JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03067-w (2024)

Title: A newly developed deep learning-based system for automatic detection and classification
of small bowel lesions during double-balloon enteroscopy examination
Version: 6 Date: 22 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
I believe your article is almost ready for publication!
Table 2 is become a lot more insightful after revision, the only possible addition would be to
show both averages and standard deviations for the endoscopists, experts and novices, as to
show the variation in their assessments.
Instead of the ENDOANGEL/endoscopist predicted, I would suggest using detected or
diagnosed, since that is more specific in my opinion.
Suggestion for the last sentence in the conclusion:
The CAD system can be trained for the assessment of lesion size and the detection of obscure
small intestinal bleeding. It could also be used to write an automatic report, which will lessen
the administrative workload of endoscopists.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03094-7 (2024)

Title: Advances in the management of gallbladder polyps: Establishment of predictive models
and the rise of gallbladder-preserving polypectomy procedures
Version: 0 Date: 18 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
Authors have summarized the current literature and clinical practices involving the management
of gallbladder polyps and have highlighted the pitfalls in this strategy.
The manuscript is well written.
English is appropriate.
Review of literature is adequate.
Gallbladder preserving surgery for GB polyps are well explained, although I do recommend
adding pictorial diagrams to make it easier for audience to comprehend it. Also, the risk with
these interventions and the financial burden that comes with multi-step interventions needs to
be taken into consideration.
Tests to assess GB function (before or after intervention) have inherent pitfalls and sometimes
do not correlate clinically. Hence, there is need to also improvise or develop new tests to help
assess GB function more precisely which can also correlate with clinical symptoms.
Although cholecystectomy is linked with some future medical problems, none has yet
established a causal relationship.  Also the complications associated with cholecystectomy
have continued to down-trend with increasing expertise. As a result, cholecystectomy is still
considered the best practice in such scenarios. There is need of prospective long term studies to
truly assess the risk of cholecystectomy. Recommend authors to consider expanding on these
aspects in their discussion section.
Discussion on predictive models is suggestive of widespread heterogeneity across the different
models and this emphasizes on the need to design the new models which can overcome existing
pitfalls.
Overall I recommend publishing this article, once authors edit the manuscript as above. This
will incite the readers to understand the current deficiencies and hopefully will encourage new
research in this field.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03094-7 (2024)

Title: Advances in the management of gallbladder polyps: Establishment of predictive models
and the rise of gallbladder-preserving polypectomy procedures
Version: 0 Date: 21 Aug 2023
Reviewer:  Sri Prakash Misra
Reviewer's report:
This paper is a review on the options available for management of gallbladder polyps. The
concern, in the management,  is about the occurrence of malignancy in the polyp; as gallbladder
cancer has a dismal outcome.
The authors have reviewed most studies  using decision making algorithms  as well as minimally
invasive, gallbladder preserving options.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03094-7 (2024)

Title: Advances in the management of gallbladder polyps: Establishment of predictive models
and the rise of gallbladder-preserving polypectomy procedures
Version: 1 Date: 18 Sep 2023
Reviewer:  Sri Prakash Misra
Reviewer's report:
The authors have revised the manuscript and answered satisfactorily to the comments and queries
pointed out.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03094-7 (2024)

Title: Advances in the management of gallbladder polyps: Establishment of predictive models
and the rise of gallbladder-preserving polypectomy procedures
Version: 1 Date: 09 Nov 2023
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?
No - there are major issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
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?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: Dear authors
Thank you for your interesting review.
I would suggest to be more precise and accurate in reporting results about surgical procedures.
Please add detailed data on complications, complications rate of cholecystectomy and
cholecystitis-sparing procedures. This is mandatory for a clinical review.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Please see my comments above."
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03094-7 (2024)

Title: Advances in the management of gallbladder polyps: Establishment of predictive models
and the rise of gallbladder-preserving polypectomy procedures
Version: 2 Date: 15 Nov 2023
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: thanks for the imporvements made.
I would add also detailed data on complications after cholecystectomy (very low rate!) and some
considerations about the comparison between the two techniques
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03094-7 (2024)

