JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02834-z (2023)

Title: The predictive value of CD4, CD8, and C - reactive protein in the prognosis
of schistosomal and non-schistosomal colorectal cancer
Version: 0 Date: 23 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
he authors, entitled "The predictive value of CD4, CD8, and C-reactive protein in the prognosis
of schistosomal and non-schistosomal colorectal cancer" aimed to provide a possible predictive
system to evaluate outcomes for patients with schistosomiasis. The study was well performed
with the right methodology. Please find points of criticism below.
1. There are no clear scientific statements and discussions about novelty of this research, because
TILs, mainly CD4 and CD8 T cells have been extensively described in anti-tumor immunity and
knowledge of CD4 and CD8 T lymphocytes' interplay in mediating the control of tumor growth
exists. It seemed that there was no novelty and meaningless for the authors to adopt the complex
procedure in the prognosis of schistosomal and non-schistosomal colorectal cancer. Therefore,
it is better for the authors to investigate the diagnosis effect by other markers combined with the
image detection or biopsy among the colorectal cancers.
2. As known to all, iCD4 and sCD8 is widely used as a surveillance factor for CRC. Combined
with B ultra-sound or CT image examination, it was convenient and efficient for the diagnosis
of CRC. For schistosomal and non-schistosomal CRC, other markers combined with the image
detection or biopsy could help for the independent prognostic factor for NSCRC patients and
for SCRC patients.
3. There are some misspellings throughout texts and need to be corrected.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02834-z (2023)

Title: The predictive value of CD4, CD8, and C - reactive protein in the prognosis
of schistosomal and non-schistosomal colorectal cancer
Version: 0 Date: 14 Mar 2023
Reviewer:  Moxin Wu
Reviewer's report:
Cheng et al. investigated the predictive value of CD4, CD8, and C - reactive protein in
the prognosis of schistosomal and non-schistosomal colorectal cancer. The results show
different subtypes of TILs have distinguished biological behavior and function in the immune
microenviroment of NSCRC and SCRC patients. Although the analyses are described very well
- analysis/data are missing to understand the actual performance of this novel biomarker. Below
the different concerns/extra analysis needed:
1. Can you please explain why there is no correlation of between iCD4+T cell density and clinical
characteristics, while there is significantly associated with OS in univariate Cox regression
analysis. Furthermore, in the section of “Univariate and multivariate regression analysis” where
is multivariate result, please describe clearly.
2. Results Patient characteristics; please add median survival time, and range (high and low
expression) and number of deaths (events, low and high). Is there enough events/power for the
multivariate analysis with all the markers?
3. Survival outcomes and Cox regression analysis; please add table (under figure 4) with number
of people/patients at risk for the different groups.
4. Check model performance, using e.g AIC scoring, C-statistic?
5. Although the manuscript is well written, some of the sentences needs further editing for better
understanding.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02834-z (2023)

Title: The predictive value of CD4, CD8, and C - reactive protein in the prognosis
of schistosomal and non-schistosomal colorectal cancer
Version: 3 Date: 23 May 2023
Reviewer:  Moxin Wu
Reviewer's report:
The authors improved the text by removing the repetitions and answered my concerns.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02835-y (2023)

Title: Osteosarcopenia predicts poor survival in patients with cirrhosis: a retrospective study
Version: 1 Date: 21 Mar 2023
Reviewer's report:
Osteosarcopenia predicts poor survival in patients with cirrhosis by Saeki, et al.
This article seems to be nicely written, which ay be informative for clinicians.
The referee has a few requests and questions.
#1. Please consider to quote the following articles.
Hepatol Res. 2016 Sep;46(10):951-63.
J Gastroenterol. 2020 Mar;55(3):353-362.
#2. Please show the relationship (correlation coefficient (r)) between BMD and grip strength
or SMI in male and female and discuss the relevance between osteoporosis and sarcopenia in
patients with liver cirrhosis.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02835-y (2023)

Title: Osteosarcopenia predicts poor survival in patients with cirrhosis: a retrospective study
Version: 1 Date: 24 Mar 2023
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript presents very interesting data that osteosarcopenia was significantly associated
with mortality in patients with cirrhosis. This study provides an important contribution to the
management of patients with liver cirrhosis.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02835-y (2023)

