JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03304-w (2024)

Title: The intestinal flora and nutritional status and immune function characteristics of obese
colon cancer patients
Version: 0 Date: 30 Sep 2023
Reviewer:  Concetta Finocchiaro
Reviewer's report:
The paper has some shortcomings in the materials and methods:
- it is not written how long the patients are followed, we talk about survival curves but the
observation period of the study is not described
- the methods always talk about obese patients but there are no references to the BMI or weight
of the patients
- the changes in the presence of individual bacteria is not used as a method to interpret the
changes in the microbiota which are more complex and determined with other methods
- to be accepted they must better explain the materials and methods
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03304-w (2024)

Title: The intestinal flora and nutritional status and immune function characteristics of obese
colon cancer patients
Version: 0 Date: 07 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
Authors of the article investigated various inflammatory and nutritional parameters of obese
CRC patients pre- and postoperatively.
The following questions raised:
1. Statistical analysis of the study must be updated. Although several parameters were measured
at several timepoints, no longitudinal analyses were performed, either in the form of mixed
effect modeling or by using longitudinal correlation analyses. The current methodology must
be updated.
2. Most results the Authors presented have direct connection to the fact, that after surgery, first
every parameter will worsen (1 week postop results), and then will they only improve (1 month
postop results). These were not discussed anywhere in the manuscript.
3. Due to the two above issues, the novelty of the manuscript is in question.
4. Significant English editing is required.
5. Please explain the following: "for tumour death, local recurrence and distant metastasis, and
the association of local recurrence and distant metastasis with each factor was assessed with the
help of chi-square test".
6. Longitudinal survival modeling would be benefitial: either the use of extended Cox models
with time-dependent variants, or joint-modeling is suggested.
7. Post-hoc analysis for 2+ group-comparisions were not presented, incl. survival curve
differences.
8. "This is similar and consistent with the majority of studies reported." Citatons are needed.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03304-w (2024)

Title: The intestinal flora and nutritional status and immune function characteristics of obese
colon cancer patients
Version: 2 Date: 08 May 2024
Reviewer's report:
The revision of the manuscript performed by the Authors are only superficial.
By comparing the original and the revised submissions, it seems that Authors have "copied" a
few term from the Review reports they have recieved, and all the presented data,  tables, figures,
etc. remained the same.
In this form, the revision cannot be accepted.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03304-w (2024)

Title: The intestinal flora and nutritional status and immune function characteristics of obese
colon cancer patients
Version: 3 Date: 03 Jun 2024
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript improved significantly.
A few minor issues still remained:
1. A  thorough read to correct a few grammar / wording issues is needed.
2. The used survival analysis method (repeated chi-squared test) still raises some questions,
as no standard method had been used. Indeed, the logrank method is based on the same chi-
aquared testing basis, however, in Authors'  method no p-value corrections were mentioned. It
is suggested, that Authors should also include some additional testing methods. E.g., perform
pairwise logrank-test for  every possible combinations (A-B , A-C and B-C) followed by a Holm
pvalue correction. Or the same, just with Cox regression method. These test can provide more
information about the survival curves, compared to the current chi-square-based methodology.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03309-5 (2024)

