JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02846-9 (2023)

Title: Changes in liver stiffness values assessed using transient elastography in chronic hepatitis
B patients treated with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate: a prospective observational study
Version: 3 Date: 24 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
Following the author's revisions, the article's content is essentially in a publishable state.
However, there are still a few grammatical errors that need to be corrected. It can be considered
for publication as long as these grammars are correct.
1. In line 6 of page 9, you wrote, “Experienced technicians (>20,000 examinations) used to TE
to measure LS values on the right lobe … ” The use of prepositions here may be inappropriate.
I believe that "used to" should be altered to "used".
2. In line 7 of page 10, you wrote, "Optimal cut-off point..." It appears as though you used the
wrong semicolon in that sentence. Perhaps you should have an English-language expert review
the grammar.
3. In line 12 of page 13, the capital T(herapy) in "TDF Therapy" should be changed to a lowercase
letter.
4. In line 2 of page 16, you wrote, “…, thus, …”. I think you should revise it to “…. Thus, …”
or “ …; thus, ” because you didn’t use a conjunction between the two sentences.
5. In line 23 of page 16, you wrote “… a sole…” In think you should revise it to “… the sole…”.
6. In line 2 of page 17, you wrote “… this study finding…”. I think you should use the possessive
form and revise it to “…this study’s finding…”.
7. In Table 3, the heading “Correlation the difference in LS values at week 96 compared to
baseline at week 96” was unclear. Do you mean “Correlation between the baseline characteristics
and the reduction in LS values at week 96 from baseline” (exactly like this sentence articulated
on page 14, lines 5 and 6)
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02846-9 (2023)

Title: Changes in liver stiffness values assessed using transient elastography in chronic hepatitis
B patients treated with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate: a prospective observational study
Version: 4 Date: 03 Jun 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 satisfactorily responded to each of my 7 queries
raising questions/concerns with the study population, design, results, and reporting, and they
have made appropriate corresponding changes to the manuscript text, tables, and supplementary
content.  My overall impression of the revised manuscript largely remains the same: the study
has been conducted correctly and I view the results as valid in its current form.  However,
the study has ongoing non-modifiable limitations including very small sample size (n=36),
no comparator group and no comparator gold standard for fibrosis assessment and/or clinical
outcomes.  Therefore, the results remain of limited additional value to the literature given
the significant evidence addressing this clinical question that has previously been published.
However, if the focus of the editors is on validity rather than novelty, I view this manuscript as
meeting qualification at this time.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
The key limitations are non-modifiable and the authors have reasonably cited these issues to
provide appropriate context for interpretation.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02848-7 (2023)

Title: Risk of cardiovascular disease in lean patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease
Version: 2 Date: 12 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
Apr 12, 2023                                                                                                                                      BMC
Gastroenterology
Submission ID: 3d4bbf80-1067-45e8-8d18-3dbf5f22a689
Risk of cardiovascular disease in lean patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease
In this manuscript, the authors compared the incidence of CVD in 219 lean Japanese NAFLD
patients with 362 non-lean Japanese NAFLD patients after 3 years follow-up period. They found
that CVD incidence was comparable between the two groups. This paper is well-described, but
some minor revisions seem to be needed before acceptance for publication as stated below.
Comments:
1. As the authors stated, it is well known that many patients with NAFLD are obese and the
proportion of lean NAFLD in this study was higher than in other studies. The authors should
describe more detailed data including conceivable reason.
2. Increased serum level of low-density lipoprotein was not included in the definition criteria of
dyslipidemia in this study. If this criterion is included, are the results amended? Please consider.
3. The prevalence of dyslipidemia, hypertension and diabetes, which are the risk factors of CVD,
were significantly higher in the non-lean NAFLD patients than in the lean NAFLD patients.
However, CVD incidence was comparable between the two groups. The authors should discuss
this discrepant observation.
4. In the future study, it would be interesting if the authors investigate the association between
metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) and CVD incidence using the
same study population.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02848-7 (2023)

Title: Risk of cardiovascular disease in lean patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease
Version: 2 Date: 07 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
This study investigated whether there is a difference in CVD incidence between lean
NAFLD and non-lean NAFLD by cohort survey. Known CVD risks (diabetes, dyslipidemia,
hypertension) were not significant explanatory variables in the multivariable analysis. This
means that the number of cases in this cohort is not sufficient to verify CVD risk. Therefore,
the authors cannot conclude that there is no significant difference in CVD incidence beween
NAFLD and non-lean NAFLD from this cohort study. Nor has it been verified whether lean
NAFLD has a significantly higher CVD incidence than non-NAFLD. If this point was verified,
the significance of the study may have increased.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02848-7 (2023)

Title: Risk of cardiovascular disease in lean patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease
Version: 3 Date: 26 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
The revised manuscript is well amended according to my comments. However, I still don't
understand why the elevated serum level of LDL-cholesterol was not included in the criteria
of dyslipidemia.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02775-7 (2023)