Title: Osteosarcopenia predicts poor survival in patients with cirrhosis: a retrospective study
Version: 1 Date: 08 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
“Osteosarcopenia predicts poor survival in patients with cirrhosis” was very interesting in
hepatology. Sarcopenia was paid attention to, but osteoporosis was not fully. In this study, it
is reported that osteosarcopenia has an equal impact on Child BC for survival. From now, the
evaluation of osteosarcopenia is fundamental to the treatment of chronic liver disease.
Since osteosarcopenia is important for liver disease, I have few questions for the authors.
In the background, on page 4, line 3, the authors described “few reported studies have evaluated
this relationship in patients with CLD.” That relation is most importable in this study. If that
relationship has been reported, authors should be referred to previous reports. If only reference
number 21, the authors must write that.
In the method, page 4, line 35, the authors described the definition criteria of osteoporosis.  In
this study, the authors evaluated three bones site, does the diagnosis of osteoporosis need to
meet the criteria in all three? Or is only one site OK? The authors must be clear.
Osteosarcopenia was found to be a more important factor in the prognosis of CLD patients than
sarcopenia or osteoporosis.
In Table 2 and S1, the authors should analyze compared of osteosarcopenia, osteoporosis, and
sarcopenia same as in Figure 2.
In Table 1, patients with osteosarcopenia have low BMI and high age, but age and BMI are not
associated with mortality. However, the relationship between osteoporosis, sex, age, and BMI is
well known. Were Low BMI (18.5>) and high age (65<) not associated with a poor prognosis?
In this study, the authors evaluated the relationship between liver-related mortality and
osteosarcopenia. Since osteosarcopenia is contributed to mortality in other diseases, we could
think that osteosarcopenia is related to all mortality. Is all mortality, including cardiovascular
events and unknown origin, not associated with osteosarcopenia in CLD?
In Table 2, Child BC and osteosarcopenia were independently associated with prognosis. In
Figure 3, Child BC plus osteoporosis group had a more severe prognosis than Child BC or
osteoporosis alone. If so, is osteosarcopenia a poor prognostic factor in Child A?
Authors described that osteosarcopenia is the risk factor for poor prognosis independent of Child
stage and hepatoma. Therefore, the authors should be emphasized the care of sarcopenia and
osteoporosis in cirrhotic patients in the discussion and conclusion.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02835-y (2023)

Title: Osteosarcopenia predicts poor survival in patients with cirrhosis: a retrospective study
Version: 1 Date: 08 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
Comments to Authors
Authors described the manuscript entitled ‘Osteosarcopenia predicts poor survival in patients
with cirrhosis’. There were some concerns to be addressed.
1. The title should include the study design (retrospective design and so on).
2. The patient selection process should be clarified and a figure should be included to help
readers understand.
3. Authors should clarify whether they used fibrosis markers such as FIB-4 and liver stiffness
measurement (FibroScan) to diagnose cirrhosis. The value of these markers could be included
in Table.
4. I did not understand the rationale for including patients with HCC in this study, given that
cirrhosis patients with HCC have a poor prognosis, as shown in Table 2. Moreover, the treatment
for HCC could strongly affect the present results. Although the authors excluded patients with
advanced HCC, the occurrence of HCC is more likely in patients after curative treatment than in
those without a history of HCC. Furthermore, malignant tumors are generally strongly associated
with osteosarcopenia, which could confound the results. Therefore, I suggest that the authors
exclude patients with HCC and conduct statistical analyses in cirrhosis patients without HCC.
In this connection, although the authors concluded that osteosarcopenia was significantly and
independently associated with mortality in patients with cirrhosis, I do not think this conclusion
can be drawn from the present results, given the confounding effects of HCC and the possible
association between malignant tumors and osteosarcopenia. Therefore, I strongly recommend
that the authors exclude patients with HCC and revise their conclusion based on the analysis of
cirrhosis patients without HCC.
5. In Figures 2 and 3, the authors compared the survival curve between two groups. However,
this analysis may be flawed. Instead, the authors should use the log-rank test to compare survival
among all three groups. Additionally, the authors should use a multiple comparison procedure
(Bonferroni method, Holm method, and so on) to account for the possibility of false-positive
results.
6. As the authors mentioned malnutrition in their study, they should clarify the number of
patients who received BCAA supplements.
7. The conclusion section is too lengthy. The authors should consider summarizing their findings
more succinctly and briefly.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02835-y (2023)

Title: Osteosarcopenia predicts poor survival in patients with cirrhosis: a retrospective study
Version: 3 Date: 13 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
Excluded HCC patients from the study made it a great paper. This manuscript presents very
interesting data that osteosarcopenia was significantly associated with mortality in patients with
cirrhosis. This study provides an important contribution to the management of patients with liver
cirrhosis.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02694-7 (2023)

