JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02758-8 (2023)

Title: Gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms and associated factors among university
students in Amhara region, Ethiopia, 2021: A cross-sectional study
Version: 5 Date: 16 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
I appreciate your effort in managing my comments on your first submission.
1. I have reviewed your second submission. Your work sounds good on the basis of
scientific appearance but topographically and language limitations needs further improvement.
I recommend you to read the manuscript repeatedly to improve by yourselves.
a. Give special emphasis on the placement of full stops and spaces. E.g. see lines; 43, 44, 45,
63, 133, 179, 225, 236, 238,
b. Spacing of a paragraph; E.g. lines 94 -102
c. Font size; E.g. line 288
2. Operational definition given to some terms needs improvement in appearance and clarification
3. Response on the middle age as risk factor for GERD, forwarded by authors;  “The possible
reason might be the age of the participants in this study may not have caused their GERD
symptoms, but it is plausible that their age rendered them more susceptible to these symptoms
because they fall into this age range.” is still not plausible. The authors shall reconsider possible
reasons that could render students in this age group in to GERD symptom. The give statement
seems less convincing type to scientific community. Please search and mention what could be the
possible condition/feature/biological change/psychological state …etc  linked to the age group.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02762-y (2023)

Title: Postoperative liver dysfunction is associated with poor long-term outcomes in patients
with colorectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study
Version: 0 Date: 21 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
1. The authors described that the grade of liver dysfunction was divided according to CTCAE's
diagnostic criteria.
1) However, there was no comment about CTCAE version. It is necessary to specify which
version of CTCAE was used for grading.
2) Furthermore, there is no grade of liver dysfunction according to liver enzyme in recent
CTCAE v5.0.
2. It would be better to change the exclusion criteria in the text to liver metastasis rather than
distant metastasis.
3. It would be desirable to show changes in liver enzymes in patients with liver dysfunction
after surgery.
4.. Factors affecting disease-free survival are lacking in pathologic factors such as lymphatic,
venous, and perineural invasion. In addition, In addition, it would be good to add the presence
or absence of adjuvant chemotherapy.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02762-y (2023)

Title: Postoperative liver dysfunction is associated with poor long-term outcomes in patients
with colorectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study
Version: 0 Date: 10 Mar 2023
Reviewer's report:
This study found that L/S ratio on CT was strongly associated with postoperative liver
dysfunction,and postoperative liver dysfunction was associated with worse DFS after radical
surgery for colorectal cancer. Postoperative complications increase tumor recurrence rate and
reduce overall survival in patients with colorectal cancer.There may be some possible limitations
in this study.
1.The sample size of positive cases is relatively small, please increase the sample size to reduce
publication bias.
2.In this paper, CTCAE's diagnostic criteria was used as the main evaluation criteria for
liver dysfunction, and it is suggested that the detail of CTCAE should be explained in the
supplementary materials.
3.As stated in the discussion section, chronic inflammation of the liver affects the prognosis
of CRC#This study found the association between postoperative liver dysfunction and the L/S
ratio. so what is the innovation of this article? It is recommended to add other indicators of liver
status for comparative analysis.
4.This study excluded preoperative liver dysfunction, postoperative complications,
chemotherapy course and pathological grade, and finally concluded that postoperative liver
dysfunction was associated with the prognosis of colorectal cancer. However, liver function is
an indicator of liver status, is this equivalent to the relationship between liver reserve function
status and colorectal cancer prognosis? As mentioned in the paper, so are L/S ratio or liver
fibrosis also related to the prognosis of colorectal cancer?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02762-y (2023)

Title: Postoperative liver dysfunction is associated with poor long-term outcomes in patients
with colorectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study
Version: 1 Date: 03 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
This paper has been carefully revised. The study increased the amount of clinical data to make
the results more realistic and valid. There are no other proposals at this time.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02747-x (2023)

Title: Patients’ Perspectives on, Experience with and Concerns about Crohn's Disease: Insights
from Chinese Social Media
Version: 2 Date: 11 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
This study assessed the possible role of social media in the experience and perceptions of
patients with Crohn’s disease. The study shows us that the most important themes that have
been identified actually represent the same problems that we find in diagnosis and therapeutic
decisions and a study of social media can help us in the management of the disease.
Just a question to the authors: did patients' consultation of social media influence negatively
or positively the diagnostic and therapeutic decisions? For example, reporting an medical
examination that generated anxiety or pain for the patient did it influence the decision making
of the same medical examoìination by the patient who read the post ?.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02755-x (2023)

