JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03356-y (2024)

Title: Efficacy of probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics on liver enzymes, lipid profiles, and
inflammation in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a systematic review and meta-
analysis of randomized controlled trials
Version: 2 Date: 03 Mar 2024
Reviewer's report:
1)Please pay attention to paragraphing appropriately in the whole text.
2) English editing, grammar checking, and academic writing rules should be highly considered.
3) Why have the authors set a time limit for searching?
4) Please change the format of the table because the numbers in it are confusing
5)Two of the articles have similar data, why are they included, one of them should be removed
6)The search for authors was not accurate and several studies were missed. Please search again
7) I suggest to re-write the conclusion to be more clear and concise. This is important.
8) All the abbreviations used in the abstract should be defined as they can be hard to follow.
9) Results were duplicated in the text and tables/figures. I suggest avoiding any duplication in
order to improve the readability of the manuscript.
10) Why random effect model used to analysis of the results and no fixed effect model?
11)This manuscript must be edited by an academic person expert in methodology/writing for
academic journals in order to describe relevant facts, remove superfluous information, and better
organize thoughts.
12)I suggest an extensive revision of the discussion with more explanation of the results of the
current study. In discussion, many factors could have influenced the results. Please also discuss
other factors.
13) I would suggest to the authors to comment either in Introduction or in Discussion some very
important papers. For instance, a most important position paper should be cited:
Effect of probiotics on liver enzymes in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: an
umbrella of systematic review and meta-analysis
Anti-obesity properties of probiotics; a considerable medical nutrition intervention: findings
from an umbrella meta-analysis
Probiotic therapy, a novel and efficient adjuvant approach to improve glycemic status: an
umbrella meta-analysis
Effects of synbiotics supplementation on anthropometric and lipid profile parameters: Finding
from an umbrella meta-analysis
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03356-y (2024)

Title: Efficacy of probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics on liver enzymes, lipid profiles, and
inflammation in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a systematic review and meta-
analysis of randomized controlled trials
Version: 4 Date: 14 Apr 2024
Reviewer's report:
My comments  are addressed.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03356-y (2024)

Title: Efficacy of probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics on liver enzymes, lipid profiles, and
inflammation in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a systematic review and meta-
analysis of randomized controlled trials
Version: 4 Date: 24 Apr 2024
Reviewer's report:
Congratulations for your work!
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03339-z (2024)

Title: RARB associated with MSI, affects progression and prognosis of gastric cancer
Version: 1 Date: 04 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
Xufan et al. observed the clinical and biological functions of RARB in gastric cancer. RARB
was positively correlated with poor prognosis and negatively with MSI status, Knockdown
of RARAB increased cell proliferation, migration and invasion as well as elevated EMT-
related protein expression of gastric cancer cells. However, several parts in the manuscript are
controversial in the present version.
Comments:
1) The last part of the Conclusion section is most difficult to understand easily (page 7, lines
4-7, In conclusion, RARB is oncogenic at the cellular level, but its aggressive-----). RARB
knockdown led to accelerate cell proliferation, invasiveness and EMT, but why is RARB
oncogenic other than tumor suppressive?
2) Clinical tissue samples were obtained from Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital from 2020
to 2022 (Materials and Methods). How many gastric cancer cases did the authors examine RARB
expression by immunohistochemistry? The authors should examine the relationship between
RARB expression and clinicopathological features (including MSI status) of gastric cancer using
their own sample.
3) In the Conclusion section, the authors discussed the reason of why RARB-high gastric
cancer group had a worse prognosis using an explanation of tumor immune microenvironment.
However, this is only speculation. To explain this, the authors should examine the relationship
between RARB expression and tumor microenvironment (such as the ratio of tumor infiltration
lymphocyte, CD8+ and FOXP3+, etc.) by immunohistochemistry.
4) The authors should add more explanation of the mechanism by which RARB is associated
with MSI. Is RARB a downstream target of MSI?
Minor comments:
1) The Introduction section is very simply written, but this is uncertain what is the current
problem, why the present study is necessary, why prognostic factor associated with MSI is
focused, are there any MSI target genes associated with prognosis etc. Because there are a large
number of published papers regarding MSI-H and cancer including gastric cancer, more polite
explanation should be required for readers.
2) The photograph of Figure 3A “cancer” is not general histology of gastric cancer, which looks
like a non-cancerous region with gastric epithelial cells. The authors should show the photograph
of immunohistochemical data with well-differentiated or undifferentiated gastric cancer tissue
that can generally understand.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03339-z (2024)

