JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03136-8 (2024)

Title: A Review of 17 Cases of Mesenteric Panniculitis in Zhengzhou Ninth People's Hospital
in China
Version: 3 Date: 07 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
In this article, Wang et al. have carried out a small but useful survey to get an idea of the
characteristics of MP, which is a rare condition.
While this study is interesting for its novelty, there are several points that need to be addressed.
Major points
1. As this study has a small number of cases, more detailed information needs to be presented
for each case.
- Firstly, were symptoms such as abdominal pain considered to be a symptom of the MP itself
and not due to other factors such as gallstones?
- The authors state that six patients were treated with antimicrobials and one with antimicrobials
and PSLs, but what was the course of treatment in the other cases? If nine cases are spontaneous,
what happens to the remaining one out of 17?
- In each case, were the cholecystitis, gallstones or malignancy noted together treated?
-p.4 line76 – p.5 line78 and Table 1 should be listed in the result section, so I suggest that it
should be listed in the result section, with amendments based on the above content as well.
Minor points
1. (p.4 line 62) Do 'abdominal trauma' and 'trauma' mean different things?
2. (p.4 line 70) Authors mention that they searched for "MP", but did you not search for other
search terms such as "mesenteric panniculitis"? What is the reason for?
3. (p.4 line 75) Authors exclude patients with acute pancreatitis despite stating in the introductory
section that it is associated with MP, does this not fall under limitation?
4. With regard to Figure 1, it would be desirable to indicate the findings on the image with
arrows to make it easier to understand.
5. This study found that MP was more common in women, but what could be the reasons for
this different result from previous epidemiology?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03136-8 (2024)

Title: A Review of 17 Cases of Mesenteric Panniculitis in Zhengzhou Ninth People's Hospital
in China
Version: 5 Date: 25 Oct 2023
Reviewer:  Eli D. Ehrenpreis
Reviewer's report:
Please remove this part of the discussion. This information is controversial and has not been
fully assessed.  For example, sometimes MP is found incidentally and has essentially no
symptoms. Treating a patient like this with an immunosuppressant medication is incorrect,
although observation and followup are warranted.
"A multidisciplinary discussion is needed. If MP is not diagnosed timely, worst outcomes
and even death may occur in patients with acute abdominal complications such as intestinal
perforation, ischemia or obstruction[5, 30, 48-52].".
I would add a statement here such as "Because of the close association of mesenteric panniculitis
with malignancy, an initial evaluation that includes appropriate testing to rule out malignancies
is a critical part of patient care.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03129-7 (2024)

Title: Targeted metabolomics reveals plasma short-chain fatty acids are associated with
metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease
Version: 0 Date: 24 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
The work conducted by Thing et. al. sought to investigate the role of short chain fatty acids
(SCFA), gut microbiota-derived metabolites, in metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver
disease (MASLD). While the novelty of the study is not adequately justified, however, it is
particularly interesting to understand the role of SCFA in MASLD based on the study of the
disease at different stages of progression.
Minor concerns
1. In the introduction section, be sure to describe the different fibrosis stages (F0-F4) as this
information are missing in the manuscript.
2. The authors are advised to include the full quality control assessment measures in the
supplementary.
3. In the abstract, the technique is gas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry.  You omitted
the "gas", please spell this out.
4. Again, in the abstract, how did the authors arrive at a total of 100 patients with MASLD   from
the 51 with type 2 diabetes, 51 with mild/no fibrosis and 49 significant fibrosis. This is confusing
and needs to be properly clarified.
5. In the later part of the introduction section, the authors mentioned lower SCFAs levels in
MASLD cirrhosis and higher levels in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and cirrhosis. The
authors need to properly summarize the literature to avoid the contradictory reporting in the case
of Cirrhosis.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03129-7 (2024)