Title: Influence of the Examination Position and Distension Medium on the Rectal Sensory Test
in Patients with Functional Constipation
Version: 1 Date: 26 May 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to revise the manuscript ”Influence of the Examination Position
and Distension Medium on the Rectal Sensory Test in Patients with Functional Constipation”.
The manuscript by Xiao et al describe the impact of body position and distension medium on
rectal sensory test in 39 patients with functional constipation.
It is an interesting study but I feel that the manuscript needs more work before it can be published.
My comments are as follows:
Method section:
I have several questions about the method. Did all the participants start with the same body
position and distension medium? I lack information about the about CSS, PAC-SYM and PAC-
Qol that are presented in the result section.
In addition I lack information about the testing of rectal resting pressure, anal resting pressure,
functional anal canal length, and maximum anal squeeze pressure.
I would like clarification with regards to the 2nd exclusion criteria, what do you mean my “etc.”?
Can you please specify which conditions were excluded.
Why did you use fasting blood sugar >7.8 mmol/L as an exclusion criteria? This will only give
you a snapshot of the blood sugar control. Why didn’t you use glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c)?
Page 4, line 77: which other parameters are you referring to? Do you refer to body position and
distension method or some other parameters?
Exclusion criteria: I find that point 1, 2 and 3 largely address the same issue. I suggest you
rewrite these points to clarify for the readers.
Why did you stop the inflation already at 180 ml? I find this to be a quite low maximum tolerated
volume and this need to be discussed.
Result section:
To help the reader to understand your results better I would suggest that you explain your
correlations.
You state that the rectal and anal pressures in the left lateral positions all were within in your
labs normal range. What is your labs normal values?
If I understand correctly, the only significant difference was DDV between water or gas was in
squatting? I think this result should be highlighted better in this paragraph. You make several
comparisons and sometimes it is hard for the reader to follow.
Discussion section:
The text in these paragraphs are interesting but in several of the paragraphs you do not discuss
your results and the text would be better placed in the background.
What is the clinical implications for test set-up?
Furthermore, are there any limitations of this study? In the discussion, the limitations of this
study should be stated.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03332-6 (2024)

Title: Clinical diagnostic value of methylated SEPT9 combined with NLR, PLR and LMR in
colorectal cancer
Version: 1 Date: 25 May 2024
Reviewer's report:
Here are my opinions:
1#The abstract is unclear. What is meant by the predictive value? Predicting the value of what
event?
2#Any abbreviations appearing in the abstract should be introduced beforehand.
3#"In this study, we first detected the levels of plasma mSEPT9, NLR, PLR and LMR in CRC
patients." The phrase "first detected the levels" of these items in colorectal cancer patients'
plasma is not accurate. It should indicate that this study is the first to explore the diagnostic
value of these markers for colorectal cancer patients.
4#Table 2 needs annotations. What do the values represent? Are they means ± SD?
I believe the paper still needs revisions.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03332-6 (2024)

Title: Clinical diagnostic value of methylated SEPT9 combined with NLR, PLR and LMR in
colorectal cancer
Version: 1 Date: 19 Jun 2024
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?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The manuscript presents results on the predictive values of
several plasma biomarkers (mSEPT9, NLR, PLR and LMR) in colorectal cancer (CRC). The
authors recruited large enough cohorts of both patients and control groups, with a balanced
representation of different clinical characteristics. Overall, a study worth to read, with some
minor corrections.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
- The expression ""obviously higher values"" is used in both the abstract and discussion. Do the
authors mean ""significantly higher"" instead? In that case it would be desirable to quote the p-
value, at least in the discussion.
- There is an abundance of abbreviations in the manuscript, but not all of them are defined on first
usage. Please define as needed, since not all the readership will be familiar with all the terms.
- I would recommend to add the clinical characteristics of the cohorts recruited as a table, with
averages for ages, N men/women, etc., to easily give an overview of the cohorts.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
- ""In compliance with the result"", ""at last"", ""there is a dearth of study"" among other
expressions are not used correctly in the text. Please revise the manuscript for English usage.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03332-6 (2024)

Title: Clinical diagnostic value of methylated SEPT9 combined with NLR, PLR and LMR in
colorectal cancer
Version: 2 Date: 02 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: This article is the revised manuscript of a previously evaluated
piece of work, in which mSEPT9, NLR, PLR and LMR are investigated as predictive plasma
biomarkers for colorectal cancer.
Minor corrections have been suggested, and the authors have responded to all of them,
introducing changes both in the manuscript text and tables as needed. They have also added a
new supplementary table (S4) that list all the abbreviations used throughout the text.
Overall, the study is not deemed ready for publication.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
None.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03332-6 (2024)

Title: Clinical diagnostic value of methylated SEPT9 combined with NLR, PLR and LMR in
colorectal cancer
Version: 2 Date: 20 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
After the author's careful revision, I believe this will be a significant work that has a profound
impact on clinical practice. Personally, I think this paper has already reached the level required
for publication, and I have no further suggestions for revision.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03321-9 (2024)