Title: Correlation between KRAS and NRAS mutational status and clinicopathological features
in 414 cases of metastatic colorectal cancer in Morocco: the largest North African case series
Version: 2 Date: 16 Nov 2022
Reviewer's report:
I read with interest the manuscript and noted the great efforts made by the authors in designing
and executing this study. The authors presented from literature that RAS mutation negatively
affects response to anti-EGFR agents. They sought to determine correlation of KRAS and NRAS
with Clinicopathological characteristics of their patient population. To a very large extent, this
objective was achieved.
The authors may please note the following observations presented according to the sections
affected.
The Abstract.
The background section of the abstract is well articulated but seems to have multiple paragraphs.
It could all be collapsed into just one paragraph. A statement about the statistics employed in the
study should be added in the methodology while the result section could be populated with more
findings. Some trends in the outcome variable may be worth noting regardless of its p value.
Lastly on the abstract, the conclusion part appears lengthy.  The report of non contributive
cases should belong to the result section while the explanation regarding use of Idyla and NGS
platforms should be deleted. Its already well placed in the discussion of the study.
The Keyword
I would suggest that the words colorectal and cancer be made one keyword.
The Body of the manuscript
Background
There seems to be multiple paragraphs in the background subsection. Some of these can be
merged to produce fewer paragraphs. Secondly, the literature used to arrive at the background
to the study are not cited in this section. Additionally, it may be necessary to state why KRAS
and NRAS but not HRAS were evaluated.
Method
The term macro or microdissection might need a brief description.
Result
What amino acids substitution were observed in the mutated codons? What proportion of the
metastatic tumors had mutations compared with primary tumors? Were the primary tumors of
the metastatic cases analyzed to determine which is more likely to harbour RAS mutations. Table
6 may be wrongly placed.
Discussion
The discussion captured the clinicopathologic factors studied. Additional benefit could be
achieved by discussing the implications of the overall RAS mutation status to the studied
population. Also statements regarding possible differences in patient outcome between KRAS
and NRAS mutants might be of interest. How does the mutation pattern seen in this study
compare with others in terms of codons and amino acids affected? What could the age cut-
off of 50 years mean in patients with or without RAS mutations as this was significant? What
limitations could be ascribed to the study especially using Idylla.
Conclusion
Lastly, there was no conclusion for the study.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02694-7 (2023)

Title: Correlation between KRAS and NRAS mutational status and clinicopathological features
in 414 cases of metastatic colorectal cancer in Morocco: the largest North African case series
Version: 2 Date: 18 Nov 2022
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript entitled “Correlation between KRAS and NRAS mutational status and
clinicopathological features in 414 cases of metastatic colorectal cancer in Morocco: the largest
North African case series: investigated the KRAS and NRAS mutational status in colorectal
cancer in North African. Given the large case number, it is an interesting project, but there are
many issues to be addressed regarding study design and writing styles.
1. What samples were submitted for the PCR analysis? How many are primary tumor vs.
metastatic cancer? If metastatic, how did the authors make sure that they are truly colorectal
primary?
2. Three cases of small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma are included. In my opinion, pure small
cell carcinoma in colorectum is extremely rare. Can the authors confirm the diagnosis before
including them for analysis? Also, histology pictures are needed to see how they define the
adenocarcinoma to be mucinous, NOS, or small cell.
3. Is there any prognostic difference between the KRAS/NRAS mutated vs. wild-type cancers?
Any survival data? In another words, what is the significance of this study and what new
information can it bring to the medical world rather than “being the largest study in North
African?”
4. There are also many writing style issues: 1. The abstract is lengthy and wordy with many
unnecessary information. 2. The main text needs to be phrased with organized paragraphs. 3.
“Primitive tumor” should be “primary tumor”, etc.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02694-7 (2023)

Title: Correlation between KRAS and NRAS mutational status and clinicopathological features
in 414 cases of metastatic colorectal cancer in Morocco: the largest North African case series
Version: 4 Date: 05 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
I have reviewed the revised manuscript and noted all the changes made by the authors. I am
satisfied that they have made all the suggested corrections. It's richer in presentation in the
current form.
However, may I suggest to the authors that the conclusion in the abstract is more suitable than
the one in the body of the manuscript and can be replicated.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02801-8 (2023)

Title: Albumin infusion may decrease the mortality of hypoalbuminemia patients with severe
acute pancreatitis: a retrospective cohort study
Version: 2 Date: 20 Nov 2022
Reviewer's report:
I reviewed the study titled "Albumin infusion decreases the mortality of hypoalbuminemia
patients with severe acute pancreatitis: a retrospective cohort study".
The authors performed an interesting analysis which suggests that albumin replacement in
hypoalbuminaemic patients with acute pancreatitis is beneficial.
They performed propensity score matching to ensure that similar groups are compared.
I suggest using the following guidelines when reporting PSM: https://doi.org/10.1093%2Fjnci
%2Fdjw323
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6059208/
Some details are lacking to properly judge the model.
There are only few typos and some minor problems with the use of English.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02801-8 (2023)