Title: Targeted metabolomics reveals plasma short-chain fatty acids are associated with
metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease
Version: 0 Date: 28 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
Research on how gut dysbiosis results in metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease
(MASLD) is important to understanding liver disease formation.  Thing et al. have demonstrated
that plasma short-chain fatty acids levels are altered in patients with MASLD compared to
healthy individuals.  The authors do a good job of statistical analysis of their data to support
their conclusions.  However, there are a few needed revisions to their paper:
1. Was the length of fasting controlled?  The paper suggests at least 4 hours of fasting was
used prior to collection of blood samples.  Short-chain fatty acid levels will be altered with the
length of fasting as discussed by Mousavi et al. (2022) Effects of Ramadan and non-Ramadan
intermittent fasting on gut microbiome. Front Nutr. 9:860575 (PMID 35392284).  If fasting was
just at least 4 hours, determine whether the length of fasting is a confounding factor.  Some
mention of whether fasting influenced the results should be addressed in the paper.
2. Was any diet prior to the blood collection controlled?  There was no mention whether the diet
was controlled.  Some mention of whether diet prior to blood collection influenced the SCFA
levels should be addressed in the paper.
3. Was medications controlled or evaluated for their effect on the study results?  For example,
if patients or controls used antibiotics, laxatives, proton-pump inhibitors, or metformin, these
influence gut microbiome composition and function.  See paper by Weersma, Zhernakova and
Fu, Interactions between drugs and the gut microbiome.  Gut 69:1510-1519, 2020.  Some
mention of whether medication consumption influenced the results should be addressed in the
paper.
4. Was recent consumption of prebiotics or probiotics controlled prior to blood collection.  This
also should be addressed in the paper.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03129-7 (2024)

Title: Targeted metabolomics reveals plasma short-chain fatty acids are associated with
metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease
Version: 3 Date: 31 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed all concerns about the length of fasting, medication, prior diet, and
probiotic influences on the results.  I have no additional comments for the authors to address.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03137-7 (2024)

Title: Peptic ulcer characteristics in oral opium and non-opium user patients with upper
gastrointestinal bleeding
Version: 1 Date: 16 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript by Mohsen Masoodi et al aimed to examine Peptic ulcer characteristics in
oral opium and non-opium user patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding. The manuscript
contains new results. However, I have some serious concerns on several issues.
Major point
#Authors conclude that multiple, large peptic ulcers in GIB are potential complications of oral
opium use. In oral opium user, opium is used for medical use or for non-medical use? Moreover,
to clarify this conclusion, the detail data about opium (such as type, concentration, duration,
quantity and frequency…) is required.
#The ratio of woman in group 1(oral opium use) is larger than group 2(non- oral opium use),
and the mean age of group 1(oral opium use) may be younger than group 2(non- oral opium
use). Authors should discuss about the possibility that this difference influences a conclusion.
#Authors showed that esophageal ulcers were more common in group 1 (30%) than in group 2
(8%). Authors should show the endoscopic image and detail data of esophageal ulcer (such as
location(upper, middle, lower), type(reflux esophagitis?, ulcer) and size).
Minor point
#Authors should show the definition of oral opium use (inquiry and?/or? urine test?).
#Authors should add the more detail information of patient’s characteristics (Table 1) (such
as BMI, alcohol, smoking, comorbidities, opium (type, concentration, duration, quantity and
frequency)..) and should show the data of significant test (p-value) between group 1 and group 2.
#Discussion is too long for a result.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03137-7 (2024)

Title: Peptic ulcer characteristics in oral opium and non-opium user patients with upper
gastrointestinal bleeding
Version: 1 Date: 30 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
This article is very interesting because UGIB is a frequent medical issue resulting in high medical
care costs and morbidity, and this data could aid the needed modifications in the treatment
protocol for opium users (gastroprotection!).
Patient follow-up, investigation of treatment response and impact of opium use on the treatment
regimens of UGIB patients are very important.
If authors include these data, the paper will be even more interesting.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03137-7 (2024)

Title: Peptic ulcer characteristics in oral opium and non-opium user patients with upper
gastrointestinal bleeding
Version: 3 Date: 06 Dec 2023
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
The text has been much improved  The figures included in the text from tables should be
followed be p values. In Table 2 apart from in total calculation of p values it should be useful
to calculate figures in each raw. Moreover erosive gastritis should be given separately from H.
pylori status, before the size of ulcers. Also H. pylori size is important to be given separately for
gastroduodenal ulcers were it is significant Authors should explain why they have not reseaved
biopsies from gastric ulcers At least they should include a comment in limitations It would be
interesting also to know if biopsies were available in esophageal ulcers to exclude viral infection
and allergic background.  Finally they should try to connect bibliographic references to their
findings For instant their comment on esophageal motility and GERD should be connected with
the increase in esophageal, mainly GEJ lessions
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03137-7 (2024)

Title: Peptic ulcer characteristics in oral opium and non-opium user patients with upper
gastrointestinal bleeding
Version: 3 Date: 03 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript by Mohsen Masoodi et al contains new results.
After revision, the paper is significantly improved and more interesting for publication.
Endoscopy,  patient’s characteristics and opium use (type, concentration, duration, quantity and
frequency) are better defined.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03137-7 (2024)