Title: RARB associated with MSI, affects progression and prognosis of gastric cancer
Version: 1 Date: 15 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
Introduction and Discussion are well presented. However, in the Results section, the figures are
too complex and require detailed description. For example, Figure 1 contains subfigures A to
G and Figure 2 contains subfigures A-O. Other figures (3 to 5) require more detailed legends.
References are updated.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03339-z (2024)

Title: RARB associated with MSI, affects progression and prognosis of gastric cancer
Version: 1 Date: 25 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
This article solely focuses on the association of the RARB gene with MSI (microsatellite
instability) gastric cancer at the level of tissue and cellular expression. It indicates a positive
correlation between RARB and mismatch repair proteins, with RARB being underexpressed
in MSI gastric cancers. The study suggests that low expression of RARB appears to promote
cancer progression and leads to poor prognosis, as reduced RARB expression accelerates the
proliferation, invasion, and migration of cancer cells. However, the article does not delve into
the specific mechanisms linking RARB to MSI gastric cancer, nor does it address the regulatory
mechanisms of MSI-related target genes. The depth of research is relatively shallow, and the
writing quality of the authors is subpar. For these reasons, it is recommended not to accept this
article for publication.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03339-z (2024)

Title: RARB associated with MSI, affects progression and prognosis of gastric cancer
Version: 2 Date: 27 Mar 2024
Reviewer's report:
In this study, we harnessed biotechnological analytics to isolate the RARB gene and delved
into its metabolic pathways through biosignature analysis. This investigation extended to
assessing RARB's impact on prognosis and immune infiltration levels in patients with gastric
cancer. To achieve this, we analyzed RARB expression in gastric cancer specimens via
immunohistochemistry and assessed its functional role in gastric cancer cell lines through gene
knockdown experiments. Our findings indicate that silencing RARB facilitates the proliferation
of gastric cancer cells, as evidenced by qRT-PCR, CCK-8, and colony formation assays.
The introduction section of this manuscript presently falls short in clearly defining the research
question, justifying the necessity of this study, and elucidating the importance of identifying
prognostic factors linked to RARB. Considering the extensive body of literature on H-related
genes and their association with cancer, including gastric cancer, it's imperative to expand the
introduction. This expansion should articulate the study's significance, especially in the context
of microsatellite instability (MSI) and prognostic target genes.
The methods employed in this research requires refinement for clarity and precision, ensuring
the reproducibility of the findings. The current draft's experimental methods section does not
adhere to the academic standards of scientific writing. It is crucial to rewrite this section, offering
a detailed and concise summary of the experimental procedures followed.
In the presentation of results, references are presently interwoven with findings to support the
latter. However, it is essential to delineate the study's outcomes explicitly, without embedding
them within the reference list.
The discussion section, mistakenly labeled as the conclusion, inadequately explores the specific
functions and mechanisms of RARB in gastric cancer. This section demands significant
expansion to thoroughly examine RARB's role in tumorigenesis and its potential as a target for
therapeutic intervention.
Lastly, the conclusion drawn about the oncogenic potential of RARB inhibitors, based on
cellular level assessments and their speculated reversal in invasive behavior due to the human
immune microenvironment, is overly simplistic. This simplification overlooks the complexities
inherent in cancer biology and the nuances of therapeutic application in humans. The conclusion,
as it stands, prematurely suggests RARB as a therapeutic target for MSI gastric cancer without
sufficient consideration of the broader implications. This necessitates a cautious rewrite of the
concluding remarks, summarizing the study's findings while acknowledging its limitations and
the prospects for future research to validate RARB's therapeutic potential.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03339-z (2024)

Title: RARB associated with MSI, affects progression and prognosis of gastric cancer
Version: 2 Date: 29 Mar 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors addressed my concerns in the revised version. Knockdown of RARB increased
malignancy (increase of cell growth, migration and invasion, Figure 3), but low RARB
expression was significantly correlated with better prognosis (new Figure 6), which are
controversial findings. Although the authors examined immune cell infiltration, N=3 is too small
(Materials and Methods). Overall, this study is a preliminary version.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03339-z (2024)