Title: Postoperative inpatient exercise facilitates recovery after laparoscopic surgery in
colorectal cancer patients: a randomized controlled trial
Version: 2 Date: 22 Jan 2023
Reviewer:  James A Chiarotto
Reviewer's report:
The authors have asked a clinically relevant question about  shortening length of stay for patients
undergoing curative-intent surgery for early stage colon cancer.A valid secondary endpoint was
to better prepare the patients for discharge and life at home.  The manuscript was well written
and easy to understand for its intended audience.
The major observations will be listed first. The goal of the work was to meaningfully reduce
the length of stay (LOS) for these surgical patients. The manuscript states that a clinically
meaningful reduction according to "medical staff" would be at least 0.8 days. I would like to
know who exactly was involved in this decision and what factors were taken into account to
arrive at this figure.  Additionally, the manuscript documented a median reduction in LOS of
0.5 days, which is less than the considered goal of 0.8 days. While 0.5 days is statistically
significant, it would not be clinically significant by the manuscript's definition. Please explain
this discrepancy.
A reduction in LOS is a welcomed result as long as it does not result in an increased rate of
readmission. The manuscript mentions this concept, but does not show data to support the the
experimental group not requiring more admissions. I assume this was measured. Please include
this metric in the manuscript or state why it would not be needed.
It is likely that the patients recruited for this study were all patients receiving the appropriate
surgery at the participating centre. Please state in the methods whether all such patients were
approached for inclusion, i.e. sequentially asked to participate.
Minor observations would include stating who it was that did the morphometric measurements
and whether the same person did them for the same patient.  Was the exercise specialist a physical
therapist, kinesiologist, or is an "exercise specialist" a defined healthcare worker in your practice
setting? In the abstract, describing the surgery as "curative-intent" rather that "curative" would
be more accurate. Please state that the tool (pt-RHDS) that was used is validated and reliable
in your patient population. Were any injuries reported in the exercise group? I think the reader
would appreciate more detail for how the  muscle mass measurement is determined.
With the above issues addressed, the recommendation is for acceptance for publication.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02755-x (2023)

Title: Postoperative inpatient exercise facilitates recovery after laparoscopic surgery in
colorectal cancer patients: a randomized controlled trial
Version: 2 Date: 16 Mar 2023
Reviewer:  Warren E. Lichliter
Reviewer's report:
An excellent study looking at a focused exercise program and rehabilitation after surgery. A lot
of work went to the actual study and data collection. The exercise program would be hard to do
in a clinical setting at most hospitals given restraints on a budget and in an environment where
Physical Therapists are in short supply.
I have several comments.
1) The number of patients in the study are small and a larger sample size would be helpful.
2) It would be of value to know what the pre-surgery exercise and fitness levels were on the
patients enrolled in the study.
3) Your study emphasizes that most ERAS programs so not go beyond walking for post operative
rehab and the concept of strengthening would seem to be very important
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02755-x (2023)

Title: Postoperative inpatient exercise facilitates recovery after laparoscopic surgery in
colorectal cancer patients: a randomized controlled trial
Version: 4 Date: 27 Mar 2023
Reviewer:  James A Chiarotto
Reviewer's report:
Most concerns have been addressed to  my satisfaction.
One comment regarded the decision that a "clinically meaningful" reduction in LOS would be
0.8 days. The study showed a reduction of 0.5 days (statistically significant). This point was not
addressed. However, I would not hold publication given that I believe this is a valuable study
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02713-7 (2023)

Title: Influencing factors and predictive model of postoperative infection in patients with
primary hepatic carcinoma
Version: 2 Date: 19 Dec 2022
Reviewer:  Takayuki Shimizu
Reviewer's report:
The authors created the new predicting nomogram for postoperative infection in patients
with HCC. I agree to evaluate postoperative patients early and to take active and effective
interventions using nomogram.
This predicting model was well done, and there was no problem in statistical method.
I ask some requirement for the authors.
Q1. The authors should add study limitation in the Discussion session.
Q2. Is there the cut-off value of points for increasing infection in your nomogram?
Q3. If you use your nomogram, how do you perform early interventions for patients with
high points of your nomogram? Could you add your consideration about this question in the
Discussion session?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02713-7 (2023)