Title: Advances in the management of gallbladder polyps: Establishment of predictive models
and the rise of gallbladder-preserving polypectomy procedures
Version: 3 Date: 01 Dec 2023
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: Thanks for the improvements made.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03084-9 (2024)

Title: Development and validation of a clinical prediction model for the risk of distal metastasis
in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a real-world study
Version: 1 Date: 30 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
1. This retrospective study  had divided 345  CCA patients into two groups, in which there
were only 21 cases of distal metastases, and 324 cases were non-distal metastases, groupings
may have a large statistical bias. please explain the rationale for such a grouping. Adjusting the
proportions of the two groups would better avoid statistical bias.
2. How to validate the model established by the study? Please validate the model with additional
data.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03084-9 (2024)

Title: Development and validation of a clinical prediction model for the risk of distal metastasis
in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a real-world study
Version: 1 Date: 06 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thanks for the invitation, the study is a clinical predictive modeling study that collected clinical
data on cholangiocarcinoma to construct the risk of distal metastasis in the prediction period,
but the article currently has more problems that need to be revised:
1. In the introduction section authors should provide more background information about
cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) to help readers better understand the background and significance
of the study.
2. it is recommended that statistics on the incidence of CCA worldwide be included to provide
a baseline for the reader to better understand the relevance and significance of the study.
3. more detailed information about the patients in the study could be provided in the
methodology, especially information about the age, stage and grading of the tumors, an
explanation of how the patients were selected to participate in the study, including how they
were recruited, and the criteria used to define inclusion and exclusion from the study.
4. it is recommended to explain the methods of selection and validation of the statistical
prediction models used in the study, and to describe the specific software used for data analysis
and model creation and how it was used. The following two articles may help you: #. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s12072-022-10354-3   #.DOI 10.3389/fendo.2023.1153802
5 The authors should include a discussion explaining the limitations of the study and how these
limitations may affect the generalizability of the findings.
6. a more detailed description of the clinical implications of the study is recommended, including
how the results can be translated into better patient prognosis in clinical practice, an explanation
of how the predictive model can be used for clinical decision making, and examples of how it
can be applied in practice.
7. more discussion of how the predictive model compares to other available methods of distal
metastasis prediction.
8. could illustrate how the nomogram can be applied in a clinical setting, including how it can
be easily integrated into existing clinical workflows.
9. further discussion of how nomograms can be improved in future studies is recommended,
especially in the context of new technological advances and evolving clinical standards.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03097-4 (2024)

Title: Identification of changes in bile composition in pancreaticobiliary reflux based on liquid
chromatography/mass spectrometry metabolomics
Version: 1 Date: 01 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for giving me an opportunity to review this article. The non-targeted metabolomic
analysis of bile in PBR patients was very interesting. However, I have concerns about this study.
There are two main problems, one concerning the diagnostic criteria for PBR and the other a
logical jump.
Comments
#1
The authors used normal plasma amylase levels as a reference, and bile amylase levels higher
than the normal plasma amylase levels as indicative of PBR. However, I have a concern about
the diagnostic criteria for PBR. The status of pancreatic juice reflux in patients with PBR is
still unclear. For example, whether the reflux of pancreatic juice is persistent or transient, and
whether there is a difference in the amount of reflux flow compared to the pancreaticobiliary
maljunction. Thus, the authors' diagnostic criteria for PBR appear to be inadequate. At the very
least, the serum amylase levels and bile amylase values of the present patients should be clearly
stated. It would need to be clearly stated in the text rather than in the supplemental data.
#2
To what extent were the bile amylase levels elevated in the PBR group? Were there any cutoff
values of the bile amylase level for diagnosis of PBR?
#3
Was there any intraoperative cholangiography or other means to confirm the phenomenon of
PBR?
#4
The authors attempted to explore the mechanism of PBR by the non-targeted metabolomic
analysis of bile in patients with PBR. In addition, the authors aimed to explore the mechanism
of gallstone formation in patients with PBR in the present study. However, the results of this
study only revealed differences in bile metabolites between the PBR and control groups. It is
not possible to draw the above conclusions from these results.
The above conclusion can only be drawn by calculating and comparing the percentages of
patients without gallstones and those with gallstones in the PBR patients and healthy subjects,
respectively.
#5
Is it possible that true pancreaticobiliary maljunction has been included? Although the authors
excluded the pancreaticobiliary maljunction in this study, I wonder if the preoperative imaging
studies were performed correctly.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03097-4 (2024)

