods section.
The median OS in the AS group after PSM described in the main text does not match the number
described in Table 2. Please correct these numbers.
According to your definition, lauren diffuse type is not equal to lauren diffuse type. However,
the numbers of OS and PFS in Lauren mixed type described in the main text exactly match the
numbers described as those in Lauren diffuse type in Table 2. Please check these descriptions
again and correct.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02367-x (2022)

Title: Comparative Study of Indocyanine Green (ICG)-R15 and Albumin-Indocyanine Green
Evaluation (ALICE) Grading System in the Prediction of Posthepatectomy Liver Failure and
Postoperative Mortality in Patients with Hepatic Alveolar Echinococcosis
Version: 3 Date: 14 May 2022
Reviewer:  Po-chih Yang
Reviewer's report:
In this manuscript, ICG-R15 and ALICE grading system were evaluated retrospectively for their
ability to predict posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF). My feedback was listed as below.
1. For ICG-R15 measurement, pulse dye density graph analyzer was used in this study instead of
traditionally sequential blood test. Could you show reference about the accuracy of this method
compared with traditional blood draw?
2. Operation related mortality is usually defined as mortality within 90 days after operation. But
in this study, mortality after 12 months was analyzed. By this definition, mortality could not be
related to hepatectomy. Could you explain about this?
3. ICG-R15 and ALICE grading system have been both recognized as good measurement for
liver function. However, besides liver function, the extent of liver resection is a very important
factor to predict PHLF. The extent of liver resection should be integrated into preoperative
evaluation together with liver function test. In this study, the extent of hepatectomy was only
divided into two category, resection less than 3 segments or not and only showed in Table 1
basic characteristics. Patients with good liver function could also develop PHLF after extremely
large extent of hepatectomy and vice versa. I recommend authors to integrate the extent of liver
resection with percentage of liver volume in the analysis to reflect the true value of these liver
function measurement.
4. The result showed the cut-off value of ICG-R15 to predict PHLF is 7.2%. But, the value of
ICG-R15 in common people is about 10~13%. 7.2% is relatively good result of ICG-R15. Is
this result meaningful for clinical use or just the result of statistics?
5. In Figure 5, there are recommendation of extent of hepatectomy according to different Child-
Pugh grade and ALICE grade. Could you show the basis for this recommendation of resected
segment numbers because there was not any comparison of resection extent in this study?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02367-x (2022)

Title: Comparative Study of Indocyanine Green (ICG)-R15 and Albumin-Indocyanine Green
Evaluation (ALICE) Grading System in the Prediction of Posthepatectomy Liver Failure and
Postoperative Mortality in Patients with Hepatic Alveolar Echinococcosis
Version: 3 Date: 24 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
This is a single center retrospective study evaluating the effectiveness of ICG-R15 and ALICE
grade to predict postoperative liver failure. I have several comments.
1. The hepatitis B infection certainly affected the results. Could the authors provide data in
patients with or without hepatitis B infection?
2. What is the reason for impaired liver function in the study population?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02368-w (2022)

Title: Endoscopic features of oxyntic gland adenoma and gastric adenocarcinoma of the
fundic gland type differ between patients with and without Helicobacter pylori infection: A
retrospective observational study
Version: 1 Date: 22 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
Authors concluded the endoscopic features of oxyntic gland adenoma and GA-FG differed
between patients with and without H. pylori infection by examining a large number of cases and
speculated the low detectability of oxyntic gland adenoma and GA-FG in patients without H.
pylori infection owing to the non-atrophic normal mucosa. This manuscript is well-written and
very interesting, so I think it deserves to be published. However, there are some questions and
things I would like you to clarify.
1. It is desirable to make a diagnosis of H. pylori-uninfected by two or more test methods. Please
clarify in detail how a diagnosis of H. pylori-uninfected was made in this study. If H. pylori
infection status was examined using only one method, there is a risk of false negative.
2. The authors treat patients with current H. pylori infection and patients with past infection as
the same Hp group. Did the location, morphology, color, and number of lesions differ between
patients with current and past H. pylori infection?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02368-w (2022)