Title: Albumin infusion may decrease the mortality of hypoalbuminemia patients with severe
acute pancreatitis: a retrospective cohort study
Version: 3 Date: 05 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript has improved, it is interesting and adds major knowledge to this field. However
as listed below several of my points from first revision still need some more adjustments.
Point 1. Still there are several wordings indication causality ex in the title (Albumin infusion
decreases mortality…). The study investigates correlations. Please do not use the word “effect
of”  or similar.
Point 4. CRP levels are not available for all patients according to the authors reply. This is
very disappointing.  Standard treatment of acute pancreatitis includes measurement of CRP and
for patients with severe AP this is done repeatedly. How come there are no CRP levels for
patients included in the study? What do the authors think about earlier publications that have
demonstrated that a CRP/alb ratio rather than CRP or alb separatly predicts poor outcome? This
major disadvantage of the study is not even discussed in discussion part.
If CRP is available for most patients, it would be possible to see if maximum CRP during the
first week differed between patients with/without hypoalbuminemia. If CRP levels can not be
included this need to be discussed in discussion section including references to publications
enhancing the relation between CRP/alb to be more important than CRP och alb separately.
Point 10. Please indicate in table tex (bottom of table) that all laboratory values are from
admission in Table 1 and similar (except albmin in Table 3)
Point 6. The impact of including patients who died within 30 days in the cost and length of stay
analysis should be discussed in discussion (indicating actual differences in Length of stay and
costs to be even larger)
When discussed about hypoalbuminemia in AP the authors should also reflect upon causes
for hypoalbuminemi already existing in patients getting AP such as malnutrition etc. These
preexisting conditions might affect the outcome and introduce a bias- this should be discussed.
Still there are abbreviations not spelled out first time used (f ex IPN, ACS in methods)
One sentence in methods need to be rewritten since it is hard to understand
“The primary treatment measures for AP patients include early fluid resuscitation, nutrition
support (parenteral or enteral) and analgesia(4, 28-30).”
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02801-8 (2023)

Title: Albumin infusion may decrease the mortality of hypoalbuminemia patients with severe
acute pancreatitis: a retrospective cohort study
Version: 4 Date: 05 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript has improved and all  my comments have been answered.
There is still a need for some Editorial corrections (language etc)
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02813-4 (2023)

Title: Scoring System for Predicting 90-Day Mortality of In-hospital Liver Cirrhosis Patients
at Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital
Version: 1 Date: 11 Dec 2022
Reviewer's report:
This was a single center, prospective, observational study on 116 patients with decompensated
cirrhosis who were hospitalized for an acute complication of their disease. The Authors followed
them up for 90 days after hospitalization, and created a score aimed at predicting survival.
Notably, 90-d mortality was very high (42%) and the patients who had both leucocyte count
>12.000, MELD>14 and CHILD Pugh C had a 90d mortality risk of 94%.
The aim of the study is not novel, since many scores (based both on biochemical and clinical
characteristics) have been proposed to assess and stratify prognosis in patients with cirrhosis.
Moreover, the proposed score has not been validated in other cohorts.
Major comments:
- Granular data about etiology of liver disease should be provided. “Non B non C” etiology
is quite confusing. How many patients had alcohol as first etiology? How many metabolic
diseases?
- Granular data about cause of first hospitalization, length of stay, causes of death are missed
and should be provided
- In the last decade, definitions as acute-on-chronic liver failure and acute decompensation have
been proposed by large Consortia to stratify prognosis of patients with cirrhosis.  For instance,
several studies (e.g., Trebicka et al 10.1016/j.jhep.2020.06.013) explored short-term prognosis
of patients with acute decompensation after their hospital discharge.
- Notably, the abovementioned Consortia considered in their scores not only biochemical, but
also clinical parameters (e.g., MAP, ventilation …) in order to predict patient survival. Why the
Authors decided to use only biochemical parameters?
- Did the patients have any comorbidity?
- How many patients were evaluated for liver transplantation?
- How many patients were considered for TIPSS after variceal bleeding?
- How many patients were hospitalized within 30 d?
- I do not agree with the Authors when they said that prognosis of patients with cirrhosis admitted
in ICU is always dismal. Several papers showed that ICU is the appropriate setting for ACLF
(II-III) patients since they can recovery after adequate intensive treatment (or can undergo LT)
Minor comments
- A significant proportion of patients (n. 32) was lost to follow-up, even in a relatively short
interval time (90 days). These patients did not return to the Hospital and cannot be contacted.
- Table 1. All subjects n=116 instead of n. 66
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02813-4 (2023)

Title: Scoring System for Predicting 90-Day Mortality of In-hospital Liver Cirrhosis Patients
at Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital
Version: 1 Date: 25 Dec 2022
Reviewer:  Tarana Gupta
Reviewer's report:
Authors have calculated a score for prediction of 90-day mortality in patients with cirrhosis.
They have used both CTP and MELD score in multivariate analysis, whereas same variables
can not be run into multivariate analysis.
They should thoroughly explain as how they have taken a score of 2, 3, 4, 5 etc for calculation
of final score.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02813-4 (2023)