Title: Identification of changes in bile composition in pancreaticobiliary reflux based on liquid
chromatography/mass spectrometry metabolomics
Version: 1 Date: 03 Oct 2023
Reviewer:  Rajani Sharma
Reviewer's report:
The authors have well explained the relation between metabolomics and gallstone formation.
However, this is well established that gallbladder mobility is a major factor for gallstone
formation. Authors have related this fact indirectly with the existing evidence.
Scientifically the manuscript is in acceptable format with minor correction. The work lack recent
references in the discussion section which can relate the treatment process with difference in
metabolomics. As just studying the factor for gallstone formation do not direct the treatment
process.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03097-4 (2024)

Title: Identification of changes in bile composition in pancreaticobiliary reflux based on liquid
chromatography/mass spectrometry metabolomics
Version: 3 Date: 14 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
There is no response to the review comment and the text has not been properly corrected. I am
attaching my review comment again. The authors had to prepare "point-by-point response" to
the following comments.
Thank you for giving me an opportunity to review this article. The non-targeted metabolomic
analysis of bile in PBR patients was very interesting. However, I have concerns about this study.
There are two main problems, one concerning the diagnostic criteria for PBR and the other a
logical jump.
Comments
#1
The authors used normal plasma amylase levels as a reference, and bile amylase levels higher
than the normal plasma amylase levels as indicative of PBR. However, I have a concern about
the diagnostic criteria for PBR. The status of pancreatic juice reflux in patients with PBR is
still unclear. For example, whether the reflux of pancreatic juice is persistent or transient, and
whether there is a difference in the amount of reflux flow compared to the pancreaticobiliary
maljunction. Thus, the authors' diagnostic criteria for PBR appear to be inadequate. At the very
least, the serum amylase levels and bile amylase values of the present patients should be clearly
stated. It would need to be clearly stated in the text rather than in the supplemental data.
#2
To what extent were the bile amylase levels elevated in the PBR group? Were there any cutoff
values of the bile amylase level for diagnosis of PBR?
#3
Was there any intraoperative cholangiography or other means to confirm the phenomenon of
PBR?
#4
The authors attempted to explore the mechanism of PBR by the non-targeted metabolomic
analysis of bile in patients with PBR. In addition, the authors aimed to explore the mechanism
of gallstone formation in patients with PBR in the present study. However, the results of this
study only revealed differences in bile metabolites between the PBR and control groups. It is
not possible to draw the above conclusions from these results.
The above conclusion can only be drawn by calculating and comparing the percentages of
patients without gallstones and those with gallstones in the PBR patients and healthy subjects,
respectively.
#5
Is it possible that true pancreaticobiliary maljunction has been included? Although the authors
excluded the pancreaticobiliary maljunction in this study, I wonder if the preoperative imaging
studies were performed correctly.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03096-5 (2024)

Title: Bile ductal mucosal dysplasia is a possible risk factor for adenocarcinoma in patients with
adenomyomatous hyperplasia of the Vaterian System: a single-centre study from China
Version: 1 Date: 29 Sep 2023
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)?
No - there are major issues
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are major issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
No - there are major 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?
No - there are major issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: This is an interesting manuscript reporting a very rare condition but
there are limitations that need to be addressed.  1) the abstract needs to mention the country
and region, the Methods of the abstract nee to include the number of patients and how they
were recruited as well as the list of variables and the values of the incidence and P value need
to be mentioned in the Results of the abstract. 2) in the Methods section, how is this called
incidence?  What is the denominator?  It sounds like a percentage not an incidence?  3) In end
of the Discussion section, future directions should be highlighted in much more detail.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
See the detailed comments above.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
No.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03096-5 (2024)