Title: Influencing factors and predictive model of postoperative infection in patients with
primary hepatic carcinoma
Version: 2 Date: 30 Dec 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor,
Thank you so much for inviting me to revise this manuscript.
In the study entitled "Influencing factors and predictive model of postoperative infection in
patients with primary hepatic carcinoma" Ma et al showed a nomogram prediction model of
postoperative infection. We think this is a piece worth publishing, even if there are a few flaws.
Below a detailed list of my concerns.
1. The manuscript is quite well written and organized. Typing and grammatical errors should be
carefully checked throughout the manuscript.
2. The authors should provide information on their general policy for PHC management. For
instance, do they follow the BCLC algorithm? How these patients were selected for surgery? At
the same time, this part of the content should be reflected in the inclusion or exclusion criteria.
3. Instruction: " Postoperative infection was the most common type of postoperative infection,
with an incidence of 9.0% of patients, followed by surgical site infection " The expression of
this part is wrong.
4. Instruction: " In this study, we performed univariate and multifactorial cox regression analysis
on clinical information and indicators of hepatectomy patients to find the risk factors of
postoperative infection " However, Cox regression did not used in this article.
5. Materials and methods: " Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Hepatocellular
Carcinoma (2019 Edition) " The latest edition should be 2022.
6. In the Logistic multivariate regression analysis, AFP (OR = 1.000). However, It should not
be used for modeling when a variable’s OR value equal to 1.
7. In the Table 2, what is the meaning of intercept?  If it is redundant, delete it
8. "In addition, effective intraoperative blood transfusion has a preventive effect in avoiding
postoperative infections. " It doesn't fit our perception and clinical practice
9. Discussion: "Surgical resection is the main form of treatment" This sentence makes me
confused.
10. Discussion: "intraoperative blood loss is usually accompanied by perioperative blood
transfusion, which also increases susceptibility to postoperative infection." This seems to be
inconsistent with the results of the authors' multivariate analysis.
11. Some abbreviations should be written in full for the first time. Such as: HBV DNA, ROC
curve, et al.
12.  It should have a detailed discussion why the Perioperative blood Transfusion is a protective
factor.
13. Figure legends should be precisely explained, just only the name of the Table is probably
not enough.
14. Surgical procedure should be described (e.g., Endoscopic surgery or laparotomy).
15. The list of reference should be checked carefully.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02713-7 (2023)

Title: Influencing factors and predictive model of postoperative infection in patients with
primary hepatic carcinoma
Version: 3 Date: 15 Feb 2023
Reviewer:  Takayuki Shimizu
Reviewer's report:
The authors has made the better predictive nomogram model for postoperative infection in
patients with HCC. This predictive model is acceptable and practical because BMI, AFP, total
bilirubin, blood loss and bile leakage had reported as predictors for infection.
I ask some questions to the authors.
Q1; What about an antibiotics intraoperatively? In method, there is no explanation about
intraoperative antibiotics. Do you use an antibiotics intraoperatively to prevent postoperative
infection? If you use an antibiotics intraoperatively, could you mention intraoperative antibiotics
in the method section?
Q2; Do you think how does intraoperative broad spectrum antibiotics or antibiotics-coated
sutures influence postoperative infection?
Q3; As you know, bile leakage is majorly associated with infection. How do we do intraoperative
or postoperative interventions to avoid or improve bile leakage? Does early intervention for
bile leakage such as endoscopic bile drainage or percutaneous drainage  improve  postoperative
infection?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02713-7 (2023)

Title: Influencing factors and predictive model of postoperative infection in patients with
primary hepatic carcinoma
Version: 3 Date: 17 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors present a very interesting study. They explore risk factors for postoperative infection
in patients with primary liver cancer and develop a nomogram prediction model. The C-index
value verified internally by the bootstrap method results was 0.818. Although no external
validation was performed, the authors responded well to all the reviewers' questions and I have
no further comments.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02713-7 (2023)

Title: Influencing factors and predictive model of postoperative infection in patients with
primary hepatic carcinoma
Version: 4 Date: 02 Mar 2023
Reviewer:  Takayuki Shimizu
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for replying to my questions.
I have no questions for the authors.
Your article deserves the acceptance to BMC Gastroenterology.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02754-y (2023)

Title: Efficacy and safety comparison of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery and
upfront surgery for treating intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-
analysis
Version: 1 Date: 29 Jan 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear editor
Thank you for your invitation!
The author focus on the prognostic impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery in
patients with ICC, the found that neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery could prolong
the 5-year OS, and concluded that the benefit may be more significant in locally advanced ICC.
There were some queries:
Firstly, since the lymph metastases is a important factor for the prognosis of ICC, the author
should be list in the table 1 the positive rate of lymph node, the percent of lymph node dissection.
Secondly, the conclusion demonstrated that the neoadjuvant chemotherapy is suitable for
patients with local advanced, while the result was not mentioned, more data was need to prove
the conclusion.
Thirdly, due to the importance of baseline, the basic characteristic of patients with ICC should
be more clear.
Since the issue was discussed for many years, and the included studies were small, more studies
were need to robust the conclusion.
The author should run over the instrument for author in the website, the format of the manuscript
should be edited again. The footnote should be added in tables and figures.
The part of introduction should be simplified.
Yours,
Nanping Lin
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02754-y (2023)

