Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03710-8 (2025)

Title: Inflammatory Biomarker Correlations and Prognosis in High-risk Gastrointestinal
Stromal Tumor Patients: A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis
Version: 6 Date: 05 Feb 2025
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: HAVE THE AUTHORS RESPONDED ADEQUATELY TO
EACH OF THE QUESTIONS YOU RAISED IN YOUR COMMENTS
Yes thank you authors!
HAVE THEY MADE THE APPROPRIATE CHANGES IN THE MANUSCRIPT
Yes well done
WHAT IS YOUR OVERALL IMPRESSION OF THE REVISED MANUSCRIPT
Nicely revised. Too bad that the nutritional and inflammatory markers that have been identified
I. Other neoplasms were not predictive in this study. That may actually shed light on appropriate
treatment options. Nice very carefully carried out study.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL REVISIONS THE AUTHORS SHOULD MAKE
Again I have read the entire manuscript
1. Line 15 change intricate to accurate
2. Line 34 add the word “these” before the word “other”
3. Line 38 change “are” to “were”
4. Line 41 change reduces to “reduced”
5. Line 40 Change “is” to “was
6. Line 56 I looked up the phrase “Interstitial source neoplasms” and that is not an appropriate
phrase (actually I had never heard it before) I would delete the phrase “interstitial source” it still
reads well, and I  would use the word “intramural “ to differentiate it from a mucosal origin
7. line  105 change to  “indicates” to ”indicate”
8. Line 117 I am not familiar with the geologic terms in line  24 you only say Ningxia   Should
that be expanded to this term on line 117 and  133?
9. Line 231 change to groups
10. Line 326. I would suggest that you soften the claim of malnutrition by saying “varying
degrees of malnutrition”.  This I would suggest is more accurate than saying 40% have
malnutrition and all its implications and saying that cases will develop some aspects of
malnutrition during treatment•••” this describes the poor leg a d a kids a reviewer (like me) or a
reader criticizing the too-broad a use of the word  "malnutrition”. You decide
11. Line 321 add the word “is” after “also”
12. All these comments are really minor and easily made.  Yes writing in another language is
difficult and much of the grammar takes years (like 75 for me) to learn. This is a beautifully
carried out extremely detailed analysis and even though some of the inflammatory markers did
not prove as useful as your hypothesis hoped, nevertheless, you have identified a treatment that
does affect t survival in these patients well done. You should be proud of this study lots of work !