Title: RARB associated with MSI, affects progression and prognosis of gastric cancer
Version: 7 Date: 13 May 2024
Reviewer's report:
The study utilized bioinformatics methods to identify the core gene RARB, followed by multiple
experimental validations of its expression and regulatory mechanisms in gastric cancer. The
authors employed bioinformatics approaches to screen for this gene and investigate associated
metabolic pathways. They validated expression levels by collecting relevant patient samples.
Knocking down RARB was found to increase expression levels and metastasis in gastric cancer
cells. Additionally, knocking down RARB was observed to reduce the expression levels of
the EMT-related protein E-cadherin. Finally, the clinical prognosis and immune prognostic
relevance of RARB in gastric cancer were studied. The article comprehensively investigates
the mechanisms associated with RARB in gastric cancer, demonstrating a thorough and well-
designed study deserving of acceptance.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03363-z (2024)

Title: Multivariate analysis of factors associated with the successful prediction of initial blind
placement of a nasointestinal tube in the stomach based on X-ray imaging: a retrospective,
single-center study
Version: 0 Date: 24 Jun 2024
Reviewer's report:
This article offers an interesting way to quantify variants in anatomy that make blind NET
placement challenging. However, it is only possible to make those calculations once a tube is
placed and therefore practically, it is not helpful to determine if the practitioner will have success
with blind NET placement.  Furthermore, the radiographic interpretation is not standard so even
if you have an image to review prior to blind placement, it is unclear how helpful this information
would be.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03363-z (2024)

Title: Multivariate analysis of factors associated with the successful prediction of initial blind
placement of a nasointestinal tube in the stomach based on X-ray imaging: a retrospective,
single-center study
Version: 0 Date: 03 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for comprehensive assessment of distal tube placement.
While you article is very detailed and comprehensive, it is my experience that much of the
discussion presents information regarding difficulties with blind tube placement that are already
familiar to those practicing in the critical care setting.
Though initiation of tube feeding was delayed with placement failure (Table 1), investigation
if delay in meeting tube feed/nutrition provision recommendations  for ICU patients based on
ASPEN CCM recommendations were also not met?
I would also encourage the reinforcement that High-Flow 02
Do you have practice change recommendations based on your conclusions?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03363-z (2024)

Title: Multivariate analysis of factors associated with the successful prediction of initial blind
placement of a nasointestinal tube in the stomach based on X-ray imaging: a retrospective,
single-center study
Version: 1 Date: 22 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
I think this is much better
I think this highlights an interesting way to predict success of blind NET.
The only critique is fundamental that this is not helpful if a NET was never placed.
I thinnk the title should include that these are factors to help with blin placement based on xray
and prior NET placement
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03363-z (2024)

Title: Multivariate analysis of factors associated with the successful prediction of initial blind
placement of a nasointestinal tube in the stomach based on X-ray imaging: a retrospective,
single-center study
Version: 1 Date: 24 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you  for your updates and clarifications.
No concerns on resubmitted manuscript
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03367-9 (2024)

Title: Prevalence of Autoimmune Pancreatitis in Pancreatic Resection for Suspected
Malignancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Version: 3 Date: 24 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
In the manuscript titled “Prevalence of Autoimmune Pancreatitis in Pancreatic Resection for
Suspected Malignancy: A Scoping Review” Zain A. Karamya et al. present review on the
incidence of autoimmune pancreatitis undergoing pancreatic resection for a suspected pancreatic
malignancy. The topic is very important, as still in some cases operated for a suspected PDAC
a final histology shows autoimmune pancreatitis. Unfortunately, the manuscript is written
superficially, and no deeper analysis is made. I also have several other remarks:
1. The manuscript must be rewritten and language, and style improved.
2. The study registration at PROSPERO is missing.
3. When talking about the morbidity after pancreatectomy authors are referring to a publication
from 2012 (5). However, that publication does not report any morbidity and just refer to another
publication. This shows that authors just copied the percentage, without any literature analysis.
4. Statement “Therefore, it is advisable to avoid performing unnecessary pancreatic resection”
does not make any sense. Pancreatic resection always should be performed when there is an
indication. There is no need to advise.
5. Authors are listing some terms which were used for the search. However, it’s not enough just
to list them – the combinations are needed. Were any Boolean Operators applied?
6. It’s worth considering performing subgroup analysis (according to year, continent etc.). Why
meta-analysis was not possible?
7. Table with bias evaluation is missing.
8. Authors are stating that it was not possible to obtain 4 full-text articles. However, the reasons
are not listed. Did authors reach out to the authors of these 4 missing publications?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03367-9 (2024)