Title: Incidence and Risk factors of Fasting Hyperglycaemia Following First-attack Acute
Pancreatitis Before Discharge: A Retrospective Study
Version: 1 Date: 07 Nov 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor,
The current study entitled “Incidence and Risk factors of Fasting Hyperglycemia Following
First-Attack Acute Pancreatitis: A Retrospective Study” analysed risk factors for developing
fasting hyperglycaemia in 311 individuals with first-attack acute pancreatitis in a single tertiary
centre in China. The authors identified that old age, high CTSI score, serum triglycerides, serum
total cholesterol, hypocalcaemia, and aetiology were associated with fasting hyperglycaemia.
Of these, age # 60 years old and TG # 5.65 mmol/L were independent risk factors for fasting
hyperglycaemia following first-attack acute pancreatitis. This study is interesting. I have the
following comments:
1. How hyperlipidaemia-associated acute pancreatitis was defined? Since TG #5.65mmol/L was
an independent risk factor for fasting hyperglycaemia, but why not hyperlipidaemia aetiology?
2. What are the basic comorbidity status (e.g. fatty liver diseases) of the included patients?
3. The study is poorly written with many of important papers missing in the introduction and
discussion.
For stress hyperglycaemia:
Stress hyperglycemia is independently associated with persistent organ failure in acute
pancreatitis. Dig Dis Sci. 2022 May;67(5):1879-1889.
Impact of admission and early persistent stress hyperglycaemia on clinical outcomes in acute
pancreatitis. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2022 Oct 7;13:998499.
For diabetes following acute pancreatitis:
Incidence of New Onset Diabetes Mellitus Secondary to Acute Pancreatitis: A Systematic
Review and Meta-Analysis. Front Physiol. 2019 May 31;10:637.
Diabetes following acute pancreatitis. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Aug;6(8):668-675.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02775-7 (2023)

Title: Incidence and Risk factors of Fasting Hyperglycaemia Following First-attack Acute
Pancreatitis Before Discharge: A Retrospective Study
Version: 3 Date: 21 Dec 2022
Reviewer's report:
The revised manuscript has improved the overall quality of this study. However, there are still
some minor modifications should be made.
1. Please provide the length of hospital stay data and the timing of the development of fasting
hyperglycaemia during hospitalisation.
2. Please present full names of the abbreviations in the notes of all the figures and tables.
3. The explanations of the tables shown under each table are not required.
4. In Table 1, please exclude the column “N” and indicate the number of patients in the table title.
5. The English of this manuscript requires to be improved.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02775-7 (2023)

Title: Incidence and Risk factors of Fasting Hyperglycaemia Following First-attack Acute
Pancreatitis Before Discharge: A Retrospective Study
Version: 6 Date: 12 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
The quality of the manuscript has improved substantially and the authors have replied to all
concerns in an adequate way.
I think the information about data imputation mentioned in "Response to reviewers" should also
be in methods of the manuscript. Furthermore I would suggest removing table 3 but keeping the
information about the results in the manuscript (line 206-208).
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02837-w (2023)

Title: Clinical significance of reactive thrombocytosis in the course of acute pancreatitis
Version: 0 Date: 09 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
Clinical significance of reactive thrombocytosis in the course of acute pancreatitis titled
manuscript is carefully evaluated. My comments are listed as below.
1. Title: it is concise and relevant
2. Abstract: it is a well written summary of the manuscript
3. introduction: Objectives of the study are clearly mentioned however, background data about
studied parameters is not adequate. Acute pancreatitis is associated with significant amount of
inflammation (Pancreas, 2016, 45.8: 1120-1125.). On the other hand, platelet indices, especially
mean platelet volume have been reported to be related with inflammatory conditions such
as gastrointestinal disorders ( Iranian Journal of Colorectal Research, 2022, 10.3.),  hepatitis
(European journal of gastroenterology & hepatology, 2022, 34.3: 324-327.), frailty (Clinical
Diabetology, 2022, 11.2: 119-126.), hypothyroidism (National Journal of Health Sciences, 2021,
6.1: 7-10.), and coronary conditions (Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia, 2019, 113: 71-76).
Please improve the background
4. Methodology: expressed well. statistics are correct but authors did not mention which
normality test was applied to the study variables.
5. Results:Presentation of the results is adequate
6. Discussion: fairly discussed. Yet, I encourage authors to comment on clinical usage of the
study results even with few words.
7. Conclusions: justified
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02837-w (2023)