Title: Bile ductal mucosal dysplasia is a possible risk factor for adenocarcinoma in patients with
adenomyomatous hyperplasia of the Vaterian System: a single-centre study from China
Version: 3 Date: 20 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
We thank the authors for their overall effort in revising the paper. We have also checked and
accepted each of the authors' overall responses. However, we recommend that the authors should
mention in the  or  section that they did not perform ERCP, EUS, and IDUS including  biopsy
before surgery.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03096-5 (2024)

Title: Bile ductal mucosal dysplasia is a possible risk factor for adenocarcinoma in patients with
adenomyomatous hyperplasia of the Vaterian System: a single-centre study from China
Version: 3 Date: 21 Oct 2023
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?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors responded well to the comments raised by the reviewers.
Two minor comments need to be considered before publication: 1) Inclusion of the country in the
title and revising "may be" to "a possible risk factor for".  2) Also, in the end of the Conclusion,
the authors need to mention that the larger-scale studies could be from multi-center studies in
multiple medical centers.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Yes, see above.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03077-8 (2024)

Title: A retrospective cohort study on oesophageal food bolus obstruction in the North Denmark
Region in 2021 - two thirds were never diagnosed with a cause
Version: 2 Date: 13 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
This study by Terkelsen et al aims at investigating causes and treatment of food bowel
obstruction (FBO), adherence to clinical guidelines, and usage of diagnostic codes to capture
hospital visits for FBO.  The authors conclude that the causes of FBO were rarely found and that
adherence to clinical guidelines recommending gastroscopy was low. Comments to consider:
1. Suggest that the authors consult STROBE guidelines to strengthen the structure of the
manuscript.
2. It is unclear from the introduction which gap in the existing evidence this study aims
at addressing. Why is this study relevant for an international audience? What may be new
knowledge here?
3. The study is limited by the fact that it is purely descriptive and only represents a few hospitals.
This fact underlines the need for the authors to provide a very strong reason why this study
belongs in an international journal.
4. The method section is unclear. Again, the authors should consult STROBE guidelines. For
instance, the design of the study is not mentioned, but is pivotal for the understanding. The
authors have conducted a cross-sectional (also called prevalence) study including both new and
prevalent FBO cases. It is very important to distinguish prevalent from incident FBO cases, but
the authors only do that to a limited extent. All analysis should be stratified by prevalent and
incident FBO cases.
5. The identification of patients by using ICD-10 and procedure codes is not completely
clear. Did the authors use registry data to identify patients? Did they use discharge or referral
codes? Did they only identify patients with acute admission or patients admitted at specific
departments? How many hospital are included? What is meant by “filtered using selected
ICD-10 codes…”? And what is meant by “…and codes for enteroscopy, colonoscopy and
sigmoidoscopy applied were excluded”? Does it mean that cases with relevant ICD-10 codes in
combination with these procedure codes were excluded?
6. The manuscript would be improved substantially by including validation of codes to capture
FBO. The authors mention a combination of codes that would capture the majority of FBO
cases, but do not mention if this combination of codes also capture irrelevant cases. Ideally, the
combination of codes would be tested in a different setting for validation.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03077-8 (2024)

Title: A retrospective cohort study on oesophageal food bolus obstruction in the North Denmark
Region in 2021 - two thirds were never diagnosed with a cause
Version: 2 Date: 07 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
This is a clinically relevant paper on an important topic – What happens with patients who
experience food bolus obstruction in their oesophagus (FBO)?
The authors’ main aim of the study is to evaluate adherence to the Danish recommendation of
an upper GI endoscopy within two weeks with endoscopic biopsies. In clinical practice benign
disorders dominate the underlying cause of FBO, but in the majority of the patients, no diagnosis
is found. Benign esophageal diseases in turn, with or without FBO, usually develop over several
years before they are properly diagnosed. Therefore, endoscopy within two weeks after FBO
may be  recommendable, but according to the authors, mainly recommended to find or rule out
underlying malignant oesophageal  or gastric disease.
1. There is little written in the discussion about the importance to find underlying malignant
disease, the obvious real cause of recommendations of endoscopy at latest two weeks after FBO.
2. The authors have put a lot of effort in drawing nice and easily read graphs on their results.
One can for example see that overall 20.7 % of the patients never had an endoscopy (fig 1a).
An important question is what happened to this group? Were they already taken care of and
diagnosed with benign or malignant disorders? Please clarify why no information was given
on this important group, and even better include more profound information on later diagnoses
given to these patients.
3. Fig 2 says that 5.3 % of the patients sooner or later had a malignant cause of FBO.
How is this group related to the group mentioned above who never had an endoscopy?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03077-8 (2024)