Title: Prevalence of Autoimmune Pancreatitis in Pancreatic Resection for Suspected
Malignancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Version: 3 Date: 09 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
I read the manuscript by Karamya et al. Prevalence of Autoimmune Pancreatitis in Pancreatic
Resection for Suspected Malignancy: A Scoping Review.
The authors collected data form 10 reports about patients that underwent pancreatic resection due
to suspicion of malignancy with some of those cases resulting in a benign process specifically
autoimmune pancreatitis.
This is an interesting and challenging topic however several issues should be addressed before
considering ir for publication.
1. English grammar needs to be revised.
2. Currently, the manuscript only reports on the prevalence of AIP 1 and 2. It would be useful to
provide some information (if available) on what was the diagnostic approach of the cases before
indicating surgery. Some places recommend immediate resection if a pancreatic mass seems
resectable without any further investigation. Such practices may affect the estimated prevalence
of benign disease undergoing surgery.
3. Reporting only AIP prevalence seems an opportunity may be wasted. Authors should try to
extract as much possible data and try to evaluate what clinical, serum and imaging characteristics
could increase the suspicion for either a bening or malignant mass. Other reports such as the
following should be considered and added to the results and discussion:
Chari ST, Takahashi N, Levy MJ, Smyrk TC, Clain JE, Pearson RK, et al: A diagnostic strat-
egy to distinguish autoimmune pancreatitis from pancreatic cancer. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol
2009;7:1097–1103.
Yadav AK, Sharma R, Kandasamy D, Prad- han RK, Garg PK, Bhalla AS, et al: Perfusion CT
- can it resolve the pancreatic carcinoma versus mass forming chronic pancreatitis conundrum?
Pancreatology 2006; 16: 979
Zaheer A, Singh VK, Akshintala VS, Kawa- moto S, Tsai SD, Gage KL, et al: Differentiat-
ing autoimmune pancreatitis from pancreatic adenocarcinoma using dual-phase computed
tomography . J Comput Assist Tomogr 2014; 38:146–152.
Peláez-Luna M, Medina-Campos C, Uscanga-Domínuez L, Hernandez-Calleros J, Chan-
Nuñez C, Negrete E, Angeles A. A Nondilated Main Pancreatic Duct Predicts Type 2
Autoimmune Pancreatitis: Comparative Study of Resected Pancreatic Head Masses. Digestion.
2020;101(2):137-143.
4. Discussion should be revised accordingly to the potential modifications on content.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03367-9 (2024)

Title: Prevalence of Autoimmune Pancreatitis in Pancreatic Resection for Suspected
Malignancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Version: 4 Date: 17 Mar 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the revision and point by point answers to my comments. I still have one question:
Why was a new co-author added at this point of the manuscript? If it's only for statistics, the
authors does not qualify.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03367-9 (2024)

Title: Prevalence of Autoimmune Pancreatitis in Pancreatic Resection for Suspected
Malignancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Version: 4 Date: 02 Apr 2024
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 major issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are 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?
No - manuscript has some fundamental flaw(s)
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: I read the article by Karamya et al. with interest. The authors
submitted the revised article addressing the concerns of reviewers. I have the following
comments:
1. “Autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) is a new and rare disease that was first reported by Sarles
et al. in 1961”. For a disease that has been known since 1961 can’t be considered new, please
modify accordingly.
2. The authors mentioned registering their study in Prospero after they already started their
systematic review including first submission to the journal. This is against the methodology of
the systematic reviews.
3. Provide company name, and location for the software Mendeley reference manager.
4. The authors have inconsistently reported the test of heterogeneity i.e. I2. Please give I2 with
each proportion / confidence interval in the results section.
5. The authors should also discuss the following study (https://
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34297267/) as AIP has shown to correlate with GI malignancies.
6. The authors should also discuss the strengths and weaknesses of their study particularly the
observational nature of included studies along with inclusion of low quality studies as well
(NCOS <4).
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Please see the comments above."
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03367-9 (2024)

Title: Prevalence of Autoimmune Pancreatitis in Pancreatic Resection for Suspected
Malignancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Version: 6 Date: 19 May 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
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 authors have answered all the queries except one i.e. they did not
include all relevant weaknesses of their study, the major being meta-analysis of observational
studies. In addition, I also do not see the publication bias being reported. This should be reported
using bother funnel plots and Egger's regression with p-value for at least the primary outcome.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Further add weaknesses to their study. Perform publication bias analysis.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03367-9 (2024)