Title: USP9X regulates the proliferation, survival, migration and invasion of gastric cancer cells
by stabilizing MTH1
Version: 1 Date: 01 May 2024
Reviewer:  Haruhiko Sugimura
Reviewer's report:
1. This is a sound analysis of USP9X and MTH1 in gastric cancer cell lines.
2. In terms of clinical relevance, the in silica data here is not impressive correlation bet ween
two gene expression.
3. As the authors are aware, the roles of these genes are known in other malignancies, thus , I
am afraid this is a kind of salami studies (just change the organs). The authors should particular
importance of this finding in gastric cancer.
4. State the significance or possible biological mechanism of MTH1 in gastric  carcinogenesis.
MUT1 is, I believe, one of base excision repair genes responsible to repair ROS DNA damage
in addition to MutYH  or others. Did you check the mutation burden when you put into MTH1
into gastric cancer cell lines? USP9X Downregulation (siRNA or CRISPR method) brought
about the same effect. Furthermore, is it unique to gastric cancer cell lines? How about distantly
related cancer such as endometrial cell cancer and lung cancer?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03321-9 (2024)

Title: USP9X regulates the proliferation, survival, migration and invasion of gastric cancer cells
by stabilizing MTH1
Version: 2 Date: 28 May 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors basically answer and solve those problems, although not satisfactory.
The final decision will handle by the ditor, please.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03307-7 (2024)

Title: Association between dietary inflammatory index and energy-adjusted dietary
inflammatory index and constipation in US adults
Version: 0 Date: 02 Apr 2024
Reviewer's report:
In this study, the authors sought to determine the association between dietary inflammatory index
and constipation in the United States. The paper is well written; however, the authors should
consider the following points.
1. Dietary intakes was assessed based on one 24-h dietary recall or two? A single 24-hour recall
is not considered to be representative of habitual diet of an individual.
2. Table 2. Physical activity, dietary fiber and fluid consumption should be considered as
covariates in the analysis.
3. Is energy-adjusted nutrients was used to construct DII? Due to the correlation between dietary
intakes and energy, using energy-adjusted nutrients could better describe possible associations.
4. The authors could include the age range of adults studied.
5. It would be interesting to present in a table the average consumption of 28 parameters
identified and evaluated in this study population.
6. Suggestions on future area of research can be included.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03307-7 (2024)

Title: Association between dietary inflammatory index and energy-adjusted dietary
inflammatory index and constipation in US adults
Version: 0 Date: 14 Apr 2024
Reviewer's report:
1. Why did the authors use tertile other than quintile? Please provide an explanation.
2. Was there any data that had a non-normal distribution?
3. Strengths and limitations can be written in more detail.
4. Please add the implications of findings for future research.
Finally, the manuscript needs a major revision for English language.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03314-8 (2024)

Title: Is Serum Albumin a Pivotal Biomarker in Anticipating Acute Pancreatitis Outcomes?
Version: 4 Date: 14 May 2024
Reviewer's report:
The article focused on examining the significance of serum albumin levels within 24 hours of
hospital admission in patients with acute pancreatitis. The study is a retrospective study and
covers a five-year period. A total of 371 acute pancreatitis patients were included in the study.
Methods for patient population and disease classification are clear and specific. Evaluation of
serum albumin levels using a threshold value of 30 g/L and taking into account other factors that
may be related to the severity of the disease show that the study is methodologically strong. The
findings are comprehensively presented and analyzed. Specifically, a large data set was used to
determine the relationship between serum albumin levels and the severity and disease outcomes
of acute pancreatitis. The fact that the findings contain statistically significant relationships
with various clinical parameters supports the main thesis of the article. The discussion section
further considers the clinical significance of the findings and aligns them with other studies in
the literature. Additionally, supporting hypotheses with biological mechanisms and discussing
potential clinical applications emphasize the importance of the study. Some limitations of the
study, such as being a single-center study and being retrospective, were clearly stated. Since
these limitations may limit the generalizability of the findings, multicenter and prospective
studies may be recommended in the future. Overall, the article highlights the importance of
serum albumin levels as a prognostic marker in patients with acute pancreatitis and discusses
their potential contribution to clinical practice. Considering the methodological soundness,
comprehensive data analysis, and potential implications for clinical practice, acceptance and
publication of the article seems appropriate
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03314-8 (2024)