Title: Peptic ulcer characteristics in oral opium and non-opium user patients with upper
gastrointestinal bleeding
Version: 4 Date: 15 Jan 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript is almost OK. It could be approved after minor changes, such as movement of the
second sentence of the first paragraph in the  statistics ( about sample size ), as well correction of
some gramatical points such as replacing the word wound with ulcer in the place biopssies were
taken to exlude malignancy, change the word pregnant with pregnancy in methods  Moreover
the quality of pictures is poor for which I am not sure wether that is a problem of my computer.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03131-z (2024)

Title: Washed microbiota transplantation improves symptoms and intestinal barrier function in
patients with functional bowel disorders: A propensity-score matching analysis
Version: 0 Date: 17 Sep 2023
Reviewer:  Magdy El-Salhy
Reviewer's report:
This is a well designed study. The manuscript  is well written and the results are interesting. I
have no further comments seller suggestions.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03131-z (2024)

Title: Washed microbiota transplantation improves symptoms and intestinal barrier function in
patients with functional bowel disorders: A propensity-score matching analysis
Version: 0 Date: 14 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
The topic of this manuscript si always interesting.
However, the writing has several issues to be explained and addressed:
- why using Functional GI disorders nomenclature and not DGBI ?
- what are the bias of the retrospective and, most of all, of propensity analysis ? matcheing perfect
pairs has several drawbacks. This has deeply conditioned the harmony of results.
- D-lactate prognostic value is not so strong, and ahas been calculated at univariate analysis.
This is an important bias, also.
- The numbers of patients enrolled are little;
- English revision is needed.
- Figures and tables are OK but Methodology arises several concerns.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03131-z (2024)

Title: Washed microbiota transplantation improves symptoms and intestinal barrier function in
patients with functional bowel disorders: A propensity-score matching analysis
Version: 3 Date: 02 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript has been significantly improved.
One concern, point 2 has to be inserted in the discussions ection as limit of the study.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03135-9 (2024)

Title: Predictive factors for esophageal stenosis in patients receiving prophylactic steroid
therapy after endoscopic submucosal dissection for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma
Version: 1 Date: 20 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
1#Results and Table 2 are inconsistent.
2#The results in the abstract are identical to those in the main text. The abstract should highlight
key findings.
3#The use of hormones may be influenced by factors such as lesion size, depth, and treatment
history. Physicians may use these factors to make decisions on prophylactic hormone use.
Consequently, hormone usage may be related to these factors. It's understandable that lesions
that require prophylactic hormone use are generally larger and deeper, or they may have pre-
existing treatment history resulting in submucosal fibrosis. Therefore, the clinical significance
of this study is limited. In summary, this article does not offer significant novelty compared to
previous studies on esophageal stenosis.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03135-9 (2024)

Title: Predictive factors for esophageal stenosis in patients receiving prophylactic steroid
therapy after endoscopic submucosal dissection for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma
Version: 1 Date: 31 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
I appreciate the opportunity for peer review on this article. The authors analyzed predictors of
esophageal stenosis in patients receiving prophylactic steroids after ESD and concluded that
total circumferential resection and a history of CRT were risk factors. However, in order to
accept the article, we would like to make the following comments.
Major
1. Although this is a retrospective study, as the authors mentioned in the limitation section, we
believe that different treatment strategies for steroid administration will have different effects
on stenosis. This may affect the number of EBD and thus the reliability of the data obtained in
this study. We believe that it is better to select cases for analysis in which the treatment strategy
(i.e., oral and local injection steroid use) was the same.
2. The fact that circumferential resection is a risk factor for causing refractory stenosis has been
reported in several studies and is not a new finding. We would like to know the reasons why
some patients have been successfully treated with circumferential resection without stenosis.
Minor
1. The method is described in the results section and the description method should be organized.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03135-9 (2024)

Title: Predictive factors for esophageal stenosis in patients receiving prophylactic steroid
therapy after endoscopic submucosal dissection for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma
Version: 3 Date: 13 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript has been well revised. The authors have responded appropriately to the
reviewers' comments.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03123-z (2024)