Title: Prevalence of Autoimmune Pancreatitis in Pancreatic Resection for Suspected
Malignancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Version: 8 Date: 06 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have satisfactorily answered all queries and made
sufficient changes as requested by reviewers.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03331-7 (2024)

Title: Development and validation of a nomogram based on Lasso-Logistic regression for
predicting splenomegaly secondary to acute pancreatitis
Version: 1 Date: 28 May 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript titled “Development and validation
of a nomogram based on Lasso-Logistic regression for predicting splenomegaly secondary to
acute pancreatitis.” Many complications related to acute pancreatitis continue to be explored,
and splanchnic vein thrombosis is one of the vascular complications under investigation. Below
are my comments on this study:
-Firstly, why was the relationship between acute pancreatitis and splenomegaly investigated
in this study? In the introduction section, it states: "Clinically, there is an urgent need for a
weighted risk score to assist physicians in distinguishing between high-risk and low-risk patients
for SSAP." As a clinician who has managed hundreds of patients with acute pancreatitis, I can
say that this statement seems to be an exaggeration. Furthermore, I have not come across any
recommendations suggesting the need to explore the relationship between splenomegaly and the
prognosis of acute pancreatitis. The revised Atlanta classification of acute pancreatitis includes
definitions of vascular complications, among which splanchnic vein thrombosis (splenic, portal,
and/or superior mesenteric veins) is one. It is the fact that there is significant discussion on how
to manage this condition (e.g., the indication for anticoagulation). Venous thrombosis can lead to
splenomegaly, which is a fact, however, does isolated splenomegaly require specific treatment?
If not, which is likely the case, Why should splenomegaly in acute pancreatitis be investigated
in isolation and a nomogram developed to predict it?
-Splenomegaly can have many causes, and you have also followed patients post-discharge.
Moreover, a low cut-off value for splenomegaly (9.76 cm) was used, which might have classified
many patients who should be considered within the normal range into the splenomegaly group.
Besides that, The study on which this cut-off value is based was conducted approximately 20
years ago (2005).
-Spleen size is significantly influenced by variables such as gender, age, height, and weight.
Additionally, it can vary by 10-20% based on the individual's hydration status throughout the
day. Considering all these factors, defining splenomegaly with a single cut-off value can lead
to serious classification errors.
-For case-control matching, why was random assignment used instead of propensity score
matching with appropriate covariates, such as gender, height, and weight? Random selection
without adjusting for these confounding factors introduces a significant risk of selection bias.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03331-7 (2024)

Title: Development and validation of a nomogram based on Lasso-Logistic regression for
predicting splenomegaly secondary to acute pancreatitis
Version: 1 Date: 07 Jun 2024
Reviewer's report:
• The author conducted a creative study. I read with interest your study about the treatment of
splenomegaly secondary to acute pancreatitis. This is an interesting and actual topic and your
idea is valuable, but the study needs some minor revisions.
1.The author declared that the SSAP group exhibited a higher frequency of persistent respiratory
failure, persistent renal failure, IPN , and SAP. And it usually takes one to five months to form
SSAP. Did the adverse events occur before or after SAP# What's the relationship between them#
2.The authors are advised to follow long-term adverse events between control and SSAP group.
3.In the section of Introduction, the authors should describe more about the risks and adverse
events of SSAP.
4.The manuscript is a little long and verbose, not so clear for the reader. Please reduce the length.
5.Considerable revision is needed by a native English speaker.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03331-7 (2024)

Title: Development and validation of a nomogram based on Lasso-Logistic regression for
predicting splenomegaly secondary to acute pancreatitis
Version: 2 Date: 04 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
I re-evaluated the article titled "Development and validation of a nomogram based on Lasso-
Logistic regression for predicting splenomegaly secondary to acute pancreatitis". As a doctor
who frequently follows acute pancreatitis patients and writes many scientific articles on this
subject, I do not think that predicting splenomegaly in acute pancreatitis will contribute to
scientific literature.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03371-z (2024)