Title: Scoring System for Predicting 90-Day Mortality of In-hospital Liver Cirrhosis Patients
at Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital
Version: 1 Date: 03 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
This is a prospective cohort study investigating predictors of mortality in patients with liver
cirrhosis admitted to the Cipto Mangunkusomo Hosp in Jakarta in 2019. The authors examined
factors that could predict 90 d mortality. They examined demographic, clinic and lab data and
patients were monitored for 90d after admission. Cox regression analysis was then performed
to examined independent predictors. The overall mortality was 42% and the main factors were
MELD, CTP score and leukocyte count. A scorecard was developed for risk. The AUC for the
three was 0.921 and patients could be categorized as low risk (0-3) (4-18% mortality), moderate
risk (5-6) (40-54% mortality) or high risk 8-11 (78-95% mortality).
Comments
1. This is a commendable study that is of practical utility for a country like Indonesia, however
some improvements can be made
2. Only baseline data was collected and since patients status changes over time, changes in the
variables may also be useful as predictors. Were these collected? And were they analysed?
3. The standard of care management for each of these complications was not stated, eg
hematemesis and melaena – presumably endoscopy was performed ± EVL? Did all patients have
this done, variceal bleeding was present in %? What was the time from bleeding to endoscopy
(<24h ? >24h) since this has a bearing on mortality. Were all patients resuscitated according to
a standard protocol? Was is the protocol (this should be in the supplement). Similarly, protoocol
management of ascites, SBP and HE should be stated and included in supplement
4. The variables for CTP score and MELD score both include bilirubin and INR hence there is a
repetition of the variable in the cox regression. This should be corrected by using the individual
components of the MELD and CTP score and subjecting to cox regression. Alternatively, using
either CTP or MELD may solve the problem.
5. Non B non C is not really a terminology for liver cirrhosis that is commonly used. Metabolic
syndrome is likely to be a significant risk factor and this category may need some re-assignment
based on metabolic liver disease
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02813-4 (2023)

Title: Scoring System for Predicting 90-Day Mortality of In-hospital Liver Cirrhosis Patients
at Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital
Version: 3 Date: 10 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
There are still some spelling and grammatical errors that need correction. I suggest the authors
go through this more thoroughly.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02813-4 (2023)

Title: Scoring System for Predicting 90-Day Mortality of In-hospital Liver Cirrhosis Patients
at Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital
Version: 3 Date: 13 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
From my side, the revision requirement have been met satisfactorily.
Thanks,
Dr. Shaw
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02830-3 (2023)

Title: LONG- AND SHORT-TERM OUTCOMES OF BALLOON DILATION FOR
BENIGN CHOLEDOCHOJEJUNAL ANASTOMOTIC STRICTURE USING BALLOON
ENDOSCOPY- ASSISTED ERCP: A MULTI-CENTER RETROSPECTIVE COHORT
STUDY
Version: 0 Date: 04 May 2023
Reviewer:  Katsuya Kitamura
Reviewer's report:
Please describe and discuss the disease and surgical method that caused the anastomotic stenosis
in the early stage. Please add the diameter of the balloon used in the case where the constriction
remained during balloon dilation and consider it.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02830-3 (2023)

Title: LONG- AND SHORT-TERM OUTCOMES OF BALLOON DILATION FOR
BENIGN CHOLEDOCHOJEJUNAL ANASTOMOTIC STRICTURE USING BALLOON
ENDOSCOPY- ASSISTED ERCP: A MULTI-CENTER RETROSPECTIVE COHORT
STUDY
Version: 0 Date: 07 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for giving me an opportunity to review this article. I can read your paper with
great interest. In recent years, the results of treatment for pancreaticobiliary malignancies have
been improving, and the number of cases detected at an early stage has been increasing.
Therefore, patients who have undergone pancreaticoduodenectomy and choledochojejunostomy
are increasingly surviving long term after surgery. In such long-term survivors, cholangitis due
to CJS is an important problem that significantly interferes with the patient's quality of life. BE-
ERCP in patients with CJS is indeed a very beneficial treatment. However, even after technically
successful treatment, stenosis may recur.
I have some comments regarding the manuscript.
Comments
#1
The authors discussed the usefulness of interventional EUS in patients with CJS. Therefore,
please provide the percentage of cases in which interventional EUS was performed to treat CJS
during the current study period, if any. Do the authors give priority to BE-ERCP or interventional
EUS in patients with CJS? If necessary, modify the figure 3 (patients flow).
#2
I would like to know what rescue treatment was provided for the three cases of technical failure.
#3
The number of stenosis recurrences in the present study was 12. I would like to know more
about the clinical course of these 12 cases. It seems that there were cases in which metallic stents
were placed, but were finally the stents removed in all cases? Or are there cases where the stents
(plastic or metallic) were periodically replaced? Please describe these 12 cases of restenosis in
more detail in the Result/Discussion section.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02830-3 (2023)