Title: Development of a gastric cancer risk calculator for questionnaire-based surveillance of
Iranian dyspeptic patients
Version: 1 Date: 28 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?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: My overall impression of the revised manuscript is that it can be
published after a Minor Revision. I have specified my recommendations and some changes to
be made below. The authors have done well in implementing research and presenting very good
quality figures. The authors need to improve some aspects of the manuscript after considering
the following comments.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
It is my pleasure to review the manuscript authored by Gohari and colleagues. Overall, the
paper was well-written, and the narrative flow smooth and enticing. The study design was well
thought out and seems rigorously implemented. I have identified the following issues for further
improvement:
1. Add these two references and discuss the similarities and differences between your study and
the published research.
Zhu, X., Lv, J., Zhu, M. et al. Development, validation, and evaluation of a risk assessment tool
for personalized screening of gastric cancer in Chinese populations. BMC Med 21, 159 (2023).
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-023-02864-0
Trinh, T.T.K., Lee, K., Oh, JK. et al. Cluster of lifestyle risk factors for stomach cancer and
screening behaviors among Korean adults. Sci Rep 13, 17503 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41598-023-44470-3
2. This developed risk calculator is more culture and ethnic group-specific. Therefore,
generalizability to other populations may not be possible. I would invite the authors to clarify
this point in their abstracts and conclusions. Currently, the manuscript is written so that full
generalizability is possible.
3. Was barbecued food not highlighted in your questionnaires?
4. Mixed use of British and American English, e.g., aetiology and etiology."
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03127-9 (2024)

Title: Association between weight-adjusted-waist index and gallstones: an analysis of the
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
Version: 1 Date: 19 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
Thank you so much for the work you have done to analyze and prepare the study.
I have some review feedback for your consideration as outlined below.
The authors wrote as follows
“Those participants with missing WWI data will be excluded (n = 1174)”
Comment
This should be past tense because the study was already completed.
The authors wrote as follows
“The outcome variable was the occurance of gallstone”
Comment
The word “occurance” should be “occurrence”
The following sentence may require some modification for clarity and spelling revision.
“The outcome variable was the occurance of gallstone. To assess gallbladder stones,
questionnaires were used, including: “Has a doctor or other health professional ever told you
that you had gallstone?” “
In the covariates, analysis, and results subsections, the following are the review feedback for
your consideration.
Under the covariates subsection, the authors may consider describing each of the categories
within the text for the categorical variables presented in the tables of results, such as in Table 1.
For example, what are the cut-off thresholds used to determine lower, higher and unclear coffee
consumption? The thresholds used in the categorization of the variables of coffee consumption:
total energy, total sugar, total fat, total water, and total fiber. The description of variable
categories is recommended in the STROBE guidelines, and describing these categories will
enable replication of the study by other authors in future studies.
In Table 3, Tertiles 1, 2, and 3 are presented, but the readers will not know the cuff-off for these
tertiles.
In addition, in Table 4 for the categories of “Stratified by sedentary time (min)”, low, middle, and
high categories are provided, but these are not described in the manuscript or in the table. This
Future article readers may not know whether the above-mentioned variables were originally
collected as continuous data during data collection by NHANES, or whether the data were
originally categorized in the current study.
In addition, in case there is a methodology article published by NHANES or by other authors
that specifically describes the variables, the authors of the current study may consider citing
that paper in the methodology section where the authors of the current study mentioned the
NHANES website.
Regarding marital status variable, are the married and cohabitating classified together as
“cohabitation” during the data collection? If yes, this should be included in the variable
description, and if not, the authors may consider describing the categorization in this study.
For the variables that have categories of “Unclear” in the table of results, were the data originally
classified as “unclear” during data collection or is this a derived classification for this study?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03127-9 (2024)

Title: Association between weight-adjusted-waist index and gallstones: an analysis of the
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
Version: 1 Date: 27 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors investigated the association between weight-adjusted waist index and gallstone
disease. I have a major concern about the assessment of the outcome variable - gallstone
disease. The authors used self-reported gallstones and this could lead to biased results since most
gallstones are clinically silent. I also have comments below:
I would suggest a language check for this manuscript. There are minor grammar mistakes.
Title. The authors may consider indicating the use of NHANES data in the title.
Introduction. The authors wrote “gallbladder stone disease”. Do you mean gallbladder disease or
gallstone disease? Again, the authors mentioned “gallbladder stones” several times. “Gallstones”
is commonly used instead of “gallbladder stones”. Please check the manuscript thoroughly.
Methods. Covariates. How did the authors confirm the diagnosis of hypertension and diabetes?
Was it from questionnaires?
Methods. The authors should clearly indicate how these covariates were adjusted. For example,
marital status “ married, single, separated, widowed, and divorced”.
Results. The authors called Model 3 a “fully corrected model”. This is rarely used in academic
contexts.
Discussion. The authors didn’t mention the bias related to the use of a self-reported outcome
variable. Most gallstones are clinically silent, which means that it’s possible to misclassify
individuals with or without gallstones. This could lead to biased results.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03127-9 (2024)