Title: A retrospective cohort study on oesophageal food bolus obstruction in the North Denmark
Region in 2021 - two thirds were never diagnosed with a cause
Version: 2 Date: 06 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
This publication has high potential on high impact not only on Denmark region but also on
European guidelines and countries. I ll support this publication.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03040-7 (2024)

Title: The important role of whole-process Computed Tomography guidance for percutaneous
gastrostomy in esophageal cancer patients who are unsuitable for or have had unsuccessful
attempts with endoscopic and fluoroscopic gastrostomy
Version: 1 Date: 23 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
This is indeed a very interesting study, in which authors have performed research on a very
important topic of nutrition, in patients with specific esophageal problems.  Technically it seems
to be a good procedure, as it is minimally invasive and a good option of feeding patients in
whom either PEG or PFG has failed.
The technique of gastrostomy tube insertion is well explained. However there are some details
which are missing.
The section on materials and methods requires clarification. Only in the discussion it is
mentioned that it was retrospective. It  should have mentioned in materials and methods. How
did the authors collect the data? Was it through hospital computerized  records? Or did they
make phone calls to the patient's family? In that situation there might have been some details
or complications that could have been missed. The author mentions that  all patients  did not
need general anesthesia. Did some need? It is ambiguous and must be cleared which form of
anesthesia, whether local or general was used.
The most common complication after gastrostomy  is usually pain, patient discomfort and
infection. It's surprising that no one was given pre-procedure antibiotics. Authors opinion that
repeated puncture of the liver can occur without any hazard, is alarming. Not every patient can
have repeated puncture without any catastrophic results. Claims such as that should be backed
by some data. Did the patients in this present study have multiple liver punctures? If so, how
many in average and were there any complications or not.
Furthermore, authors have anticipated that massive hemorrhage in the stomach can occur. Were
patients observed for that? Which patients are at risk of it? If it were to occur, how  could that
be identified and tackled. It is important to assess before recommending the procedure. Do the
patients require any follow up after this procedure. How frequent and what should be evaluated
on follow up?  Moreover, was it effective in feeding?
It's basically a study in which only frequencies are addressed.
The discussion needs to be rewritten, as there are many repetitions of the results and meaningful
discussion about the literature is missing. A more detailed comparison between different already
established techniques of gastrostomy, would make it more interesting and informative.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03040-7 (2024)

Title: The important role of whole-process Computed Tomography guidance for percutaneous
gastrostomy in esophageal cancer patients who are unsuitable for or have had unsuccessful
attempts with endoscopic and fluoroscopic gastrostomy
Version: 1 Date: 14 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
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 overall impression is good. The authors belong to tertiary
care teaching hospitals looking after severely ill advanced cases of esophageal cancers with
complications of obstruction, fistula and cardiac comorbidities in which its common to find
contraindications and failed attempted at gold standard PEG placement or fluoroscopic feeding
tube placements. They have reported their nearly a decade experience from two hospitals
although retrospectively but has shown safety, effectiveness and feasibility of this important
alternative technique with low complication rate .The objective, study design, execution, and
interpretation seems reasonable and may need minor corrections.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
The language of the presentation needs improvement and professional editing service or person
whose first language is English may be able to help.
Few minor suggestions are as follows:
Suggested title- The whole process computed tomography guided percutaneous gastrostomy-
an important role in patients unsuitable or attempted endoscopy and fluoroscopy in esophageal
cancer
Consent for publication: All of the 32 patients has signed in the informed consent form.
Keywords: Esophageal cancer; dysphagia; feeding tube placement; interventional radiological
procedure, refractory; percutaneous gastrostomy, whole process CT guided.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03040-7 (2024)