Title: Endoscopic features of oxyntic gland adenoma and gastric adenocarcinoma of the
fundic gland type differ between patients with and without Helicobacter pylori infection: A
retrospective observational study
Version: 1 Date: 05 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
This report has new findings and interesting. I understand that the originality of this study is the
analysis of oxyntic neoplasm in relation to H pylori infection status. However, I would like to
request authors to answer a following comment.
I understand that oxyntic gland adenoma and GA-FG arising from non-atrophic gastric mucosa
are typical endoscopic morphology same as previously reported. Is there any difference in
the initial biopsy between the atrophic and non-atrophic groups? Please describe the degree
of diagnosed as neoplasm or not at initial biopsy, in the atrophic and non-atrophic group,
respectively.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02365-z (2022)

Title: Prognosis of Incompletely Resected Small Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumor using
Endoscope without Additional Treatment
Version: 2 Date: 16 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting article on an important topic where there is very limited literature. The
paper is well written and provides some reassurance about the incomplete resection of small
rectal NENs. I have some minor comments:
1. line 81: The staging before resection included only CT imaging. Similarly (line 117) follow-
up imaging included only CT. More sensitive imaging techniques, such as MRI rectum and
Gallium-68 PET/CT were not used. Such techniques would be more sensitive to detect small
recurrences or small volume metastatic disease. The authors need to comment on this in their
discussion and mention this as a limitation.
2. lines 131-132: ESMR-L appeared to be much more effective than ESD in achieving complete
resections. While I agree with the authors that this should be the procedure of choice for small
(<10mm) rectal NETs, and this is also the consensus in the literature, (given safety, procedural
time and clinical effectiveness), I would like them to discuss a bit more if possible how they
explain this big difference in incomplete resection rates (4.4% incomplete resection in ESMR-
L vs 52.4% in ESD). In particular, the ESD incomplete resection rate seems very high. Can the
authors include in their discussion what the incomplete resection rates of small rectal NETs  by
ESD are in other studies (for comparison) ?
3. Table 2: Authors need to mention that CT was used as the method for detection of recurrence/
metastatic disease.
4. The issue of incomplete resection of small rectal NETs is a common problem in clinical
practice. In their discussion, could the authors suggest what should be done in these cases based
on their experience and the published literature. This would be helpful to the readers. What is
their strategy when they receive a patient with incompletely resected small rectal NET, how do
they assess it, what imaging do they arrange, do they resect the scar or simply assess or biopsy
the scar etc. A step-by-step approach of what should be done would be useful.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02365-z (2022)

Title: Prognosis of Incompletely Resected Small Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumor using
Endoscope without Additional Treatment
Version: 2 Date: 16 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
THis is an interesting retrospective study  of follow up of incomplete resection of rectal NET.
It is  relatively large series.
31 cases had incomplete resection and 2 years of follow up with no additional therapy.
77 incomplete resections  in total  were part of the study. I wonder if there were reasons why the
ones that had additional resection were high risk? I dont see a comparison of  all clinical details
of those that had additional surgery to those that did not.?
Follow up was by colonoscopy but it says CT was also done- when was this done and who had
CT. DId anyone have MRI rectum which would be the best way of picking up LN? Why was
the scar not  biopsied in all cases . Surely this is the best way of picking up recurrence?
Proper muscle is not a term I am familiar with - normally this would be muscularis propria??
line 210  is  interesting. The discussion clearly indicates the follow up was  not long enough to
make  firm conclusions on whether the patient is cured, hence presumably follow-up is needed,
as per European guidelines. The conclusion therefore is that recurrence is very low in the first
two years  and that the ideal follow up interval is not known.
The conclusion  in line 210  seems to be  that small G1 rectal NET can be observed without any
additional treatment.  This may well be true  but since we dont really know if late recurrence
is going to occur in these patients, it is difficult to say that no additional therapy is definitely
not of benefit from the data presented.
The ENETS guidelines quoted from 2012  ( ref 13)are not the most recent version
A recent  publication on the topic is not referenced. DOI: 10.1111/codi.15978. O'Neill S.
Colorectal disease 2021, which indicates MRI is necessary.
I am perplexed as to why the large series by Kim 2018 is not referenced..Kim et al. BMC
Gastroenterology (2018) 18:77 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-018-0806-y
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02361-3 (2022)