Title: Efficacy and safety comparison of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery and
upfront surgery for treating intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-
analysis
Version: 1 Date: 03 Feb 2023
Reviewer:  Yingshi Zhang
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for inviting me to review this manuscript which titled “Comparative Effectiveness of
Seven Interventions for Chronic Hepatitis D: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis
of Randomized Controlled Trials”which is systematic and interesting. However, this manuscript
could be published after minor revision.
1.The introduction part of this manuscript is too long, the last paragraph only explained the
purpose of this manuscript in detail is well.
2.Inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria should merged into one paragraph.
3.Figure 3-7should be put into the supplementary materials.
4.The conclusion section can be condensed.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02754-y (2023)

Title: Efficacy and safety comparison of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery and
upfront surgery for treating intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-
analysis
Version: 1 Date: 05 Mar 2023
Reviewer's report:
Reports:
1.Although there are many subjects in the study, the number of included literatures is small, and
all of them are retrospective studies, two studies were classified as having a serious risk of bias,
and the other three studies were classified as having a moderate risk of bias, which limits the
quality of the study.
2. Two studies were classified as having a serious risk of bias, and the other three studies were
classified as having a moderate risk of bias. Please explain the origin of bias and why you should
continue the study.
3. The reason why do secondary outcomes include mortality rate within 90 days?
Thanks#
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02737-z (2023)

Title: Tumor size as a significant prognostic factor in T1 gastric cancer: a Surveillance,
Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Database analysis
Version: 4 Date: 03 Jan 2023
Reviewer:  Jiebin Xie
Reviewer's report:
In the present study, authors investigated the influence of T stage on the prognostic and
predicting value of tumor size by using SEER database . They found that T stage had a negative
impact on the predicting value of tumor size. Tumor size showed significant prognostic value in
T1 gastric cancer, which may be effective in clinical practice. However#I found that the main
points of this study were similar to the paper "Chen Y, Jia Y, Peng Z, Wang G. The prognostic
role of tumor size in stage T1 gastric cancer. World J Surg Oncol. 2022 Apr 27;20(1):135. doi:
10.1186/s12957-022-02596-0. PMID: 35477526; PMCID: PMC9044763.." And the authors did
not describe how to get the cutoff values of age and tumor size.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02737-z (2023)

Title: Tumor size as a significant prognostic factor in T1 gastric cancer: a Surveillance,
Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Database analysis
Version: 4 Date: 01 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript uses public databases to explore the value of tumor size in the prognosis
of gastric cancer. This study has certain innovation, language expression is standardized, the
workload is relatively sufficient, and the statistical analysis method is reasonable and effective.
It showed promising application for complementary method of determining the prognosis of
gastric cancer. Therefore, I think this paper can be accepted after addressing several major issues
as noted below:
1. In section of Abstract, does “Uni and multi regression analysis” means to univariate and
multivariate cox regression in the following text?
2. Acronyms only need to be listed at first occurrence, and some are repeated in the article. Such
as CSS and OS on line 87.
3. On line 97, Why 68 years old was chosen as the cut-off value? And why should marital status
be included in the patient's general profile? Are there any special considerations?
4. The authors claim that tumor size is an independent risk factor for patient prognosis, but do
not give a cut-off value for tumor size. The authors should consider calculating a clear tumor size
cut-off in patients with different T stages and then plotting survival curves to analyze differences
in prognosis in patients, which may make the article more readable.
5. This work only makes some speculations based on public data, there is still a lot of work
that needs to be studied and supplemented, and as a stage work, this article needs to express the
shortcomings in the research.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02756-w (2023)

Title: Osteoporosis and sarcopenia are common and insufficiently diagnosed among chronic
pancreatitis patients
Version: 3 Date: 23 Jan 2023
Reviewer:  Serena Stigliano
Reviewer's report:
In the present study Parhiala M and colleagues aim at assess the prevalence of osteoporosis,
sarcopenia and vitamin deficiency among patients with chronic pancreatitis.
The topic is interesting but is not new since a lot of previous studies had investigated this field
and current guidelines already recommend its  evaluation in CP patients.
However the study is well written and designed and it could strengthen previous data.
Some comments:
- Please check the definition of chronic pancreatitis : moderate or marked ductal pancreatic
ductal lesions according to the Cambridge classification. Is not clear.
- pancreatic exocrine insufficiency (pancreatic steatorrhea markedly reduced by pancreatic
enzyme replacement therapy). Please check this part because PEI is not a synonymous of
steatorrhea.
- author say that blood examinations and data collection was performed in 2019 so almost 5
years after the diagnosis. Can they explain why?
- When the DEXA was performed?
- Why the CT/RM for the sarcopenia evaluation was performed 1 year after the DEXA?
- about the vitamin deficiency , authors didn't mentioned the vitamin K level, an important fat-
soluble vitamin that is frequently reduced in patients with EPI and that is linked with bone
metabolism.  I suggest to analyzed this  vitamin or at list mention it in the discussion.
- about the vitamin D level, what is the prevalence of deficiency in the general population in
Finland?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02752-0 (2023)