Title: Association between weight-adjusted-waist index and gallstones: an analysis of the
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
Version: 3 Date: 15 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
Thank you so much for the great work you have done in preparing the revised version.
Below are a few reviews for your consideration.
Under the legend for Fig 2, the authors wrote,
“Figure 2 Density dose-response relationship between WWI with gallstone prevalence. 95%
confidence interval (Cl) is displayed for the region between the upper and lower dashed lines.
All covariates were adjusted.”
Comment
The authors may consider revising “All covariates were adjusted.” as “Adjusting for all
covariates” for clarity.
Under Table 1 legend, the authors wrote,
“Mean ± SD for continuous variables: P value was calculated by weighted linear regression
model.
% for categorical variables: P value was calculated by weighted chi-square test.
PIR, income-to-poverty ratio; WWI, weight-adjusted-waist index.”
Comment
The authors may consider adding the frequency counts alongside the percentages for categorical
variables, e.g. n (%) instead of only (%).
Under covariates subsection, the authors wrote,
“Dietary data were transformed into categorical variables, with the 50th percentile of the sample
size as the cut-off threshold, dividing them into “low” and “high” categories. Missing data in
the covariates were categorized as “unclear”.”
Comment
Why did the authors prefer median thresholds instead of tertiles or other approaches?
Under statistical analysis subsection, the authors wrote,
“We converted the variable “sedentary time” into a categorical variable, dividing it into three
groups based on sample size.”
Comment
Why did the authors prefer thresholds based on sample size instead of tertiles or other
approaches?
Generally, why are some variables dichotomized based on the 50th percentile while others have
3 or 4 categories?
Under the results’ subsection, the authors wrote,
“WWI was 11.56 (10.80, 12.32) in the group of participants with gallstones, compared to 11.07
(10.21, 11.93) in the group without gallstones.”
Comment
The authors may consider presenting the statistical significance here.
Under the results subsection, the authors wrote,
“Table 2 shows the association between WWI and gallstones prevalence. In the unadjusted
model, a higher WWI was connected with increased prevalence of gallstones (OR = 1.98, 95%
CI:1.81–2.17).”
Comment
The word “connected” may not be the best to express the intended message. The authors May
consider using the expression "related to" or "linked to" or “associated with” or any other
expression.
Under discussion, the authors wrote,
“Meanwhile, there was no significant dependence of gender, diabetes, sedentary activity, or
hypertension on the correlation, suggesting that higher levels of WWI may contribute to a higher
gallstones incidence”
Comment
The authors may consider cross-checking the expression “gallstones incidence” to confirm
whether that is the intended expression.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03018-5 (2024)

Title: The Mode of Delivery Does Not Influence the Severity of Post-Partum Perianal Disease
in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Version: 3 Date: 10 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
This is a nicely written retrospective cohort study, including all consecutive female patients with
IBD who delivered either vaginally or by C-section between 1997-2022. The goal of the study
was to analyze if the mode of delivery impacted post-partum peri-anal disease in patients with
IBD. The authors concluded that previous abdominal surgery for IBD, ileocolonic involvement,
previous perianal disease, quiescent or active perianal disease at time of delivery or antibiotics
increased the risk of a perianal post-partum flare. The number of post-partum flares was higher
in the C-section group.
Major comments:
• Please clarify how do you distinguish between inactive perianal disease and quiescent. And
also, why do you consider quiescente or active perianal disease in the same group? Shouldn’t
it be separated?
• 6% of the patients experienced a postpartum perianal disease flare within 2 years after delivery.
Can you comment on how many patients had the disease flare in the first 6 weeks after delivery?
Can you comment if the risk is higher near the post-partum or after some months?
• Patients exposed to biologics had an increased risk of perianal disease flare. Do you have any
information regarding if these patients stopped biologics during pregnancy? If yes for how long?
• Antibiotics were associated with increased risk of post-partum flare. Which antibiotics were
these? Related to IBD or partum related? When were theses antibiotics prescribed?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03018-5 (2024)

Title: The Mode of Delivery Does Not Influence the Severity of Post-Partum Perianal Disease
in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Version: 3 Date: 16 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
A very well written article, providing much needed data mining on an important topic in IBD,
and further aiding the evidence and data available to help inform patient counselling.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03018-5 (2024)

Title: The Mode of Delivery Does Not Influence the Severity of Post-Partum Perianal Disease
in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Version: 3 Date: 17 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
congratulations to the authors on a very relevant topic that has been done well. I have certain
comments to make
1. it is noted that all the cases of perianal flare were in Crohn's patients but have not been
highlighted by authors adequately. it would be interesting to know the association of flare with
behavior of CD.
2. Was any data on biologics or immunomodulator de-escalation available? can any analysis be
added relating to drug de-escalation, as it may cause flare postpartum.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03133-x (2024)