Title: The important role of whole-process Computed Tomography guidance for percutaneous
gastrostomy in esophageal cancer patients who are unsuitable for or have had unsuccessful
attempts with endoscopic and fluoroscopic gastrostomy
Version: 3 Date: 01 Oct 2023
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 responded adequately by point to point response
to the questions and concerns in the comments. They have made appropriate chnages in the
manuscript and overall impression of revised manuscript is very good and can be accepted
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
None
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03040-7 (2024)

Title: The important role of whole-process Computed Tomography guidance for percutaneous
gastrostomy in esophageal cancer patients who are unsuitable for or have had unsuccessful
attempts with endoscopic and fluoroscopic gastrostomy
Version: 3 Date: 05 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
This is indeed a very good and novel study and you have done a good job in clarification of
ambiguities.  I still have an objection, which I hope you can explain or correct. In the discussion,
you have mentioned "In our study, one patient underwent 21G anterior lobe needle puncture
into the stomach cavity behind the left lobe of the liver", what does that mean? Anterior lobe
needle puncture of what into the stomach cavity? Did that involve liver puncture?
In addition, I would still disagree,  where you are suggesting the liver puncture through and
through to access stomach, even if that is with 21 gauged needle.  Unfortunately, he reference
that  has been put for it, is of a liver biopsy with 21 gauged needle. That is totally different,
because liver is highly vascular and in patient with advanced  malignancy, there is many a
times an element of low grade DIC. Where in case of liver biopsy, there still is surrounding
liver parenchyma to exert pressure and stop bleeding, this is not effective in through and
through puncture and can result in catastrophic bleeding. I suggest either you should remove this
dangerous suggestion, or provide an adequate reference where it has been demonstrated to be
safe, rather than assumption without any solid safety proof. Patient's death have occurred even
with liver biopsy only as well. So, there should be a concrete justification before suggesting this
to the medical community.
Regards.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03040-7 (2024)

Title: The important role of whole-process Computed Tomography guidance for percutaneous
gastrostomy in esophageal cancer patients who are unsuitable for or have had unsuccessful
attempts with endoscopic and fluoroscopic gastrostomy
Version: 4 Date: 06 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
It is indeed a  good study and authors have addressed the issues requiring clarification.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03101-x (2024)

Title: Celiac Disease Symptom Profiles and their Relationship to Gluten-free Diet Adherence,
Mental Health, and Quality of Life
Version: 2 Date: 23 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
In the paper entitled “Celiac Disease Symptom Profiles and their Relationship to Gluten-free
Diet Adherence, Mental Health, and Quality of Life”, the authors performed a cross-sectional
analysis to elucidate patterns of persistent symptoms and the relationship between those patterns
and gluten-free diet adherence, psychiatric symptoms, and various aspects of quality of life
(QOL) in an online sample of adults with celiac disease.
It is an interesting topic. However, the reviewer believes that the work has several limitations.
The main limitations are:
- the introduction is too long and difficult to read. I would suggest making it shorter, focusing
on the paper's main aim.
- the authors listed 4 aims. I would suggest focusing on one primary aim and a maximum of
two secondary aims
- As the authors reported in the limitations session, the study selected participants who reported a
diagnosis of celiac disease by biopsy, serology, or genetic testing. To reduce the false diagnoses,
the reviewer would suggest performing an analysis limited to patients with biopsy-proven
diagnoses.   
- The self-reported comorbidities could be affected by a high percentage of false diagnoses.
The results show that only 37% of the CD population on  GFD has little to no symptoms and
excellent subjective health
-Almost half of the patients reported suffering from mental health conditions, which could
influence the perception of other diseases.
- I would suggest reporting the main characteristics of the 4 profiles in a table.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03101-x (2024)