Title: Dietary Fiber Intake and Risk of Gallstone: A Case-Control Study
Version: 0 Date: 25 Jan 2023
Reviewer's report:
The paper entitled “Dietary Fiber Intake and Risk of Gallstone: A Case-Control Study” explores
the potential associations between dietary fibers with the risk of gallstone disease”. The paper
is well designed but needs attention to several issues that need attention.
1. It is not apparent that "few studies studies have been conducted regarding the association
of dietary components and gallstone, in particular dietary fiber..." as stated in the introduction.
There are several studies that support this hypothesis. Authors refer several papers on this
(15-22).
2.  Check the Conclusion in the abstract. The Paper that to refer to cirrhosis.
Correct the term "categories" for category.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02752-0 (2023)

Title: Dietary Fiber Intake and Risk of Gallstone: A Case-Control Study
Version: 0 Date: 16 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
I think it is a good study that can be published. However, two issues must be clarified. The
conclusion in the abstract mentions a relationship between fiber consumption and mortality
associated with cirrhosis which is not the subject of this study. The conclusion at the end of the
discussion is different and I think it is the right one. This discrepancy should be corrected.
It should be explained why the control group consisted of hospital patients who did not have
biliary or liver problems and not healthy people who were not hospitalized. Possibly some  health
problems affect the  development of gallstones and thus affect the final results.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02752-0 (2023)

Title: Dietary Fiber Intake and Risk of Gallstone: A Case-Control Study
Version: 0 Date: 20 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this work.
I'd like to congratulate the authors on this well-written manuscript. The study on the correlation
between gallstone disease and dietary fiber intake is always intriguing. More importantly, an
attempt to address the different roles of the dietary total, soluble and insoluble fiber on gallstone
risk gives this article further insight that is worthy of publication.
However, there are several minor grammatical errors in the manuscript that need corrections to
improve clarity e.g., the usage of an article, preposition, subject-verb agreement, etc.
The reference numbers 10 and 24 are repetitive. Please discard either one and redo the citation
in the text.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02720-8 (2023)

Title: A novel inflammatory marker for extensive ulcerative colitis; Endocan
Version: 3 Date: 01 Feb 2023
Reviewer:  Ilhami Yüksel
Reviewer's report:
In this study, the authors aimed to evaluate the usability of endocan level in determining the
extent and severity in patients with ulcerative colitis and to determine whether it can be a
candidate noninvasive marker for evaluation and monitoring in UC patients.
In the presented study, the authors found that there was a significant difference between all
ulcerative colitis patients and the control group in both endocan and CRP levels, and also there
was a significant correlation between endocan and CRP in the patient group.
This study will provide valuable information in our knowledge.  However, I do have some
suggestions.
I would like to suggest a title “A novel inflammatory marker for severe and extensive ulcerative
colitis; Endocan” instead of the current title “A novel inflammatory indicator in extensive
ulcerative colitis; Endocan?”
There are certain grammatical mistakes, including “…in the control group. patients with
newly…, Background and study aim: .., D#SCUSS#ON …”. Please correct all grammar
mistakes. Please switch to English-language tools; the paper was originally written in Turkish.
The last statement in the abstract and conclusion section,  “Stool markers may not always be
available due to patient compliance” should be removed.
Because this research will reveal whether there is a relationship between UC severity and
endocan levels, the authors should be evaluated to determine whether there is any correlation
between endocan and MES in patients with UC .
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02720-8 (2023)

Title: A novel inflammatory marker for extensive ulcerative colitis; Endocan
Version: 6 Date: 11 Mar 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors have revised this manuscript, clarifying a number of important points and refining
their argument for pursuing further study of serum Endocan levels in the context of IBD.
Discussion:
"Considering that the endocan level is high in patients with IBD, the fact that this elevation
mostly indicates patients with pancolitis adds value to our study."- this sentence is duplicated.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02740-4 (2023)