Title: Is Serum Albumin a Pivotal Biomarker in Anticipating Acute Pancreatitis Outcomes?
Version: 4 Date: 17 May 2024
Reviewer's report:
At present I could find these major issue in the manuscript.
1. Was research question defined before start of study?
• It is not clear from methodology.
• I think this was simply a retrospective audit of the patients presented in the department.
2. It was an expected outcome – as in any acute condition secondary to stress response albumin
level definitely expected low and its level further depends on severity of acute response.
• So basically it is effect of acute inflammation and it’s severity, not a cause for severe
pancreatitis. However to confirm this needs prospective studies.
My suggestion to authors: it may be useful to use ROC curve which may give better input
regarding at what cut-off value the complications significantly increase which give some thought
for use of albumin beneficial in decreasing complications.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03314-8 (2024)

Title: Is Serum Albumin a Pivotal Biomarker in Anticipating Acute Pancreatitis Outcomes?
Version: 4 Date: 21 May 2024
Reviewer:  Saurabh Dawra
Reviewer's report:
Congratulations to the authors on a neatly written manuscript. However, a few queries need to
be addressed
1. In the exclusion criteria: kindly enumerate all the pathological conditions you have excluded.
Your statement ‘Conditions with an underlying pathology that could affect serum albumin
levels, particularly diseases such as malabsorption, chronic pancreatitis, liver cirrhosis, chronic
renal disease, albuminuria’ seems vague. This being a retrospective study how have you
excluded all these conditions especially albuminuria. Do you regularly check the same in your
centre?
2. What about the physiological conditions associated with hypoalbuminemia? As I understand
majority of participants in your study are females? Nutritional status? Baseline anaemia?
3. How many of your patients were diabetics? This single disease can alter the interpretation
of your results
4. At what point were the serum albumin levels measured for co-relation? At baseline? If
yes, then how can one co-relate organ failure that occurred early in disease process to WON/
Pseudocyst which presumably would occur at least 04 weeks after disease onset?
5. Do you have serial albumin measurements? were they different in severe pancreatitis vs
moderately severe vs mild AP
6. The ‘Discussion’ part needs to emphasize the pathophysiology as to why are your results
significant in some conditions e.g WON and not in others like pseudocyst? Is the level of
inflammation different?
7. What about sepsis/ infection. None of your patients had infection?? This can alter the results
of your study
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03314-8 (2024)

Title: Is Serum Albumin a Pivotal Biomarker in Anticipating Acute Pancreatitis Outcomes?
Version: 4 Date: 22 May 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
I read the manuscript entitled ''Is Serum Albumin a Pivotal Biomarker in Anticipating Acute
Pancreatitis Outcomes?''. You present here the impact of hypoalbuminemia in the first day of
hospitalization on prognosis and outcomes of acute pancreatitis. It is well-known that albumin
is a negative acute phase reactant and, albumin level has been affected by many factors in
acute pancreatitis. Several interesting results were presented in this study. I think you should
present your real-life data using severity indices like BISAP. There are some concerns about the
manuscript. I have the following comments and suggestions for the authors:
Major Comments:
1- You may present your findings by using BISAP as a severity index and compare albumin and
other laboratory markers to predict severe cases.
2- According to your study results, 75% of the patients have hypoalbuminemia, when the
albumin cut-off value was accepted as 30 g/L. However, the proportion of patients with severe
AP requiring close monitoring is in the range of 15%-20%. This cut-off value does not seem
to be sufficient to identify severe AP cases. The normal range of serum albumin range from
35 g/L to 50 g/L and, hypoalbuminemia has been widely accepted as <35 g/L in the literature.
Moreover, a cut-off value of marked hypoalbuminemia is accepted as 25 g/L in several studies.
Why did you choose an albumin cut-off of 30 g/L? marked hypoalbuminemia.
Minor Comments:
1- Page 4, line 17: “sexe” shold be corrected.
2- Page 5, line 29: You present normal albumin values as g/dL, please correct.
3- Page 7, line 8: “clinical-biological severity scores”. What did you mean with “clinical-
biological”
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03314-8 (2024)