Title: Celiac Disease Symptom Profiles and their Relationship to Gluten-free Diet Adherence,
Mental Health, and Quality of Life
Version: 2 Date: 29 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript addresses a very relevant and  current topic: quality of life and celiac disease still
needs of a great amount of research. Even though the paper is very well written and structured,
I would like to make some comments:
1. I am not sure if we should talk about quality of life (QoL) or Health Related Quality of
Life. Quality of life is probably a wider term which includes incomes, social support, work
conditions... I leave it to authors´consideration.
2. I would include a brief description of iCureCeliac research network for those unfamiliar with
that registry (year of creation, number of records, requirements for registration,  information
held...)
3. Despite figure 1,  I miss a table describing each profile or additional information in figure 1
note. It is hard to keep in mind the differences among the profiles.
4. Were participants asked for time in GFD? Should we assume that time since diagnosis is the
same that time in GFD?
5. Were voluntary and unnoticed transgressions explored/controlled somehow?
6. The study gathers a lot of information I miss a deeper analysis regarding CDQoL (even though
no differences among profiles were found) and its relation with the cut-off point (If I'm not
mistaken a score of 63.07 is below the cut-off point that indicates good quality of life and that
should be addressed.
7. I also miss a deeper analysis for CDAT results. Have you found differences among low/
moderate/good adherence groups in Quality of life or any other variable. I am aware that this
information may fall beyond the objectives of this study but I encourage the authors to include
this analysis (and the one in comment 7)  either here o in another paper in the future.
8. As it is commented in the limitations section, CDAT may be insufficient to address adherence.
An interview with an expert dietitian or the use of GIP's would help to control transgressions
and assure adherence.  I understand this is not possible due to methodology selected but it could
be taken into consideration in future research to confirm the profiles found.
To sum up,  I consider this manuscript relevant and suitable for publication although I would like
to see a deeper analysis on the issues commented to enable comparison with previous research.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03059-w (2024)

Title: ARID1A Deficiency Promotes Progression and Potentiates Therapeutic Antitumour
Immunity in Hepatitis B virus-related Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Version: 3 Date: 03 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
1. Whether the HCC patients included in this study are HBsAg positive patients, and whether
the patients with ARID1A Deficiency are patients with Hepatitis B-associated liver cancer#
2. Whether this study can only consider HBsAg positive patients in the selection of patients
included in the public database. The reason is that HBsAg clearance is the standard of clinical
cure of hepatitis B.
3. Whether the icon fonts of some charts should be adjusted to the same size fonts.
4. Regarding the selection of cell lines, could the researchers consider choosing hepatitis B
related cell lines, such as Huh7 and HepG2 2.2.15? Among them, Huh7 can be used only after
transfection with hepatitis B related plasmid.
5. English expression may need to be polished by professional personnel.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03059-w (2024)

Title: ARID1A Deficiency Promotes Progression and Potentiates Therapeutic Antitumour
Immunity in Hepatitis B virus-related Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Version: 3 Date: 19 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
Xing et al used bioinformatics and basic experiments to reveal that ARID1A deficiency was
correlated with more active immune signatures and higher expression of immune checkpoints
in HBV-HCC. Meantime, ARID1A Deficiency Promotes Progression of HCC. This manuscript
has the following issues.
1, The results of colony formation in Figure 2F are not significant, please repeat these
experiments.
2, The Statistical charts lack Horizontal braces under asterisk.
3, Please make Statistical charts about the relationship between ARID1A and immune signatures
in Figure 4.
4, Please discuss the reasons about Inconsistent results in different cell lines in Figure 5b and c.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03059-w (2024)

Title: ARID1A Deficiency Promotes Progression and Potentiates Therapeutic Antitumour
Immunity in Hepatitis B virus-related Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Version: 5 Date: 02 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
The author have addressed and revised all issues and it is now acceptable.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03075-w (2023)

Title: LUM as a novel prognostic marker and its correlation with immune infiltration in gastric
cancer: a study based on immunohistochemical analysis and bioinformatics
Version: 1 Date: 19 Oct 2023
Reviewer:  Kun Fang
Reviewer's report:
The author has used the single-gene online database to its limit. There is almost no bioinformatics
analysis data mining part of its own, and the innovation must be quite satisfactory. Perhaps
the only bright spot is the IHC verification of 40 pathological tissue sections. Of course, when
screening differential genes, A small part of R language data mining is used, but it belongs to the
discussion of bioinformation mining a few years ago. Overall, it feels like this article is relatively
bland and not very innovative. It is recommended to increase bioinformatics in-depth mining; it
is recommended to increase single-gene in vitro phenotypic function experiments to clarify the
potential regulatory value of LUM on cancer.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03075-w (2023)