Title: Clinical significance of reactive thrombocytosis in the course of acute pancreatitis
Version: 0 Date: 03 Mar 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for giving me an opportunity to review this manuscript.
There are some concerns that need to be addressed regarding this manuscript.
1. When reading this manuscript, thrombocytopenia seems to have more clinical significance as
thrombocytopenia is related to increased risk of renal dysfunction, cardiovascular dysfunction
and mortality compared to thrombocytosis and normal platelet. I think focus of this manuscript
should be on thrombocytopenia rather than thrombocytosis.
2. I think portion of mild pancreatitis is too small to generalize this result into real clinical
practice. As mentioned in Introduction, portion of severe pancreatitis is estimated to be 25% in
real practice. I think more patients should be included for analysis by extending study period.
3. In table 1, patients were divided into mild and severe group. Which definition did you used
for classification, Atlanta or Japanese? Please state this in table 1 and result section.
4. Table 1 classifies severity into mild and severe. However, in table 2, severity is classified into
mild, moderate, and severe, based on Atlanta classification. It is confusing as both Atlanta and
Japanese classification are used. I think classification should be unified.
5. Abbreviation of “LD” was used first in Line 190. However, full term for “LD” is first used
in line 204. Full term should be used in line 190 for “LD”.
6. At line 204, abbreviation of antithrombin was first used as AT. However, antithrombin is used
without abbreviation in line 288. This should be corrected.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02837-w (2023)

Title: Clinical significance of reactive thrombocytosis in the course of acute pancreatitis
Version: 1 Date: 23 Mar 2023
Reviewer's report:
Authors applied several revisions however, most of my comments were not addressed.
unfortunately, it is not acceptable for publication in its current form. Therefore, I recommend
against publication of the manuscript.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02837-w (2023)

Title: Clinical significance of reactive thrombocytosis in the course of acute pancreatitis
Version: 1 Date: 10 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
1. Line 65-66 The authors mentioned “Accordingly, abnormalities of factors involved in
inflammation and disorders of cellular immunity have been reported[7-10].” The authors should
add which disease cause abnormalities of factors involved in inflammation and disorders of
cellular immunity in the sentence.
2. Line 120-121 The authors wrote “when the total prognostic factor score was 3 points or more
or the computed tomography (CT) grade was 2 or more”. I think the sentence is incomplete.
When the total prognostic factor score was 3 points or more or the computed tomography (CT)
grade was 2 or more, what did it defined?
3. Line 145-149 The authors wrote “the thrombocytopenia group was defined as those with
platelet counts of less than 100,000/µL for two or more consecutive days, the thrombocytosis
group as those with platelet counts of 450,000/µL or more, and the normal platelet count group
as the remaining patients.” And in table 2, title is “Comparison of patients with acute pancreatitis
in different platelet count groups at admission”. How was platelet count group exactly defined?
Just looking at title of table 2, groups seem to be divided based on platelet count on admission.
However, line 145-149 states groups were divided based on results of platelet count for two or
more consecutive days. How were the groups divided? Based on platelet count from admission
to two or more consecutive days? Or based on from abnormal result of platelet count to two or
more consecutive days during admission period?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02837-w (2023)

Title: Clinical significance of reactive thrombocytosis in the course of acute pancreatitis
Version: 3 Date: 06 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
Authors adequately revised the paper in accordance with my recommendations. All the flaws
are diminished in the revised version. There are no more issues that require further revision.
Therefore, I recommend publication of the manuscript in its current form.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02845-w (2023)

Title: Effect of Wet-heparinized Suction on The Quality of Mediastinal Solid Tumor Specimens
obtained by Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine-needle Aspiration: a retrospective study from
a single center
Version: 2 Date: 23 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear editor and authors, thank you for giving me the chance to review this paper entitled “Effect
of Wet-heparinized Suction on The Quality of Mediastinal Solid Tumor Specimens obtained
by Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine-needle Aspiration: a retrospective study from a single
center”. I think that some revisions are necessary for the manuscript. I hope that my comments
will be contribute to the revision.
1. What is the condition of wet-heparinized suction application?
2. How did the authors determine the number of puncture (according to ROSE or MOSE)?
3. What is the definition of complete tissue sampling?
4. How many patients were performed antithrombotic treatment?
5. In all tables, the parameter “statistics” (such as x2, or t) is unnecessary, and data of x2 analysis
were described as n (%).
6. (Table 2 and 3) Table 2 and 3 were difficult to understand. I think that Experimental group,
Control group, and P value should be set as the horizontal axis. Can authors combine table 2 and
3, and add the information of the number of punctures at first?
7. Authors cited only wet-heparinized suction papers. There were some papers of EUS-FNA with
Wet-suction technique. These papers should be referred at the first sentence of “Discussion”?
8. From the results of this study, wet-heparinized suction technique should be applied for the
first puncture?
9. In this study, there were not statistical difference in RBC contamination. From the result, it
is thought that heparin is unnecessary and that more tissue samples were collected owing to the
wet-suction technique. Otherwise, are there statistical difference of RBC contamination in the
first puncture?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02845-w (2023)