Title: LONG- AND SHORT-TERM OUTCOMES OF BALLOON DILATION FOR
BENIGN CHOLEDOCHOJEJUNAL ANASTOMOTIC STRICTURE USING BALLOON
ENDOSCOPY- ASSISTED ERCP: A MULTI-CENTER RETROSPECTIVE COHORT
STUDY
Version: 1 Date: 17 May 2023
Reviewer:  Katsuya Kitamura
Reviewer's report:
No additional comments.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02830-3 (2023)

Title: LONG- AND SHORT-TERM OUTCOMES OF BALLOON DILATION FOR
BENIGN CHOLEDOCHOJEJUNAL ANASTOMOTIC STRICTURE USING BALLOON
ENDOSCOPY- ASSISTED ERCP: A MULTI-CENTER RETROSPECTIVE COHORT
STUDY
Version: 1 Date: 17 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors appropriately revised the manuscript in accordance with the comments. However,
the manuscript appears to be incomplete. The corresponding author's instructional record is in the
WORD file, but  authors does not appear to have made corrections. Please review the submitted
manuscript again.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02830-3 (2023)

Title: LONG- AND SHORT-TERM OUTCOMES OF BALLOON DILATION FOR
BENIGN CHOLEDOCHOJEJUNAL ANASTOMOTIC STRICTURE USING BALLOON
ENDOSCOPY- ASSISTED ERCP: A MULTI-CENTER RETROSPECTIVE COHORT
STUDY
Version: 4 Date: 22 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors appropriately revised the manuscript in accordance with the comments.  I have no
additional comments.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02770-y (2023)

Title: Young adults with colon cancer: clinical features and surgical outcomes
Version: 0 Date: 23 Nov 2022
Reviewer's report:
We believe that the experimental methods in this paper can not really reflect the conclusions.
Only through retrospective analysis and no comparison, it is wrong to conclude that "colon
cancer in young adults is not a special type. No differences in clinical characteristics, total output
and long-term survival rate have been observed in this population". The research idea of this
paper is not clear enough, so it is recommended to return the paper.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02770-y (2023)

Title: Young adults with colon cancer: clinical features and surgical outcomes
Version: 0 Date: 04 Dec 2022
Reviewer:  Khaled Farid
Reviewer's report:
The authors in this manuscript aimed  to identify the clinicopathological features and long-term
survival in young-onset colon cancer patients through a retrospective study.
It is a good idea and acceptable work presented by a fairly readable language.
My first comment is that the manuscript language should be revised by a native English writer as
it contains many errors regarding the grammar, punctuation, and even the phrases in some parts.
you should spell out any abbreviations when first used in the manuscript.
Regarding the manuscript contents:
1. the abstract is well written and informative but in the result section it is better to separate
overall survival and progression free survival percentages.
2. the background is concise but more or less informative
3. Materials and methods: why you select to analyze the data of young onset patients only...why
you did not compare it with data of old onset colon cancer which i think available for you and
will be more confirmative to your conclusion?
4.Results: in all your tables you compare stages I-III against  stage V but regarding survival
analysis you compare stages I-II against stage III and V....why?
When you analyze risk factors of survival you did not comment on the results of univariate
analysis and did not put the results of multivariate analysis in a separate table...why??
5. Discussion: is informative and sufficient but contains many statements that needs  language
revision.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02770-y (2023)

Title: Young adults with colon cancer: clinical features and surgical outcomes
Version: 0 Date: 06 Dec 2022
Reviewer:  Greger Olsson
Reviewer's report:
Nice and important study, as many think that colonic cancer in younger differs from those in
elderly
However I consider the result-part to be shortened and the Material and method longer  (more
description of method)
Tempus must be checked throughout the paper
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02770-y (2023)

Title: Young adults with colon cancer: clinical features and surgical outcomes
Version: 0 Date: 10 Dec 2022
Reviewer:  Zi-ye Zhao
Reviewer's report:
I am very glad to see a study on early onset colon cancer. Through their analysis, the authors
found that colon cancers occurred in young people is essentially not a different type of cancer
from those occurred in seniors. But I think the flaws of both samples and methods compromised
the points that the authors wanted to make.
1. The total number of cases involved in this study is only seventy, so I think the results out of
this group of patients are obvious labile. Even if the authors’ opinion is remarkable and correct,
the data here cannot support it thoroughly.
2. The linear regression without a significant result cannot support the idea that no significant
rising trend of early onset colon cancer in the past 8 years. It can only indicate there is not a
linear rising trend. The corresponding explanations in the manuscript are wrong, including the
meaning of the P value and the judgment of the trend.
3. In the methods part, the exclusion criteria are not comprehensive. As to the hereditary CRC
syndrome, why is FAP the only disease being excluded? How about other intestinal polyposis?
4. In the first paragraph of the discussion part, the authors concluded that colon cancer in
young- onset adults was not special. The expression is strange, so the manuscript may need a
thorough language polishing. And authors seem not put forward the data of CRC in seniors as
the references to prove the non-specificity.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02770-y (2023)