Title: LUM as a novel prognostic marker and its correlation with immune infiltration in gastric
cancer: a study based on immunohistochemical analysis and bioinformatics
Version: 1 Date: 03 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors explored the LUM as a novel prognostic marker in gastric cancer using a series of
bioinformatics methods. And then validated LUM protein expression using IHC. The manuscript
gave a detailed in-depth analysis for LUM in gastric cancer. It is interesting. However, still, I
have some questions.
1. The criteria was set as |log2FC| > 1 (FC = fold change) and a P-value < 0.05, in fact, the
adjusted p values should be used in filtering DEGs for microarray or RNA seq data.
2. I suggest the authors to predict the functions of LUM in gastric cancer, using GSEA or GSVA
to samples dividing by the expression level of LUM.
3. The authors demonstrated that there were significant associations between LUM and the
immune cell infiltration especially macrophage. As I know, there were other genes played the
similar functions in GC. The authors should discuss the possible mechanisms for LUM to affect
the GC progress by promoting macrophage or other immune cells infiltration.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03078-7 (2023)

Title: Long-Term Safety of Brazikumab in the Open-Label Period of a Randomized Phase 2a
Study of Patients With Crohn’s Disease
Version: 2 Date: 07 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
Overall, manuscript is well written and presents the data well.
Below are some comments for consideration of the editor and authors.
1) Abstract/Results: Regarding "TEAEs led to brazikumab discontinuation in 12 (11.5%)
patients."
Please specify also % discontinued due to lack of response  to brazikumab (14.4%), which was
the highest % among total (45.2%).
2) Statistical Analysis: Regarding " Per protocol, patients with a clinically meaningful increase
in corticosteroid dose were also considered nonresponders."
What was the increase in CS dose, and was it predefined or based on clinical judgment?
3)Baseline Demographics and Clinical Characteristics:
Specify mean CDAI at baseline
4)TEAEs in the Open-Label Period: Regarding "The total numbers of SAEs were similar
between treatment groups (12 in the placebo/brazikumab group and 16 in the brazikumab/
brazikumab group). "
Can you specify the source in Table 1?
Also recommend to specify TEAEs of # grade 3 severity. (# of subjects in each group).
5) Abstract/Results: Regarding using "Serious TEAEs" did the authors mean SAEs? Please
clarify. Also "There were 5 serious TEAEs of infection, none of which were opportunistic. "
seems to be SAEs according to text.
6) Efficacy: Specify group order and add Table/Figure if possible .
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03078-7 (2023)

Title: Long-Term Safety of Brazikumab in the Open-Label Period of a Randomized Phase 2a
Study of Patients With Crohn’s Disease
Version: 2 Date: 13 Nov 2023
Reviewer:  Nikolas Dussias
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript regards the long-term safety and tolerability of brazikumab in patients wtih
moderate to severe Crohn's disease over a 100 week follow-up period. The study involves a
cohort of patients who completed a 12-week double-blind induction period and transitioned
to an open-label phase. The manuscript is comprehensive, covering patient demographics,
methodology, treatment safety, pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity, and clinical efficacy.  The
focus on treatment-emergent adverse events, infections, and serious adverse events is pertinent.
The results are presented in an organized  manner, and comparison of safety data with other
IL-23 inhibitors adds value. In conclusion, in this manuscript the authors provide important
information regarding long-term safety aspects of brazikumab.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03078-7 (2023)

Title: Long-Term Safety of Brazikumab in the Open-Label Period of a Randomized Phase 2a
Study of Patients With Crohn’s Disease
Version: 2 Date: 13 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for submitting your paper to this journal.
The usefulness of IL-23 antibody preparations for Crohn's disease has been experienced in
clinical practice, and we believe that it took a lot of effort to compose the paper to discuss the
long-term results of Burakizumab.
Evaluate the discussed safety profile comparison with other IL-23 antibody preparations.
So, your paper is judged to be worthy of acceptance.