Title: Effect of Wet-heparinized Suction on The Quality of Mediastinal Solid Tumor Specimens
obtained by Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine-needle Aspiration: a retrospective study from
a single center
Version: 2 Date: 03 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
I would like to congratulate the authors for reporting their novel method with Wet-heparinized
Suction on The Quality of Mediastinal Solid Tumor Specimens obtained by Endoscopic
Ultrasound-guided Fine-needle Aspiration. But I still have two questions for the authors to
answer.
1. In previous reports, wet picture technique can reduce the red blood cell contamination, but
the authors reported no significant difference between the two groups, why?
2. The authors reported that Wet-heparinized Suction can improve specimen quality compared
with traditional puncture techniques, but there is no clinical difference in diagnostic sensitivity
and specificity in the report. So what is the practical clinical significance of this method?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02845-w (2023)

Title: Effect of Wet-heparinized Suction on The Quality of Mediastinal Solid Tumor Specimens
obtained by Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine-needle Aspiration: a retrospective study from
a single center
Version: 4 Date: 26 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for revising the manuscript. Finally, I think that this manuscript will be accepted.
However, I still have a few concerns.
1. How did you choose wet-heparinized suction technique or dry method? Random?
2. Could you add the result of comparison of antithrombotic treatment in Table 1?
3. Could you revise the Table 2 as below?
Experimental group Control group P
Number of punctures, n                                         90                                 90
Successfull specimen, n (%)                53 (58.9)                38 (42.2)           <0.05
Completeness of the tissue, n (%)     49 (54.4)                 30 (33.3)              <0.05
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02845-w (2023)

Title: Effect of Wet-heparinized Suction on The Quality of Mediastinal Solid Tumor Specimens
obtained by Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine-needle Aspiration: a retrospective study from
a single center
Version: 4 Date: 30 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear editor and authors, thank you for giving me the chance to review this paper entitled
"Wet-heparinized Suction on The Quality of Mediastinal Solid Tumor Specimens obtained by
Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine-needle Aspiration".According to the author's revised draft
I approve the author's research results and agree to publish them.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02845-w (2023)

Title: Effect of Wet-heparinized Suction on The Quality of Mediastinal Solid Tumor Specimens
obtained by Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine-needle Aspiration: a retrospective study from
a single center
Version: 5 Date: 03 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for revising the manuscript.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02820-5 (2023)

Title: Construction and validation of a survival prognostic model for stage III hepatocellular
carcinoma: a real-world, multicenter clinical study
Version: 2 Date: 27 Jan 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors, warm regards to you, and thank you for your work on this manuscript. I would
like to offer the following feedback:
General comments: The manuscript needs significant language editing to make it more concise.
There are language errors and phrasing that can be improved.
Materials and methods: I found this section to require some clarification. Validation of the model
is detailed, but the process of selecting the variables for the model is not.
"consistency index," perhaps the authors mean the concordance index (c-index)?
It is not clearly stated how the 'rms', 'foreign' and 'survival' packages were used in R. Perhaps the
"foreign" package was used to read the data? And "rms" used to fit the model?  Please clarify.
How the determination of the optimal cut-off values was determined using Kaplan-Meier is not
clear too.
Discussion: Elements already introduced in the introduction section are repeated in the
discussion section. I think it may be better for this section to focus primarily on explaining the
authors' findings.
*Figure 6 is not clear.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02820-5 (2023)

Title: Construction and validation of a survival prognostic model for stage III hepatocellular
carcinoma: a real-world, multicenter clinical study
Version: 2 Date: 05 Mar 2023
Reviewer's report:
In this study, the author aimed to set up a survival prediction model for patients with TNM stage
# hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), to guide the diagnosis and treatment of HCC patients and
to improve the prognosis. Based on the data of patients with stage # (AJCC 7th TNM stage)
recorded by the American Institute of Cancer Research from 2010 to 2013, the risk factors
affecting the prognosis were screened by Cox univariate and multivariate regression to construct
a line graph, and the credibility of the model was verified by Boostrap method. External survival
data of patients newly diagnosed with stage III hepatocellular carcinoma during 2014-2015 were
then used to verify and fit the model and optimize the model.
They found that age>75 y, stage IIIC, lobotomy, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, positive serum
AFP before treatment were independent prognostic factors for patients with stage # HCC.
The consistency index of the improved prognosis model was 0.725.
They concluded that the traditional TNM staging has certain limitations for clinical diagnosis
and treatment, and the Nomogram model modified by TNM staging has good predictive efficacy
and clinical significance.
The study is of interest, however, several points need details and should be addressed.
-Why the authors used the TNM staging system? Current international guidelines used the most
worldwide used Barcelona Clic Liver Staging System (BCLC) as it is an integrated staging
system taking into account the prognosis of any stages and the corresponding best treatment in
terms of survival gain.  The application of the BCLC staging system would make the study of
current better clinical impact.
- Exclusion criteria: this section should be further detailed.
-The authors should expand the conclusion by suggesting recent perspectives in terms of the
current promising treatment approach based on the immunotherapy-tyrosine kinase inhibitors
combination treatments as recently described and summarized (TKIs in combination with
immunotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2023 Feb 26:1-13.
doi: 10.1080/14737140.2023.2181162).
-The authors need to add a paragraph discussing the impact of etiology in HCC treatments
as recently suggested (Role of Etiology in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients Treated with
Lenvatinib: A Counterfactual Event-Based Mediation Analysis. Cancers (Basel). 2023 Jan
6;15(2):381. doi: 10.3390/cancers15020381) as well as the relevant impact of liver function on
the treatment indications as recently described (The importance of liver functional reserve in
the non-surgical treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol. 2022 May;76(5):1185-1198.
doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2021.11.013.).
-the manuscript would benefit from English proofreading.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02820-5 (2023)