Title: DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF A VIDEO-ASSISTED LIVER BIOPSY
TECHNIQUE USING A MINIMALLY-INVASIVE DEVICE
Version: 3 Date: 19 Oct 2022
Reviewer's report:
Authors developed a video-assisted technique that uses only a minimally-invasive device for the
liver biopsy and the optical trocar.  Without additional trocars, this technique constitutes a less
invasive procedure than the existing techniques in clinical practice.
I think this is an interesting article. But I have several questions as follow.
1. The sample size in this paper is too small, which may cause statistical errors. If possible,
please increase the sample size appropriately.
2.Laparoscopic biopsy can be performed at the same time as biopsy, exploration, resection and
other operations, but the new biopsy method in this paper can not complete the above operations.
Otherwise#this method is difficult to biopsy lesions on the visceral surface of the liver. So the
indications and suitable population of the new method need to be further discussed.
3.In addition, traditional percutaneous liver biopsy can be performed under local anesthesia.
This method requires general anesthesia, so its clinical utility is explained in the discussion.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02740-4 (2023)

Title: DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF A VIDEO-ASSISTED LIVER BIOPSY
TECHNIQUE USING A MINIMALLY-INVASIVE DEVICE
Version: 3 Date: 23 Nov 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for this interesting manuscript.
I found that the research question is not answered by the results, the authors aim to develop a
technique, which to my knowledge is not innovative.
Several coaxial needle devices are commercially available,
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02740-4 (2023)

Title: DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF A VIDEO-ASSISTED LIVER BIOPSY
TECHNIQUE USING A MINIMALLY-INVASIVE DEVICE
Version: 8 Date: 27 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
Interesting work, however, you may publish it as a technical note or case presentation.
Thank you
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02749-9 (2023)

Title: Development and validation of nomograms for predicting overall survival and cancer-
specific survival in elderly patients with locally advanced gastric cancer: a population-based
study
Version: 1 Date: 25 Oct 2022
Reviewer's report:
The authors reported “Development and validation of nomograms for predicting overall
survival and cancer-specific survival in elderly patients with locally advanced gastric cancer:
a population-based study.” The authors concluded that the novel validated nomogram could
accurately predict the prognosis of individual elderly patients with LAGC, and guiding the
selection of the clinical treatment measures.
However, there are many problems in this paper, I think.
1. The authors should present the #-coefficient value in the Tables (Cox multivariable Table).
#-coefficient is the most important value, with which nomogram can be constructed.
2. From the graphical viewpoint, the graphical presentation of nomogram is uncommon. X axis
should be started Zero point in each variable.
3. I think continuous variables (age, tumor size, LNR) should be modeled as (3-knot) restricted
cubic splines for potential nonlinear effect. Harrell’s guideline (Harrell FE. Regression Modeling
Strategies: With Applications to Linear Models, Logistic Regression, and Survival Analysis.
2nd edition. New York: Springer; 2015) emphasized avoiding the categorization of continuous
variables because some categorical variables are subjective and hard to standardize and do not
contain the same amount of statistical information as continuous variables.
4. The authors should discuss the clinical value of the results of decision curve analysis.
5. From the Figure legends of Figure 4, LNR means tumor size and lymph node ratios. I cannot
understand it.
6. What is “ROC cure” in Figure 6?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02749-9 (2023)

Title: Development and validation of nomograms for predicting overall survival and cancer-
specific survival in elderly patients with locally advanced gastric cancer: a population-based
study
Version: 1 Date: 30 Oct 2022
Reviewer's report:
This study is important in influencing the clinician's decision as it is the first to establish the
CSS and OS nomogram model based on a large population database for elderly patients with
LAGC to effectively predict the survival rate. However, it is recommended to write the meaning
of abbreviations (eg LNM, LNR) in the abstract.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02749-9 (2023)

Title: Development and validation of nomograms for predicting overall survival and cancer-
specific survival in elderly patients with locally advanced gastric cancer: a population-based
study
Version: 1 Date: 09 Dec 2022
Reviewer's report:
This paper establishes a nomogram to predict the survival of elderly patients with gastric cancer.
After verification, this nomogram shows excellent predictive power. But there are still some
places that need to be modified by the author, such as:
1. There may be some language problems that make it difficult for people to understand. Take
the last sentence of the Results section of the summary.
2. Advise to change reference 15 to the recommended reference format on the SEER official
website, that is, the recommended reference format displayed at the bottom of the SEER*Stat
software when the database is selected.
3. It is suggested to conduct statistical difference analysis on the baseline data in Table 1.
4. Interestingly, in Table 5, the C-index of training cohort is smaller than that of internal and
external verification, which is worthy of careful code and data checking by the author.
5. Suggest that the author add the line number for the convenience of the reviewer to mark.
6. It is suggested that the drawing of Figure 6 refer to IDO 10.1186/s12876-020-01464-z, IDO
10.1186/s12876-021-01692-x.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02749-9 (2023)