Title: Incidence and Risk of Remnant Gastric Cancer after Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A
Population-Based Study from the SEER Database
Version: 0 Date: 26 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
Your manuscript was organized to show that Incidence and Risk of Remnant Gastric Cancer after
Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Population-Based Study from the SEER Database.however
it's not enough to be accepted to this journal.
Major revise
1
The author indicates marital status /low income as a risk for developing Remnant Gastric Cancer
after Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer
The author explains that they are more likely to higher risk to develop GC in discussion, but the
author should be more specific comments.
2.
We believe it is important to consider the surgical technique. 59.2% of the authors described the
technique Others. Authors should provide a detailed description of the surgical technique.
3.
Please describe the causes of the low incidence of H. pylori in US. What can you say about the
association with H. pylori infection?
Minor revise
1.
The authors should state the method of reconstruction.
2.
Are you including ESD cases whose initial treatment is ESD in this study?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03133-x (2024)

Title: Incidence and Risk of Remnant Gastric Cancer after Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A
Population-Based Study from the SEER Database
Version: 0 Date: 21 Dec 2023
Reviewer:  Akira Umemura
Reviewer's report:
The authors have demonstrated that the cumulative incidence of RGCs was 1.88% at 20
years after GC gastrectomy in the U.S. population. In addition,  multivariate analyses also
demonstrated that older age, male sex, marital status, lower income, and invasion depth are
independent risk factors for RGC development. These results are informative for readers
involved in GC treatments. There are some suggestions requiring revision.
1. Please make a table of  discussion in Line 207-221. Provided table can also visualize and
emphasize your results.
2.   Line 240-245, de novo GC in male is relatively leap of logic, this phenomenon can not be
explained by this mechanism.  For examples, marital status, lower income and smoking habit
are related to social problems of lost surveillance in these patients.
3. You have to mention about H. pylori infection in RGC patients citing prior publications more
in detail.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03133-x (2024)

Title: Incidence and Risk of Remnant Gastric Cancer after Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A
Population-Based Study from the SEER Database
Version: 2 Date: 11 Jan 2024
Reviewer:  Akira Umemura
Reviewer's report:
The authors have revised their manuscript along with reviewers' suggestions. Congratulation for
your great effort.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03118-2 (2024)

Title: Identification of a vascular invasion-related signature based on lncRNA pairs for
predicting prognosis in hepatocellular carcinoma
Version: 2 Date: 03 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
We can't download any Figures associated with this manuscript. The manuscript cannot be
reviewed due to the lack of Figures. We had to reject the manuscript.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03118-2 (2024)

Title: Identification of a vascular invasion-related signature based on lncRNA pairs for
predicting prognosis in hepatocellular carcinoma
Version: 5 Date: 14 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
In this article, authors present the concept of “DElncRNA pairs”, which is special, but we have
some questions about this concept.
1. The expression of a single gene is a continuous variable, which has different levels. Do your
DElncRNA pairs mask a lot of information by using only 0 and 1 to represent the expression of
lncRNA? Is this a common usage and has it been used in other literature?
2. In Suppl Table 4, 14 lncRNAs were identified as DElncRNAs associatied with prognosis
and all of these 14 DElncRNAs were upregulated. But the gene pairs formed between them are
protective factors for prognosis, such as AC048341.2|LENG8-AS1, AC048341.2|GIHCG. How
do you explain this result and do you think it is reasonable?
3. How are the immune components of C1-C6 identified. This needs to be explained in the
Materials and methods.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03118-2 (2024)

Title: Identification of a vascular invasion-related signature based on lncRNA pairs for
predicting prognosis in hepatocellular carcinoma
Version: 5 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?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Not sure - key details are missing from the manuscript
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Not sure - I am not able to assess the statistics in this study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The current revision is labeled as R1, but it’s actually an R0
manuscript. Both previous revisors were unable to properly revise the manuscript since figures
were not uploaded. Thus, in synthesis, this is the first revision of the proposed study.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The study proposed by Zhao and co-authors sounds interesting and particular relevant. However,
The English language requires a critical and massive revision (starting from a sentence like
“According to the progress in transcriptome sequencing during the past ten years#we can
know that more than 70% of the genome is transcribed and the vast majority of them encodes
lncRNAs” and followings). The correct evaluation and understanding of the scientific approach
here described would be fully possible only after language polish and revision. Several parts of
the Results are quite confusing and misleading to the reader.
The authors keep referring to vasculature signature. However, such terminology is quite
aspecific and unclear in the context. Please revise and re-phrase sentences in the Introduction.
The approach summarized as “A 5 vascular invasion-related lncRNA pairs signature” is unclear
and misleading. Please revise it.
In the Introduction we can read: HCC “lacks appropriate treatment” as well as “progress has
been made in therapy”. The two statements are quite contradictory. Please re-phrase it.
The second paragraph on lncRNA would benefit from a small introduction, a bridge between the
HCC intro and lncRNA description. The third paragraph (Increasing evidence…) may actually
work if revised properly.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Patient and Public Involvement paragraph in the M&M section contains no information and
should be deleted
Human (patient’s) samples have been analyzed. How is possible that no ethical consent was
required or acquired?"
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03118-2 (2024)