Title: Construction and validation of a survival prognostic model for stage III hepatocellular
carcinoma: a real-world, multicenter clinical study
Version: 3 Date: 05 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
In the revised manuscript, the authors addressed some raised points. However, according
to inclusion/exclusion criteria now provided, it appears that the study is focused only to
hepatocellular carcinoma patients (as also reported in table 1). Since primary liver cancer include
both HCC and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) as well as mixed HCC/ICC, and these
cancers have different management, prognosis and treatments, the authors should change the
manuscript title referring only  to hepatocellular carcinoma and not "primary liver cancer".
Regarding the staging system,  the authors should declare in the introduction the reasons for
using the TNM staging system and  discuss in the discussion the potential impact/differences
of their results in HCC patients  if classified with the Barcelona Clinic Liver Staging System
(BCLC).  In particular, since most patients had underlying cirrhosis, they should discuss the
prognostici impact of chronic liver disease in prognosis and treatment allocation of HCC patients
which is the most significant advantage of the BCLC staging system.
This could improve the clinical impact of the study.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02847-8 (2023)

Title: Triptolide attenuates irritable bowel syndrome via inhibiting ODC1
Version: 2 Date: 04 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
The article reports that triptolide ameliorates IBS in a rat model and explores the initial target of
action as ODC1. The article is somewhat innovative. However, there are the following problems:
1.  In the Animal Model and Treatment section the authors wrote: All the rats were randomly
divided into 3 groups (n = 6 each): the normal group administered via gavage of the same All the
rats were randomly divided into 3 groups (n = 6 each): the normal group administered via gavage
of the same volume of olive oil, the IBS group, and the IBS treated via gavage of triptolide
(100µg/kg/day).
What is the rationale for describing the dose of triptolide as 100µg/kg/day? Is there any literature
that supports its efficacy and safety? Please add the appropriate references if available.
2. The introduction section does not describe how Ornithine Decarboxylase-1 is linked to IBS.
3.  In the results section, the authors should describe whether the modeling method used
successfully induced IBS in rats.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02847-8 (2023)

Title: Triptolide attenuates irritable bowel syndrome via inhibiting ODC1
Version: 2 Date: 14 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
This study aimed to explore whether triptolide can ameliorate chronic acute combined stress
(CAS)-induced IBS in rats and find the underlying action targets responsible for the effects of
triptolide on CAS-induced IBS. However, some issues should be noted.
1. IBS is a chronic disorder of the gut-brain axis, and a functional bowel disease, I think triptolide
is not a potential drug for IBS, especially for IBS patients.
2. The discussion is inappropriate and the shortcomings were not mentioned.
3. The experimental method is not perfect
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02847-8 (2023)

Title: Triptolide attenuates irritable bowel syndrome via inhibiting ODC1
Version: 3 Date: 06 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors responded to the reviewers' suggestions in a targeted manner.
I have no more questions.
As an extra word,  I hope to see the results of the authors' clinical trial of Triptolide for IBS
in the future.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02796-2 (2023)