Title: Young adults with colon cancer: clinical features and surgical outcomes
Version: 2 Date: 10 Jan 2023
Reviewer:  Zi-ye Zhao
Reviewer's report:
I am satisfactory with the authors’ response. Though the manuscript is not perfect, especially in
the sample size and study design, the medical topic which the authors discuss is an important
one and lack of widely accepted opinions with rigid evidence. The authors highlight that early
onset colon cancer is not significantly different from that occurring in the seniors, and it may
only own some unique features. I think, as the authors said, the present study will indeed add
some evidence and reference for further study.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02770-y (2023)

Title: Young adults with colon cancer: clinical features and surgical outcomes
Version: 2 Date: 12 Jan 2023
Reviewer's report:
The main limitation of this work is the limited sample size. It is the opinion of the current
reviewer that only large nationwide databases could address this important issue. Anyways, the
paper is overall well written and i suggest to the authors to list the aforementioned point at least
among the limitations of this study.
The authors should also cite some papers on the recurrence of colon cancer/adenoma after
resection (cite PMID: 27005802)
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02770-y (2023)

Title: Young adults with colon cancer: clinical features and surgical outcomes
Version: 3 Date: 27 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
The author did not modify the article according to the modification opinions. If other reviewers
agree to publish it, it can be published. Otherwise, it is not recommended to publish it. I respect
the opinions of other reviewers.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02770-y (2023)

Title: Young adults with colon cancer: clinical features and surgical outcomes
Version: 4 Date: 30 Mar 2023
Reviewer's report:
The conclusion is that cancer in young people is not a special type and requires comparison with
elderly patients, but the experiment does not provide a comparison. Therefore, it is considered
that the article is not suitable for publication unless further evidence is provided.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02825-0 (2023)

Title: Risk stratification for predicting postoperative recurrence of gastric cancer by grade of
venous invasion
Version: 1 Date: 25 Jan 2023
Reviewer's report:
This paper focuses on venous invasion of gastric cancer and analyzes the treatment results.
In actual clinical practice, surgeons have many cases of gastric cancer recurrence after surgery is
experienced, and pathological v+ is common. This article is a good representation of recurrence
in real clinical practice and is considered worthy of adoption. VI assessment may be useful in
determining adjuvant chemotherapy regimens.
Please indicate whether the evaluation of VI was performed by a single pathologist or by another
pathologist.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02825-0 (2023)

Title: Risk stratification for predicting postoperative recurrence of gastric cancer by grade of
venous invasion
Version: 1 Date: 01 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: Authors aim to evaluate the prognostic effect of the VI in gastric
cancer. They included 157 GC patients from databases of 17 years in single center. They clearly
showed VI as a significant negative prognostic factor in GC in univariate analysis. Because of
long time and different chemotherapy and surgical techniques, they failed to show predictive
feature of the VI but they stated this limitation in their manuscript properly.
Major findings of this article were that VI was clearly proved as negative prognostic factor; no
novel method was used. VI as a prognostic factor is well known information both in this and
other type of tumors. So, there is not much contribution to the field. I think this information
cannot be useful much for other researchers.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02817-0 (2023)

Title: The Development of a Novel, Multilingual IBD Knowledge Questionnaire for Asian
Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Version: 2 Date: 09 Mar 2023
Reviewer's report:
A very elaborate effort for developing a score which is region specific.
The following suggestions are offered for enhancing the article:
1. The limitations should be expanded
2. The discussion should discuss the following:
a. Yoon H, Yang SK, So H, et al. Development, validation, and application of a novel tool
to measure disease-related knowledge in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Korean J
Intern Med. 2019;34(1):81-89. doi:10.3904/kjim.2017.104
b. Kim JY, Yoon H, Hwang JS, Yang SK, Park SH, Loftus EV Jr. Comparison of Disease-related
Knowledge of Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease Between the West and the East Using
an Updated Questionnaire (IBD-KNOW). J Clin Gastroenterol. 2020 Sep;54(8):720-724. doi:
10.1097/MCG.0000000000001283. PMID: 31764490.
c. Danion P, Buisson A, Roblin X, Mathieu N, Charlois AL, Borgerding JN, Williet N, Del
Tedesco E, Flourié B, Nancey S, Boschetti G. IBD-INFO Questionnaire: A Multicenter French
Up-to-Date Survey of Patient Knowledge in Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis.
2018 Apr 23;24(5):943-952. doi: 10.1093/ibd/izx073. PMID: 29506217.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02829-w (2023)

Title: Long term changes in thrombocytopenia and leucopenia after HCV eradication with
direct-acting antivirals
Version: 2 Date: 07 Dec 2022
Reviewer:  Amira Al Balakosy
Reviewer's report:
1-The tile should be specified only to changes in thrombocytopenia and leucopenia .
2-A flow chart for the study  should be added explaining why 115 patients were included then
at the end of the study their number was 64 ( explain the reasons of dropout).
3-In the methods section the correct equation for calculating   splenic index is (length x width
x  thickness )  and you did not use it.
3- The conclusion is out of scope of the aim of the study.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02829-w (2023)