Title: Title # Clinical-pathological characteristics and prognostic factors for malignant
peritoneal mesothelioma in the elderly
Version: 0 Date: 15 Nov 2021
Reviewer's report:
The  authors  reported the clinicopathological characteristics and prognostic factors for
malignant peritoneal mesothelioma in the elderly from SEER data.
This is an interesting topic and few papers have been published in the international literature
and there si a need for such paper to be published
But the study has limitations and wording to be corrected before  to be accepted for publication.
The major limitations  and revisions that should be taken into account are:
1° in methods the histological classification should be mentionned (which type of
classification?)
What is the exact meaning of unknown how it has been defined.
2° The stage should be defined accordingly to international guideline
3° What is the meaning of differentiated grade. The authors should clarify how they have
evaluated the grade on which criteria?  wich criteria they have used and based their analysis
( paper? WHO classification?)
4° how they defined cancer curative surgery ( extensive or localized or others?)
5° which type of  radiation? combined ? not combined?
6° which type of chemotherapy
6° Could the authors defined the associated  comorbidities?
7° Could the authors clarify the change   of practice and treatment management  during the
period of time analyzed? 1975-2016
The figures could be modified with new histopathological criteria or discussed for a better
understanding and appreciation of the survival curves
Minimal revision
Line 48 epithelioid tissues is not appropriate it is from mesothelial origin
Line  49 SV40 is not considered as a reliable epidemiological factor it is not up to date now
Line 110 patients instead of patents
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02361-3 (2022)

Title: Title # Clinical-pathological characteristics and prognostic factors for malignant
peritoneal mesothelioma in the elderly
Version: 0 Date: 07 Mar 2022
Reviewer:  Mohammad Mohammadianpanah
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
Thank you for your submission.
Comments:
1. has the definitive diagnosis been based on the cell morphology or IHC?
2. How is the stage of the disease defined and determined?
3. The main cause of lower survival rate (such as suboptimal treatments, the association of higher
rate of risk factors, etc ... ) in elderly patients would be highlighted in the conclusion section.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02361-3 (2022)

Title: Title # Clinical-pathological characteristics and prognostic factors for malignant
peritoneal mesothelioma in the elderly
Version: 2 Date: 17 Apr 2022
Reviewer:  Mohammad Mohammadianpanah
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
Thank you for submitting the revised manuscript.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02361-3 (2022)

Title: Title # Clinical-pathological characteristics and prognostic factors for malignant
peritoneal mesothelioma in the elderly
Version: 2 Date: 12 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
The  author and co-authors responded statisfactorily to the comments of the reviewers
For the  items evaluated it should be interesting to explain the  methods of registration of the
SEER data between the different period of time as it is explained in the the esponse letter point
by point by the authors
Moreover could the authors change epithelial in epithelioid line 212,214,229
The sentence line 207-208-209 is confusing.  Could the authors clarify better
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02357-z (2022)

Title: Prevalence and factors associated with fatigue in patients with ulcerative colitis in China:
A cross-sectional study
Version: 1 Date: 05 Feb 2022
Reviewer:  Katsuhisa Ohashi
Reviewer's report:
Fatigue symptoms are difficult to recognize in clinical practice and often underestimated
compared to patient complaints. It is significant to show that patients with ulcerative colitis who
have various disabilities in their daily lives often have complications of fatigue, even when they
are in remission. In addition to the disease status of ulcerative colitis, such as the extent of colitis
and disease activity, psychological factors such as anxiety are also associated with an increased
risk of fatigue, and thus the need for comprehensive care is recognized. The study is statistically
well designed and should be evaluated in a larger number of patients in the future.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02357-z (2022)