Title: Risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation before colonoscopy: a retrospective cohort
study
Version: 3 Date: 17 Oct 2022
Reviewer's report:
I would like to thank the authors for this interesting manuscript. The impact of seasons on bowel
preparation is an interesting finding, although limited by the design and short time-period.
Major points:
The validity of the influence of seasons on BP is limited by the single-center status and the fact
only one calendar year has been analyzed. The authors suggest that the lack of physical activity
and the fact people feel colder in spring might result in poorer bowel preparation. I do not think
this reasoning is valid, since this should be even more the case in winter than in spring (which
the results do not show). As a consequence, there are likely unknown confounders that could not
be accounted for, limiting the clinical interpretability of this interesting, but uncertain finding.
Minor points:
Abstract:
1. The conclusion mentions male and inpatient status as independent risk factors. Why are these
not mentioned in the results section of the abstract?
Methods:
1. Were all patients instructed following standard of care? Or were adaptions made to the
instruction for bowel preparation?
2. Why was the bowel preparation rated by a different endoscopist than the one that performed
the procedure? Was this during the procedure? Or based on the photos taken?
3. Is it fair to score patients who did not complete bowel preparation as 0 or should these be
left out of the analysis?
Results:
1. Typing error in the results section “BBSP”
2. Enteritis and miscellaneous diseases is in my opinion not truly a lesion, but a positive finding.
Please rephrase.
3. Do the authors have any information on the results of bowel preparation during the repeat
colonoscopy in case of inadequate bowel prep? Since the repeat colonoscopy is often performed
weeks to months after the first one, these findings might bolster the results on differences
between seasons.
Discussion:
1. The authors suggest that the differences in physical activity might influence the observed
difference in BP between seasons. However, one could suggest that physicial activity might be
lowest in winter instead of spring. Could the authors comment on this?
2. Could there be an influence of a different diet during spring? E.g. less fresh vegetables after
the winter?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02796-2 (2023)

Title: Risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation before colonoscopy: a retrospective cohort
study
Version: 4 Date: 16 Nov 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for your improvements. I have some last comments:
Page 4, Bowel Preparation: the added sentence “And eating…”  should be connected with a
comma with the previous sentence.
Page 9, discussion: “activitues”
Page 9, please remove the sentence “Hence, our research…” . This does not anything to the
previous sentence that already describes the scientific value of the results.
Page 9, discussion: an even more important confounder for the results is the missing information
on dietary status including fiber intake. Although briefly mentioned (fresh vegetables) on the
previous page I feel that this limitation deserves additional clarification. E.g. what do people eat
if there is a lack of fresh vegetables? Is a lack of fresh vegetables  truly a risk factor for high-
fibre diets with as a result, poor BP? I am interested in the authors view on this.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02796-2 (2023)

Title: Risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation before colonoscopy: a retrospective cohort
study
Version: 9 Date: 26 Mar 2023
Reviewer's report:
ABSTRACT
The primary outcome was an adequate bowel preparation defined as all 3 segments rated 2 or 3
on the Boston Bowel Prep scale. Risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation were identified
using multivariate logistic regression analysis.
This was not the primary outcome. The multivariable analysis was your primary analysis. This
was not a prospective analysis of bowel preparation regimens.
It seems to me that it sould read
An adequate bowel preparation was defined as all 3 segments rated 2 or 3 on the Boston Bowel
Prep scale. Risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation were identified using multivariate
logistic regression analysis.
-----------------------------------
METHODS
The primary endpoint was an adequate preparation defined by all 3 BBPS segment scores #
2 [15], the rating is after cleaning maneuvers are performed. The BBPS was rated from 0
(inadequate) to 3 (excellent) for each segment (left, transverse, and right) of the colon.
same comment.
An adequate preparation was defined by all 3 BBPS segment scores # 2 [15], the rating is after
cleaning maneuvers are performed. The BBPS was rated from 0 (inadequate) to 3 (excellent)
for each segment (left, transverse, and right) of the colon.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02809-0 (2023)

Title: Local Resection Versus Radical Resection After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for
Patients with Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: A Propensity-score Matched Cohort Analysis
Version: 2 Date: 15 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
I would like to congratulate the authors on their work. They used a propensity-score matched
cohort analysis study to address the shortage of evidence regarding the safety of the local
resection
approach. Finally, they concluded that local resection can be a management option in selected
patients with middle-low rectal
cancer after nCRT for LARC. However, I do have some concerns that need to be addressed.
1."LR" appears for the first time in Introduction, so the full name of the word should be used.
2.Lymph node metastasis cannot be evaluated after local resection. How do we determine
ypTNM stage?
3.Through the K-M curve of DM, we can see that the result of LR is better than that of radical
resection. It is suggested that the author explain it in the discussion section.
4.The author mentioned in the discussion part that LN positivity rates was  21.4% for ypT2
tumors after receiving nCRT. ycT2 is included in the criteria for LR, In this case, the lymph
node metastasis rate is high, and the prognosis of patients will be relatively poor.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02809-0 (2023)

Title: Local Resection Versus Radical Resection After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for
Patients with Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: A Propensity-score Matched Cohort Analysis
Version: 5 Date: 09 Mar 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thanks to the author's answer and revision, the author has explained my question clearly, and
I don't have any opinions.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02809-0 (2023)