Title: Long term changes in thrombocytopenia and leucopenia after HCV eradication with
direct-acting antivirals
Version: 2 Date: 26 Dec 2022
Reviewer's report:
the statistical analysis of the data is correct.
the article deals with an important topic, but as a limitation it is a retrospective work. It is not
clear whether these patients had liver damage resulting only from HCV or whether there were
other viruses (e.g. HBV)
Is the group that presents a reduction in platelets the one that starts with the greatest
hypersplenism?
It is not clear to me whether this improvement is observed in subjects with severe hepatic
damage or severe porta hypertension. Does it also occur in subjects who have had an episode
of decompensation?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02829-w (2023)

Title: Long term changes in thrombocytopenia and leucopenia after HCV eradication with
direct-acting antivirals
Version: 4 Date: 11 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
Hematological parameters ......Chronological changes in hematological parameters were
assessed in the 110 patients who achieved SVR year after HCV eradication, mean WBC count,
which was 4,034/L before DAA treatment, increased to 4,546/L (p<0.01), with the increase
maintained for 5 years (Fig. 1A). ......Evaluation of hematological parameters within 24 weeks
after DAA treatment showed that, in our department, mean WBC count, which was 4,156/#L
before DAA treatment, increased to 4,520/#L 4 weeks after DAA treatment (p<0.01) and was
maintained for the following 20 weeks (Supplementary Fig. 5A).
You initially reported the number of patients as 110, in the second part you refer only to the
figure without reporting the number of subjects examined, this creates confusion
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02828-x (2023)

Title: Preoperative Platelet-Lymphocyte Ratio (PLR) as a Prognostic Inflammation Biomarker
in Asian HIV-Infected Patients with Gastric Cancer: A Single-Center Study
Version: 1 Date: 10 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
The report is detailed, but two major limitations exist that dampen enthusiasm for the report:
(1) Both the Introduction and Discussion draw attention to the potential that these data can
guide therapeutic decisions.  However, no such conclusions can be drawn from a comparison of
inflammatory markers and overall survival when the treatments given were standard, and when
the analysis conducted was an association analysis rather than a predictive/prognostic one.
(2) The lack of an HIV-negative comparison group is a major weakness since the findings are not
surprising and have been shown for many other tumors in HIV-negative patients.  It would be
important to understand if the associations between inflammatory markers and overall survival
differ by HIV status.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02828-x (2023)

Title: Preoperative Platelet-Lymphocyte Ratio (PLR) as a Prognostic Inflammation Biomarker
in Asian HIV-Infected Patients with Gastric Cancer: A Single-Center Study
Version: 1 Date: 26 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
To Authors:
In this manuscript entitled “Preoperative platelet to lymphocyte ratio (PLR) predicts survival
outcomes in HIV-infected patients with gastric cancer: an Asian single center study”, authors
evaluated the prognostic significance of the preoperative system inflammation biomarkers in the
Asian HIV-infected patients with GC. However, there were some problems in this study. You
need to make major revision. Please see comments below:
1. It mentioned that figure 2 and figure 3 were results of CRC, not GC, so the credibility of the
paper is insufficient.
2. Some discussions were not rigorous, such as the relationship between PLR and T cell counts,
which needs more relevant references to support it. And authors also need to construct a more
logical framework to show the usefulness of the article based on the results.
3. Some cited articles do not keep up with recent rapidly developing research progress. Authors
should revise them to better support ideas in your article.
4. We notice that there are still many formatting, grammar and other mistakes in this
paper. Authors need to make further modifications to achieve smooth sentences and standard
formatting.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02828-x (2023)

Title: Preoperative Platelet-Lymphocyte Ratio (PLR) as a Prognostic Inflammation Biomarker
in Asian HIV-Infected Patients with Gastric Cancer: A Single-Center Study
Version: 3 Date: 25 Mar 2023
Reviewer's report:
To Authors:
In this manuscript entitled “Preoperative Platelet-Lymphocyte Ratio (PLR) as a Prognostic
Inflammation Biomarker in Asian HIV-Infected Patients with Gastric Cancer: A Single-Center
Study”, authors evaluated the prognostic significance of the preoperative system inflammation
biomarkers in the Asian HIV-infected patients with GC. However, there were some problems
in this study. You need to make major revisions. Please see comments below:
1.The content of paragraph 1 is more inclined to introduction, so authors need to construct a
more logical framework to show the usefulness of the article based on the results.
2.Some sentences in paragraph 4 of the discussion section were less relevant to the point, so the
discussions need to be improved.
3.The first sentence of the conclusion cannot be reflected in the discussion. Therefore, the
conclusion needs revising.