Title: Esophageal cancers missed at upper endoscopy in Central Norway 2004 to 2021 – A
population based study
Version: 2 Date: 13 Jun 2024
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript aimed to evaluate the incidence rate of missed esophageal cancer (MEC) and
identify risk factors for this missed diagnosis of esophageal cancer by using Cancer Registry
of Norway. The authors evaluated 625 patients with esophageal cancer and found the missed
diagnosed rate was 8.2%. The missed esophageal cancers were usually found in patients with
Barrett’s esophagus, hiatus hernia, esophagitis and ulceration and careful inspection in these
patients should be considered to decrease the missed rate.
Some suggestions were listed below.
1. In Table 2, the variable should be compared between initial negative endoscopy in MEC
patients (n=51) and diagnostic endoscopy in control (n=574), such as table 1, and it makes more
sense.
2. Patients with dysplasia (n=10, table 2) should be excluded from analysis because planned
repeat endoscopies are usually arranged for these patients.
3. The information of cancer stage (TNM) should be provided in manuscript, as authors
mentioned TNM classification evolved from AJCC 6 to AJCC 8 was a limitation (discussion).
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03368-8 (2024)

Title: Bile acid diarrhoea and metabolic changes after cholecystectomy: A prospective case-
control study
Version: 1 Date: 21 Jun 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors have conducted this study to determine the incidence of bile acid diarrhea and the
factors associated with it. I have following comments regarding the manuscript:
1. The title does not reflect the content of the manuscript. Please revise it as "Bile acid diarrhea
and metabolic changes after cholecystectomy: A prospective case-control study:
2. It is mentioned in the Results of the Abstract that "Gallbladder PPAR # was found to have
a significant correlation with stool consistency, with the lower the PPAR# concentration the
higher the Bristol stool chart number (i.e. looser stool). " Please mention its significance in the
Conclusion.
3. In the Abstract conclusion it is mentioned that "There was also no correlation with PPAR#
suggesting the observed rise is independent of this pathway. " Please add a sentence in Results
section to support this sentence.
4. In the Methods section, Please mention the following details:
a. Type of study - Prospective or retrospective
b. Study period
c. Study center
d. How was sample size calculation done?
e. BSG criteria for diarrhea
5. Why were bariatric surgery patients admitted in the control group as it is a major surgery
which can significantly affect the lipid profile and bowel frequency of the patients and affect
the results?
6. How was gallbladder tissue sample tested for FGF19 and PPAR# in the study group patients?
Please mention its methodology.
7. Please mention the p values in the Table 1.
8.  Please mention the study limitations including small sample size, single center study, etc.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03368-8 (2024)

Title: Bile acid diarrhoea and metabolic changes after cholecystectomy: A prospective case-
control study
Version: 1 Date: 30 Jun 2024
Reviewer:  Subba Rao Kanchustambam
Reviewer's report:
While the study provides  well designed methodology and clear presentation of findings , some
explanations in the discussion could  provide clarity on the implications of FGF and PPAR
findings
1. The accuracy of results can be more meaningful if p-values are given along with confidence
intervals
2. The study concludes that FGF 19 levels increase post cholecystectomy but do not correlate
with BAD. Is it serum levels or gall bladder tissue levels?
3. The significant correlation between PPAR concentration( Where ? bowel or serum) and stool
consistency post operatively  is noted . Is this conclusion  overemphasising, as there is no
correlation between triglyceride level and stool consistency ?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03376-8 (2024)

Title: Different imaging techniques' diagnostic efficacy for Crohn's disease activity and external
validation and comparison of MDCTAs, SES-CD and IBUS-SAS
Version: 1 Date: 16 Jul 2024
Reviewer:  Rui Sousa Magalhães
Reviewer's report:
I read with much interest the original article presented, focusing an external validation for
Crohn’s disease activity scores, namely the IBUS-SAS. The study comprises a single-center
retrospective cohort. The primary outcome was the external validation and comparison of
different CD disease activity scores (MCDTAs, SES-CD and IBUS-SAS). The manuscript is
very well written, the theme is uptodate and the results interesting.
Major points:
- If possible, the key words would benefit to be changed according to MESH terms.
Introduction:
- Regarding the sentence: “CTE/MRE is the most accurate imaging method for diagnosing CD
bowel lesions”, the manuscript would benefit a mention to small bowel capsule endoscopy and
enteroscopy, the gold-standard diagnostic methods for assessing small bowel in CD disease.
Methods:
- The authors characterize the study as retrospective. As I understood all the patients were
hospitalized. Do all your patients perform ultrasound, computed tomography and upper
endoscopy and ileocolonoscopy? Or how dis the authors collected the data?
- “Cal-protectin” should read Calprotectin.
- Can the authors specify the volume of partients with CD they observe regularly? In a temporal
space of more than 2 years the inclusion of only 126 patients is rather low.
- Regarding the clinical applicability of IBUS-SAS, how long it takes to perform an
examination?
- A perk of the study is the fact the authors did not separate different Montreal CD types in the
analysis. Can the authors comment on this? Do you have any comparative data?
- How did the authors access the homogeneity of the population?
Results:
- The SES-CD overall performed poorly than IBUS-SAS. The authors based the justification in
the transmural character of CD. Despite understanding the rational, it’s unusual that a patient
with moderate-severe CDAI will present with no mucosal involvement, a normal SES-CD and
an abnormal IBUS-SAS. Can the authors further explore this?
- Can the authors provide information regarding negative and positive predictive value?
- The sentence “Due to the invasive nature of endoscopy and related risks, the same patient
cannot be performed repeatedly” should be modified and restructured.
Discussion:
- The sentence: “IBUS-SAS, SES-CD, and MDCTEs had significant positive correlations with
CDAI (r = 0.874, r = 0.677, and r = 0.762, respectively), suggesting that the IBUS-SAS has
a more significant ability to predict treatment efficacy before a patient's clinical symptoms
resolve” would benefit from further clarification.
- Can the authors present any kind of protocol to clinically introduce IBUS-SAS in daily clinical
practice, for patient surveillance? Or is it only indicated in suspected agudization?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03376-8 (2024)