Title: Identification of a vascular invasion-related signature based on lncRNA pairs for
predicting prognosis in hepatocellular carcinoma
Version: 7 Date: 22 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: The revised version significantly improved and I am quite satisfied
with the scientific description. The manuscript can be considered for publication. We would only
recommend to check for the typing. we found a lot of double space or missing space between
words.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02989-9 (2024)

Title: Clinicopathological and molecular characteristics of colorectal adenosquamous
carcinoma in an Asian population
Version: 2 Date: 06 Jul 2023
Reviewer:  Hideto Sonoda
Reviewer's report:
This submitted article is the first report of CASC in an Asian population.
Furthermore, unlike previous reports, this report is novel in it that they analyzed the molecular
characteristics (KRAS, BRAF, and PIK3CA mutations, and the status of MMR). This is very
interesting but the number of patients analyzed in this study is too small. This report is
inappropriate as an original article and should be published as a case report.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02989-9 (2024)

Title: Clinicopathological and molecular characteristics of colorectal adenosquamous
carcinoma in an Asian population
Version: 2 Date: 31 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
In this article, the authors reported the clinicopathological and molecular characteristics of
colorectal adenosquamouscarcinoma (CASC) in Asian populations. This study revealed that
patients with CASC had a higher rate of dMMR and KRAS mutaions, which was interesting
findings. However, there are several problems as below.
1. As the authors mentioned in the manuscript, the number of patients is very small. Clinical
characteristics and prognosis of CASC has already been described in prior database-based
studies which include a large number of cases. If the authors would like to discuss the clinical
characteristics and prognosis of CASC in Asian populations, the authors should perform multi-
center study with large sample size in Asian region.
2. Although the authors mentioned MMR, HER2, Ki67, KRAS, BRAF, and PIK3CA status of
the patients with CASC, Data on molecular characteristics of CASC are not sufficient. Since
this is a small sample size study, investigating molecular characteristics in more detail may yield
interesting findings. For example, analyzing comprehensive genomic profiles, expressional
status of the ligand of immune checkpoint molecules, tumor microenvironment including tumor
infiltrating immune cells, and so on.
3. If the authors would like to mention the feasibility of targeted therapies including
immunotherapy against SACS, the clinical course, especially treatment response, of the patients
treated with molecular targeted agents or immunotherapy should be described in detail. Although
the authors reported a higher rate of dMMR and KRAS mutations in the patients with CASC,
no findings suggesting the feasibility or efficacy of molecular targeted therapies against CASC
were mentioned in the RESULTS section.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02989-9 (2024)

Title: Clinicopathological and molecular characteristics of colorectal adenosquamous
carcinoma in an Asian population
Version: 5 Date: 03 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for your comments. I think the following points need to be corrected:
Major Comments
1. Generally, the right and left colons are divided by the splenic flexure. In addition, Yokoi et al.
In total, 56.4% (40/71) of tumors were located in the right-sided colon of the cecum, ascending
colon, and transverse colon. On the other hand, in this study, 7 cases (63.6%), including Multi,
were on the left side. Because some papers have different conclusions, it is necessary to discuss
this difference in the discussion.
2. In general, MSI-H/dMMR metastatic colorectal cancer is reported to predominantly occur
in the right-sided colon and is a poor prognostic factor (Gut 2012;61:847-854). In this study, 3
cases (27.7%) had dMMR, but it is not clear from Fig. 6 and Table 1 whether these 3 cases were
right-sided or left-sided colon. We asked you to change Fig. 6 to make it clearer, but it is still very
difficult to understand this figure, so we recommend that it be written as a table. Please include
age, sex, survival time, primary site, genetic mutations, and other information to make it easier
to understand. In this case, it would be better to put the table after (27.3%) on line 183 of p. 8.
Minor Comments
In Fig. 1, the median age was 53 years (50-59), but in Fig. 6, it was 22-73 years. Please check.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03113-7 (2024)