Title: Development and validation of nomograms for predicting overall survival and cancer-
specific survival in elderly patients with locally advanced gastric cancer: a population-based
study
Version: 2 Date: 08 Jan 2023
Reviewer's report:
After reviewing and checking the manuscript, I believe that the manuscript has met the
conditions for publication. I agree to recommend the manuscript for publication and ask the
editorial board to consider it. Thanks a lot.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02749-9 (2023)

Title: Development and validation of nomograms for predicting overall survival and cancer-
specific survival in elderly patients with locally advanced gastric cancer: a population-based
study
Version: 3 Date: 17 Mar 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: My previous comments have be addressed sufficiently. I have no
more to add. However, there are still language issues present."
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02750-2 (2023)

Title: The care cascade for hepatitis C virus and prognosis of chronic hepatitis C patients treated
with antiviral agents in a tertiary hospital
Version: 3 Date: 17 Nov 2022
Reviewer's report:
Yoo and colleagues revised manuscript according to the reviewers’ comments. However, most
comment was not fully addressed raising concern about the quality of this study.
#1. The authors changed the title of this study adding “prognosis of chronic HCV patients treated
with antiviral agents..”. However, there was few information about HCV care cascade in this
study except the number of patients being tested HCV Ab, HCV RNA, and patients who were
treated. There was rare information regarding speculation for what could be the problem in this
care cascade system and supporting data.
#2. Again, we may need to know why patients were not referred to get further tested despite of
HCV Ab positivity. Although, this study was retrospective study this could be further elaborated
based on the characteristics or comorbidities of patients who were not tested HCV RNA. The
authors stated there was no data for this in this revision.
#3. Regarding the figure 3, I suggested that X-axis could be modified considering the significant
difference in follow-up period between the two groups. However, the authors insisted that they
would like to show the long-term outcomes. I am wondering the long-term outcome can be
presented in the form of annual incidence. In addition, probably due to the low number of
patients, cumulative incidence of HCC in the SVR (-) group rate increased from 5% to 52.5%.
#4. I suggested to delete some information in the Figure 3, such as number of events, and event
rate. However, the authors insisted that they would like to show readers the detailed number of
events per year. The graph appeared to be very busy. Event rates are already explained by the
Y-axis. I do not agree that the number of events in this graph is needed. This is applied to Figure
4 as well. Only 11 patient left after 7 years of antiviral treatment in cirrhosis group in the Figure
4, no event occurred since this point. Just 1 patient left after 10 years.
#5. Regarding the Figure 3A and 3B, no significant difference was observed between the SVR
(+) and SVR (-) groups in the risk of HCC. Authors did not further mention about this non-
difference despite I commented. Do the authors think that HCC risk may not be different
regardless of SVR? I think this should be appropriately addressed. Otherwise, we may not need
to treat patients with HCV to achieve SVR as this may not decrease the risk of HCC.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02750-2 (2023)

Title: The care cascade for hepatitis C virus and prognosis of chronic hepatitis C patients treated
with antiviral agents in a tertiary hospital
Version: 3 Date: 22 Nov 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
There are no new comments on the revised version.  Unfortunately I do not see the the comments
were sufficiently responded too; there were reasonable requests for information on the study
methods that would aid the reader to understand the sample and procedures, I think the comments
should be more fully addressed.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02750-2 (2023)

Title: The care cascade for hepatitis C virus and prognosis of chronic hepatitis C patients treated
with antiviral agents in a tertiary hospital
Version: 6 Date: 28 Mar 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?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: Yes, the authors have responded appropriately and adequately to key
queries raised in peer review, and have made corresponding changes to clarify methodology,
interpretatin/discussion, and conclusions.  Overall, the manuscript remains limited due to
intrinsic characteristics as a single-center retrospective cohort study with missing data in several
variables of interest, but otherwise the findings are valid and novel for the specific geography
and study population and does contribute meaningful new data which may help inform public
health and clinical recommendations for this region and is worthy of publication.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Overall the objectives, study design, study execution, statistical analysis, and data interpretation
are acceptable.  As requested, the authors have cited important limitations in their dataset and
have clarified specific questions regarding definitions and available/unavailable data in their
cohort.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
There are still intrinsic non-modifiable limitations and weaknesses in their manuscript due
to retrospective cohort study design and available data, but in this context, the authors
have reasonably reported key findings with clear statement regarding these limitations, and
appropriate conclusions to inform future research studies and clinical practice."
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02748-w (2023)