Title: Local Resection Versus Radical Resection After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for
Patients with Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: A Propensity-score Matched Cohort Analysis
Version: 6 Date: 21 Apr 2023
Reviewer:  Guilherme Pagin São Juliao
Reviewer's report:
I disagree with the authors. Removing the patients with ypT3 from the local resection group
is misleading because: a) they had local resection because ypT0-2 was suspected (inherent
limitation of local staging tests); b) completion TME was the following treatment proposed for
these patients, there was no other patients excluded due to subsequent treatment (adjuvant Ct,
salvage TME); c) PSM considered correctly pre-op (ycT staging), not ypT staging; d) there are
ypT3 patients in the radical resection group; e) ypT2 patients that had salvage TME instead of
completion TME were (correctly) not excluded. Even though this is not a randomized trial with
analyses on intention to treat bases, ypT3 can not be an exclusion criteria. The readers need to
have a reliable group to be able to interpret the data, removing the patients at increased risk of
unfavorable outcomes is not fair.
Minors:
1) Abstract. Results:
“After propensity-core matching (PSM), in the Kaplan–Meier curves, local resection (n=52) or
radical resection (n=193) was not significantly associated with 1-, 3-, and 5-year cumulative
incidence of overall survival (OS) (HR=0.785, 95% CI: 0.336~4.239), disease-free survival
(DFS) (HR=1.082, 95% CI: 0.405~2.885), local recurrence (HR=1.623, 95% CI: 0.331~7.961),
and distant metastasis (HR=0.836, 95% CI: 0.242~2.889) (all log-rank P<0.001)”. Is p value
correct?
2) Results; Patients characteristics; 3rd paragraph: “After PSM, Among locally resection
patients, 71.2% (37/52) in ypT1, 7.7% (4/52) in ypT2 and 21.1% (11/52) in ypT3.” Is these
values correct? It does not correspond to Table 2. Please review it.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02840-1 (2023)

Title: Epidemiology, Validation, and Clinical Characteristics of Inflammatory Bowel Disease:
The ABIS birth cohort study
Version: 1 Date: 16 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
This study aims at describing and validating a regional Swedish database for use primarily
in pediatric IBD research. The study is relevant and the methods sound. I only have a few
comments:
1.  The definition of IBD-U (mix of IBD codes) is in my opinion - and based on the literature -
not valid. A more correct description would simply be "undefined IBD" or "UC+CD".
2. A minor point that is unlikely to markedly change the results: Why use Kaplan-Meier
estimates and not cumulative incidences? The Kaplan-Meier approach is for survival analysis
only.
3. In the third paragraph of the discussion section, you refer to a Danish birth cohort study and
mention differences in IBD incidence rates between two age groups with a significant overlap
(< 18 years and 16-25 years). Must be a typo.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02840-1 (2023)

Title: Epidemiology, Validation, and Clinical Characteristics of Inflammatory Bowel Disease:
The ABIS birth cohort study
Version: 3 Date: 30 May 2023
Reviewer:  Rahma Elmahdi
Reviewer's report:
Thanks to authors for their thorough response and revision. This is an interesting manuscript
that will  act as an important refrence paper for the exploration of the changing epidemiology
of IBD in Scandinavia. Well done.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02833-0 (2023)

Title: Clinical characteristics, prognosis, and surgical outcomes of patients with non-HBV and
non-HCV related hepatocellular carcinoma: three-decade observational study
Version: 2 Date: 28 Mar 2023
Reviewer:  Aleksandar Bogdanovic
Reviewer's report:
I was delighted to read the manuscript „Clinical characteristics, prognosis, and surgical outcomes
of patients with NBNC hepatocellular carcinoma: three-decade observational study” by Koya
Yasukawa et all. Authors have evaluated clinical characteristics and surgical outcomes of non-
HBV and non-HCV HCC patients. They conducted a comprehensive analysis of the clinical
characteristics of a large cohort of patients surgically treated for HCC. The present study showed
historical perspectives of NBNC-HCC and differences in surgical outcomes through the long
study time divided into three periods.
This study has shown an increasing prevalence of NBNC-HCC and favors the long-term
prognosis of NBNC-HCC patients after hepatectomy compared to HBV or HCV HCC patients.
Prognostic factors were analyzed using multivariate analysis.
This manuscript is well written. The methodology is appropriate for this kind of research.
Statistical analysis is comprehensive and accurate. Conclusions are fully sustained by the study
results.
I hope that the article would be of interest to journal readers.
Before final acceptance, I would like to clarify a few minor issues:
1. Abbreviation in the Manuscript title NBNC-HCC can confuse the readers and should be
reconsidered
2. Data about HCC incidence at the beginning of the introduction section is from 2012 and
should be updated
3. I guess patients were seronegative immediately before surgery. Were there any patients with
a history of seropositivity to HBV or HCV with seroconversion to the negative status before
HCC was diagnosed? If yes, how did you classify this group of patients
4. Do you perform any alternative method for anatomical area demarcation if dye injection
failed?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02833-0 (2023)

Title: Clinical characteristics, prognosis, and surgical outcomes of patients with non-HBV and
non-HCV related hepatocellular carcinoma: three-decade observational study
Version: 2 Date: 12 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
this paper addresses the prognosis of surgical resection oh HCC in NBNC versus HBV and
HCV. it answers the basic question asked at the beginning . so the subject is well covered.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02833-0 (2023)