Title: Different imaging techniques' diagnostic efficacy for Crohn's disease activity and external
validation and comparison of MDCTAs, SES-CD and IBUS-SAS
Version: 1 Date: 20 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
I am very pleased to have had the opportunity to review this manuscript.
This study evaluated the correlation between MDCT, SES-CD, IBUS, blood test findings, and
biomarkers in Crohn's disease. It was shown that these contribute to reflecting disease activity
in CD.
This study is not suitable for publication in this journal due to the following issues.
The word limit for abstracts in BMC gastroenterology has been exceeded. The authors should
submit their work in accordance with the basic guidelines.
This study was conducted with written informed consent through consent to participate, but it
is a retrospective study. Why could the authors not have made this a prospective study?
CD is a disease that involves abscesses. Were abscesses that could affect blood test findings
excluded? Were other infections also excluded?
The correlation coefficient between FC and imaging tests such as SES-CD is low. The reliability
of the endoscopic examination in this study is questionable.
The AUC results of the ROC analysis showed that SES-CD was lower than MDCT and IBUS.
Are these results correct? If true, this would greatly reduce the need for endoscopic evaluation.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03376-8 (2024)

Title: Different imaging techniques' diagnostic efficacy for Crohn's disease activity and external
validation and comparison of MDCTAs, SES-CD and IBUS-SAS
Version: 1 Date: 22 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
In this work by Long et al. , the authors present the results of a cohort of CD patients, whose
disease activity has been assessed with different imaging techniques (MDCTES, SES-CD and
IBUS-SAS).  Clinical activity has been used as reference. The article addresses a hot topic of
IBD diagnosing/monitoring and I believe it could merit further evaluation once the issues below
are solved.
MAJOR COMMENTS:
- Crohn’s disease is often subtle with poor correlation between clinical activity and objective
signs of inflammation (at endoscopy and IUS/radiology). Therefore, I think that the manuscript
should be restructured with a focus on the direct comparison between IBUS-SAS, SES-CD and
MDCTES, leaving their correlation with clinical activity and biomarkers as side data. I would
recommend using SES-CD as the gold standard of disease activity, and MDCTES in case of
disease that cannot be assessed by endoscopy (e.g. preterminal ileum or jejunum). By doing this,
one can show how IUS (specifically here IBUS-SAS) can effectively correlate and be a valid
substitute of these techniques.
- Which segment was evaluated in the analysis? Were the most affected areas matched across
different techniques? E.g. terminal ileum evaluation of IBUS-SAS with the segmental SES-CD
of this region and the same for MDCTES. Or did the authors take the full score resulting from
adding up each segment to have the whole score? This should be specified in the method section.
I suggest considering only the most affected area for each patient and specify this in the method
section.
MINOR COMMENTS
- results section of the abstract: the sentence "Delong test showed that IBUS-SAS vs SES-CD (z
= 3.244, p = 0.001) and IBUS-SAS vs MDCTEs (z = 2.180, P = 0.029). " should be rephrased.
- introduction is too long and should be more concise and cut to the point
- to help the reader, I suggest to add a table where all the scores' parameters are resumed (for
SES-CD, IBUS-SAS and MDCTES)
- when referring to the number of patients, the decimal is not necessary (e.g., 12.0 patients with
L1 disease)
- discussion section should be re-structured based on the major comments above
- table 2, 4, and 6 cannot be evaluated (problems with formatting)
- revision of the manuscript by a native english speaker is recommended for language polishing
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03376-8 (2024)