Title: Prevalence and factors associated with fatigue in patients with ulcerative colitis in China:
A cross-sectional study
Version: 1 Date: 18 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
This study was a cross-sectional observational study regarding fatigue in Chinese UC patients.
Results showed that many Chinese UC patients was feeling fatigue.
Regarding the risk factors of fatigue, there were some points that were in agreement with past
papers and some that were not. It was a cross-sectional observational study, therefore it was not
possible to evaluate how treatment improved fatigue. Overall, this reviewer feels weakness in
terms of the novelty.
The authors should consider in a little more detail the differences from the results from the
Western countries. Did the differences in social conditions between China and the West affect
results?
In Table 3, R2 coefficient of determination showed that the factors only explained 31.2% of
variance. Please discuss about other possible factors.
Was there any influence of COVID-19?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02305-x (2022)

Title: Risk Factors of Severe Hepatotoxicity Among HIV-1 infected Individuals initiated on
Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy in the Northwest Region of Cameroon
Version: 1 Date: 06 Nov 2021
Reviewer:  Henry D Meriki
Reviewer's report:
Abstract:
- Line 40: Describe demographic characteristics of study participants
- Line 42: exact p-value should be mentioned and all through the manuscript
Methods
- Lines 89-90: Are these the only regimen options available or these are regimen option you
choose to include in your study?
- Line 104-105: Give the ranges of these hepatotoxicities according to the grades (1 – 4), for
example grade 1 (value range)
- Line 110: SEM define at first use
Results
- Table 1 Value in bracket not defined (eg <30years ( 27))
Line 177: State variables controlled for in the analysis
- Line 178:  In the statement "a monthly income of <50,000frs had 0.18 risk of severe
hepatotoxicity" . You meant  a lower or higher risk compared to other groups
- Line 180: It is good to state controlling variables
Discussion
- Lines 207-208: provide a reference for this statement
- Line 235 and 241: Referencing style not uniform
- Lines 250-251: Did your study show this age group consumed alcohol and smoke more than
others? It might be helpful to do such analysis
- Line 253, 267: These are assumptions or add reference backing
- Line 274-276: Low income earners consume more dietary fat than high income earners? The
reverse might be true
Conclusion
- Lines 324-325: What kind of education? Nutrition, alcohol and smoking abstention etc. For
example Nutrition is part of the care package for PLHIV
Limitations
- Lines 335-336: In your methodology you indicated adherence was assessed using self-report
and pill counts, but you did not consider this in your analysis?
- Line 338: You mentioned liver histology could not be performed, however, you have all
necessary serum markers That could be used to assess liver fibrosis (such APRI, FIB-4 etc).
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02305-x (2022)

Title: Risk Factors of Severe Hepatotoxicity Among HIV-1 infected Individuals initiated on
Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy in the Northwest Region of Cameroon
Version: 6 Date: 05 Mar 2022
Reviewer:  Henry D Meriki
Reviewer's report:
All suggested corrections have been addressed and manuscript quality has improved
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02358-y (2022)

Title: Physical activity measured by accelerometry in paediatric and young adult patients with
inflammatory bowel disease
Version: 2 Date: 09 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
firstly, I would like to congratulate the authors for the initiative. Due to the difficulty of
publication, submitting descriptive studies is very courageous. Indeed the manuscript presents
a relevant topic, is well written and points out hypotheses for further research, especially for
the population evaluated. Although the study did not make associations between exposure and
outcomes, the results are quite interesting and in line with the literature. I hope it can serve as a
basis for future research in patients with gastrointestinal disorders.