Title: Clinical characteristics, prognosis, and surgical outcomes of patients with non-HBV and
non-HCV related hepatocellular carcinoma: three-decade observational study
Version: 5 Date: 30 Apr 2023
Reviewer:  Aleksandar Bogdanovic
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for your revision.
All changes were performed according to the reviewer's suggestions
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02767-7 (2023)

Title: Development of a scoring model based on objective factors to predict gangrenous/
perforated appendicitis
Version: 1 Date: 01 Jan 2023
Reviewer:  Rodrigo Moises De Almeida Leite
Reviewer's report:
The authors are presenting a novel score to predict gangrenous or perforated appendicitis.
The  three variables used in this score ( appendix diameter, C-reactive protein and presence of
appendicoliths ) are easily reproducible and objectively observed, leading to an easy application
of this tool in clinical practice.
A low ( 0 or 1 score ) has presented a high enough sensitivity such as to rule out the presence of
perforation or gangrene. On the opposite, an score of 3 brought about a very high specificity  to
diagnose these two forms of appendicitis complication. Doubt remains about score 2 ( of note
highly prevalent in the study population ), which has added little to no value in predicting or
excluding the main outcome of the event. Other concern is the study population itself, being it a
single center, in specific demographic of Asian patients. Larger studies, preferably prospective
in design, including different populations are needed before widespread use of this tool .
In summary, I recommend the manuscript for publication with the inclusion further discussion
about the above mentioned limitations.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02767-7 (2023)

Title: Development of a scoring model based on objective factors to predict gangrenous/
perforated appendicitis
Version: 1 Date: 01 Feb 2023
Reviewer:  Jun Fujishiro
Reviewer's report:
In this study, the authors developed a prediction model for gangrenous/perforated appendicitis
(GPA). They retrospectively analyzed 151 patients who were diagnosed with acute appendicitis
based on clinical symptoms and CT findings and underwent emergency surgery at their
institution. Objective patient characteristics, clinical preoperative variables, and CT findings
were used for the model development. Only the following objective CT findings were included:
the maximal outer diameter of the appendix (in mm), the presence of appendiceal fecalith, and
the presence of free intraperitoneal #uid.
Their scoring model for predicting GPA included CRP, the maximal outer diameter of the
appendix by CT, and the presence of appendiceal fecalith by CT. ROC analysis for the scoring
model indicated moderate discrimination with an AUC of 0.792 (95% CI, 0.721–0.863).
They concluded that their scoring model using only objective variables can be easily used in
clinical practice in most hospitals and even in difficult settings.
While the methodology of the model development is acceptable, there are the following major
concerns in this manuscript.
1: CT findings used in the study.
The authors used only objective CT findings, namely the maximal outer diameter of the
appendix, the presence of appendiceal fecalith, and the presence of free intraperitoneal #uid,
in the model development. The study did not include other CT findings that are useful for
the discrimination of GPA such as contrast enhancement defect of the appendiceal wall,
extraluminal/intraluminal air, and peri-appendiceal fat stranding. While these CT findings
are not thoroughly objective, most surgeons, radiologists, and other doctors who treat acute
appendicitis can judge these CT findings. Excluding these "not objective" CT findings was not
realistic in clinical settings when a CT scan was examined for patients suspicious of GPA, and
excluding these findings from the model development is not reasonable. The model would be
more predictive with the use of these CT findings.
2: The comparison of the developed model with previously reported ones
The performance of the model developed in the study was not compared with that of the
previously reported models for the discrimination of GPA or complicated appendicitis. The
value of the model or the study will be evaluated with the comparison.
There are the following minor issues in this manuscript.
The main feature of the study, only objective CT findings were used in this model, is not
described in the title and abstract.
Basic clinical practice for acute appendicitis at their institution such as an indication of CT
scan and selection criteria for the treatment (emergency surgery or non-operative management).
These may influence the model in this study. There are apparently more GPA patients (56.3%)
than that is expected in the real world.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02767-7 (2023)

Title: Development of a scoring model based on objective factors to predict gangrenous/
perforated appendicitis
Version: 2 Date: 23 Mar 2023
Reviewer:  Rodrigo Moises De Almeida Leite
Reviewer's report:
The authors have adequately responded to this reviewer comments. I recommend the revised
manuscript for publication.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02834-z (2023)

Title: The predictive value of CD4, CD8, and C - reactive protein in the prognosis
of schistosomal and non-schistosomal colorectal cancer
Version: 0 Date: 13 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
Overall, this is a good study with interesting findings. However, there were many spelling and
grammatical errors throughout the manuscript (highlighted in yellow). According to the journal
instruction, the author should standardise the writing style (UK vs. US). I recommend having
an English proofreading service before considering re-submission.