Title: Different imaging techniques' diagnostic efficacy for Crohn's disease activity and external
validation and comparison of MDCTAs, SES-CD and IBUS-SAS
Version: 1 Date: 23 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
You could shorten the Introduction section, highlighting your article's main advantages and
uniqueness. Also, try to avoid using already-known template information as little as possible.
Why did you choose CDAI as the diagnostic standard? Now, there are various other more
accurate indices. Also, the CDAI system has some limitations.
ECCO-ESGAR guideline: „ Furthermore, the CDAI is not accurate in patients with fistulising or
stenotic behaviour and it is not useful in patients with previous extensive ileocolonic resections
or stoma.“ More than half of your patients had stricturing and penetrating diseases.
Duplicated demographic data in the text and table.
The discussion is illogical and has not stated the reason of the differences with other studies.
The manuscript needs extensive native English editing.
The text lacks coherence.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03376-8 (2024)

Title: Different imaging techniques' diagnostic efficacy for Crohn's disease activity and external
validation and comparison of MDCTAs, SES-CD and IBUS-SAS
Version: 2 Date: 13 Aug 2024
Reviewer:  Rui Sousa Magalhães
Reviewer's report:
I congratulate the authors for carefullly reviewing all the issues proposed.
I deem the article suitable for publication.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03376-8 (2024)

Title: Different imaging techniques' diagnostic efficacy for Crohn's disease activity and external
validation and comparison of MDCTAs, SES-CD and IBUS-SAS
Version: 2 Date: 13 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors have either edited their manuscript according to my requests or provided reasonable
answers to my comments.
I have no further comments.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03358-w (2024)

Title: Incremental High Power Radiofrequency Ablation with Multi-electrodes for Small
Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Prospective Study
Version: 1 Date: 17 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for inviting me to review the article 'Incremental High Power Radiofrequency
Ablation with Multi-electrodes for Small Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Prospective Study'
submitted to BMC Gastroenterology. The authors reported the outcomes regarding high-power
RFA which is considered to be a new technique to reduce local recurrence of HCC in patients
suitable for ablative therapy.
While the authors reported impressively high technical success and low rate of local tumor
progression, there are some questions and suggestions regarding this article as follows:
Major points:
1. What is the primary objective of the study? On page 6, the authors stated that the primary
endpoint was cumulative 3-year LTP whereas on page 7, the authors wrote that the key outcome
is the creation of ideal safety margin >5 mm around the treated tumor. Sample size should be
calculated based on the primary objective of the study. This should be clarified.
2. The major drawback of the current study is that there is no control group. The authors
hypothesized that the high power RFA technique would create a larger ablation zone and reduce
the incidence of local recurrence. If there is a control group for comparisons between this new
technique and conventional RFA technique, it would be much helpful and increase the validity of
the current study. I noticed that the study design was not an RCT, but the historical control of the
patients underwent conventional RFA at the same institute might be the suitable control group.
3. Regarding comment #2, the statement in the discussion part written that high-power RFA is
superior to conventional RFA seems to be overclaimed, as the study was not designed in that
manner, please refrain to make that assumption. There might be other variables influences the
different in LTP between different studies other than the technique itself.
Minor points:
4.  Please check for the typo errors for an entire manuscript, as well as the tense used in the
method part.
5. There are some discrepancies in numbers e.g., on page 7 the authors stated that they included
105 patients, whereas it was 110 patients on the results part and in the figure of study flow.
Additionally, why the authors excluded 7 patients who had follow up time of less than 12 months,
this was not stated in the exclusion criteria and should be elaborated more.
6. Regarding comment #5, the calculated sample size was 124, why the authors included only
110 (or 105?) patients in this study? This should be explained and mentioned somewhere in the
manuscript.
7.  in Table 1, Tumor size (cm) = 5 (16.7%) seems to be incorrect. Please check, and tumor
number should be present in this table as well.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03358-w (2024)

Title: Incremental High Power Radiofrequency Ablation with Multi-electrodes for Small
Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Prospective Study
Version: 1 Date: 20 Jul 2024
Reviewer:  Islam H. Shawali
Reviewer's report:
Thanks to all the authors for the interesting data.
The topic is of clinical importance and the purpose of the study is clearly defined.
The topic is discussed in a clear informative way.