Title: 18 F-FDG PET/CT metabolic parameters may have predictive value for relapse of type
1 autoimmune pancreatitis
Version: 1 Date: 13 Oct 2023
Reviewer:  Ameya D Puranik
Reviewer's report:
Its a novel concept to assess and prognosticate patients with AIP using FDG PET/CT. The
sample size if good. Metabolic parameters which have been evaluated are what are used in
clinical practice.
Moreover, the results are clinically relevant and would promote the use of FDG PET in cases
where pancreatitis is suspected or diagnosed for further prognostication.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03113-7 (2024)

Title: 18 F-FDG PET/CT metabolic parameters may have predictive value for relapse of type
1 autoimmune pancreatitis
Version: 1 Date: 11 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
A. Methods
a) Study subjects
1. This retrospective study analyzed patients not receiving maintenance steroid therapy or
had received maintenance therapy? As the exclusion criterias included patients not recieving
maintenance therapy, but the abstract method section stated that the aim of the current study is
to analyzed 51 patients who received 18F-FDG PET/CT prior to treatment and "did not receive
maintenance therapy after remission". The aim of the current study is not quite clear based on
the wording. Please clarify.
2. Please provide the  Institutional Review Board approval number for this retrospective study.
b) Followup
1. Why is relapse based on liver abnormalities only? (3rd sentence)
2. Please specify the duration and dosage of steroid used in this cohort, including initial induction
phase and maintenance phase.
3. Did these patients received additional therpy aside from steroid? i.e. immuonodulators etc.
4. Why are these patients discontinued glucocorticoids therapy? because of relapse?
c) Image analysis
1. Why both SUVmax threshold, 40% and 42% , were evaluated?
B. Results
1. Please provide a table showing all the  Univariable and multivariable analyses of the
association with relapse free survival.
B. Discussion
Fourth paragraph: "Our results suggest that AIP, which has a high tendency for recurrence, may
have a wider and denser range of inflammation; therefore, 18F-FDG metabolic and volumetric
parameters (TLG) may be larger, and the FDG uptake value of a single voxel (SUVmax and
SUVR) may be higher. However, the specific mechanism of action remains to be elucidated."
is not ambiguous, and not clear.
Others:
1. Please use the terms "relapsed group" and "non-relapsed group"  rather than relapse and non-
relapse group.
2. Table 1
a) what does "lose weight"mean?
b) as stated in the method section, only subjects with FDG PET done before treatment were
included in the current analysis, but this statement is contradictory to the heading of "initial
treatment" presented in the Table 1, whereas may patients had received immunotherapy and
steroid therapy?
3. Table 2
the authors mentioned in the manuscript that lymph nodes were also evaluated, but the
information was not presented in the current table.
4. Please provide two figure examples of FDG PET/CT  showing patient who relapsed and one
didn't.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03113-7 (2024)

Title: 18 F-FDG PET/CT metabolic parameters may have predictive value for relapse of type
1 autoimmune pancreatitis
Version: 4 Date: 11 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for submitting the revision.
Despite the improvements made, further clarifications are still required.
A. Methods
a) Study subjects: do you mean not receiving maintenance therapy after remission, rather than
not receiving maintenance at all (i.e. after initial steroid induction phase)? as this statment of
not receiving maintenance therpy is contradictory to Results section p.7 line 188-191. Please
revise accordingly.
B. Results section
a). p. 6 line 181: please change "The median recurrence time of the relapsed group" to "The
median time to recurrence...."
b) What is the time between PET to initiation of steroid therapy  of the entire cohort? Please
add the information to the results section.
C. Tables
a) Table 3: for better reporting the ORs, please provide reference category for each parameter
in the table (an example can be found at the following link:  https://kjronline.org/DOIx.php?
id=10.3348/kjr.2022.0249).
b) Table 1: please add the definition of "lose weight" to the footnote.
D. Title
While the combination of IgG4 and TLG2.5 appears to more accurately predict patient relapse,
the ORs are not particularly strong, and the model's sensitivity and specificity are only
moderately effective. Therefore, I recommend opting for a less definitive title for the manuscript.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03113-7 (2024)

Title: 18 F-FDG PET/CT metabolic parameters may have predictive value for relapse of type
1 autoimmune pancreatitis
Version: 5 Date: 25 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for submitting the revision. Just a slight modification needed for the manuscript title:
"Potential Added Value of [18F]FDG PET Metabolic Parameters in Predicting Disease Relapse
in Type 1 Autoimmune Pancreatitis".
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03106-6 (2024)

Title: Gastroparesis might not be Uncommon in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus in a Real-World
Clinical Setting: a cohort study
Version: 0 Date: 03 Nov 2023
Reviewer:  Zaigham Salim Dar
Reviewer's report:
This is a very good research paper, emphasizing not only on Delayed emptying but another
important aspect of rapid emptying. However few details are needed about the methodology of
gastric emptying study and image analysis.