Title: A novel immune checkpoint score system for prognostic evaluation in pancreatic
adenocarcinoma
Version: 2 Date: 08 Aug 2022
Reviewer's report:
Abstract has not been divided into subheadings.
Minor grammatical errors need to be addressed.
Table 1 - correct spelling of unknown, use alive instead of survival
Table 1- Most patients's M stage is listed as  M0 and unknown - so is the model appropriate
for metastatic patients as well.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02748-w (2023)

Title: A novel immune checkpoint score system for prognostic evaluation in pancreatic
adenocarcinoma
Version: 2 Date: 16 Aug 2022
Reviewer:  Sadettin Er
Reviewer's report:
I think that the article will contribute to the prognostic scoring of pancreatic adenocarcinoma
with a very poor prognosis and low overall survival rate.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02748-w (2023)

Title: A novel immune checkpoint score system for prognostic evaluation in pancreatic
adenocarcinoma
Version: 2 Date: 17 Aug 2022
Reviewer:  S. Ak Aksoy
Reviewer's report:
In this study, the authors aimed to develop a new risk score model for PAAD with predictive
power based on immune checkpoints via bioinformatics analyses.
But it has some limitations.
Major revision:
Because this is a patient-based study, patient characteristics should be given.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02748-w (2023)

Title: A novel immune checkpoint score system for prognostic evaluation in pancreatic
adenocarcinoma
Version: 2 Date: 03 Jan 2023
Reviewer's report:
Review of A novel immune checkpoint score system for prognostic evaluation in pancreatic
adenocarcinoma  by Chen, et al.
This manuscript attempts to identify a pathologic/molecular scoring system designed to predict
immune checkpoint inhibitor response.
1. While this is an important goal and the authors are to be commended on the large amount of
data generated, this manuscript is observatory in nature and does not achieve the stated goal.
I recommend that this manuscript not be accepted for the following major fundamental flaws
include:
2. Figure 1. data. Can the authors verify the comparison is 123 tumor and matched normal
pancreas from the TCGA database?  Is the “normal” from adjacent pancreatic tissue? Are the
samples paired? If so, the analysis should reflect this. Since this is a fundamental experiment
upon which all subsequent work is conducted, this must be verified with original data linking
these samples.
3. Fig 2 and 3 shows survival outcome data for the  patients from with the TCGA was obtained
and the authors report having “clinical data” for these samples. What other therapy was received?
Was chemotherapy given before or after surgery? What is the follow up time? Is it sufficient for
KM analysis of 63 patients? These data are critical for interpreting the results and the meaning
of any molecular findings or building the nomogram in Figure 4.
4. Figure 4. The clinicopathologic factors include metastatic disease (M) which suggests a highly
heterogeneous clinical group not suitable for this analysis.  Additionally, the hazard ratio for
outcome events for metastasis is less significant than tumor size (T) which also is inconsistent
with the literature.
5. Figure 10,11. The methods and images suggest protein expression levels of OX40L were
measured, but the abstract states transcripts. This is unclear and misleading for the reader.
Additionally, the samples used in these studies are clinically distinct from those used for the prior
experiments with no data regarding additional therapy so survival outcomes are not particularly
comparable.
6. There are no experiments or clinical data that actually prove, or even suggest, that the gene or
protein signatures identified will indeed predict tumor response to immune check point inhibitor
therapy.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02748-w (2023)

Title: A novel immune checkpoint score system for prognostic evaluation in pancreatic
adenocarcinoma
Version: 3 Date: 16 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: A potentially interesting retrospective in-silico gene expression
model for checkpoint inhibitor response in pancreatic carcinomas. Brief and concise (maybe too
concise in places) but well considered and relatively well written. The statistics and analysis
seem appropriate and the model potentially useful within this context. Please note: the figures
were not included in this review pack, so only the figure legends have been included in this
review.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
The established acronym for pancreatic ductal carcinomas is PDAC; in the TCGA dataset PAAD
refers to a heterogenous group of tumours; if possible, please give breakdown of the subtypes
included in this analysis (expand Table 1 if necessary). If not, please flag this heterogeneity in
the text as a study limitation.
Human gene names should follow the HUGO/HGVS convention: bold and italicised.
Key results should be given in brief in the results section e.g. mean, range, p-value, cell subtypes
detected, etc; just a reference to the related figure is not sufficient.
Was mutation effect prediction taken into account in mutation analysis? If so, how; if not, why?"