Title: Is Serum Albumin a Pivotal Biomarker in Anticipating Acute Pancreatitis Outcomes?
Version: 5 Date: 29 May 2024
Reviewer:  Saurabh Dawra
Reviewer's report:
All the points listed by the authors like single time measurement of albumin, non availability
of data on sepsis, not catering for physiological conditions like anemia while determining
the outcomes are all shortcomings of the study and should be either catered to in the results
or mentioned as study limitations.  With these many study limitations from a single center
retrospective study, results should be interpreted with 'caution'
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03314-8 (2024)

Title: Is Serum Albumin a Pivotal Biomarker in Anticipating Acute Pancreatitis Outcomes?
Version: 5 Date: 02 Jun 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
In current study, it was found that albumin was one of the biomarker for evaluating the severity
of AP in clinic. I would like to thank the authors for their  responses to my comments.
Best wishes
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03314-8 (2024)

Title: Is Serum Albumin a Pivotal Biomarker in Anticipating Acute Pancreatitis Outcomes?
Version: 6 Date: 18 Jun 2024
Reviewer's report:
This study aims to assess the prognostic significance of serum albumin levels in acute
pancreatitis patients. The authors have identified notable correlations between hypoalbuminemia
and factors such as age and systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS). These findings
suggest that serum albumin levels could serve as a pivotal prognostic marker in acute pancreatitis
management.
Strengths of the study include its focus on hypoalbuminemia's potential association with local
complications, thereby contributing valuable insights to existing literature. Detailed tables
(e.g., Table 1 detailing scoring criteria, Table 2 outlining CTSI classification and associated
morbidity/mortality risks) and comprehensive baseline characteristics (Table 3) underscore the
methodological rigor of the investigation.
However, the study's limitations lie in its single-center, retrospective design, which restricts
the generalizability of findings across diverse populations and settings. This necessitates
careful consideration when extrapolating results to broader clinical contexts. Additionally, the
appropriateness of statistical methods and alignment of outcomes with existing research are
critical assessment parameters. Future studies should focus on elucidating how serum albumin
levels can effectively inform clinical decision-making and enhance treatment strategies.
In summary, this study underscores the prognostic relevance of serum albumin levels in
acute pancreatitis. Nevertheless, broader, multicenter studies are imperative to validate the
applicability and generalizability of these findings in clinical practice.
The study's acknowledgement of methodological challenges and discussion on the potential
implications of its findings highlight the necessity for further research on the practical integration
of serum albumin levels in clinical settings. Overall, the study is suitable for publication in a
journal format and commendable. Congratulations to the authors on their contribution to the
field.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03328-2 (2024)

Title: Additional chemoradiotherapy for superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma after
near-circumferential or full-circumferential noncurative endoscopic submucosal dissection: A
retrospective study
Version: 0 Date: 25 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
I think it is an important study to verify the efficiency of additional CRT after near or full-
circumferential noncurative ESD for superficial esophageal cancer. I have a few questions.
1. Page 12 Line 180. There is no discussion about the relationship between acute myeloid
leukemia and CRT. Please discuss it.
2. de novo esophageal stenosis is very important. There is a patient with refractory stenosis.
Please explain the mechanism of onset of de novo esophageal stenosis and for refractory stenosis
and detail to the factor to development of refractory stenosis.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03328-2 (2024)

Title: Additional chemoradiotherapy for superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma after
near-circumferential or full-circumferential noncurative endoscopic submucosal dissection: A
retrospective study
Version: 0 Date: 29 May 2024
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?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with 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?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: Dear authors, I read with great interest your study about additional
CRT after noncurative ESD for esophageal SCC. I would like to make some comments:
- it would be useful for the readers to add the definition of "noncurative" dissection in the abstract
and the introduction.
- please include in the title also the specification of "Squamous cell carcinoma".
- please specify among the inclusion criteria also the circumferential of near circumferential (2/3)
extension of the cancer. This justifies the exclusion of 8 patients.
- add a study flow chart with the number of patients treated for SCC with ESD, the number of
patients excluded, the number of patients with CURATIVE ESD and the number of patients
who underwent surgery.
- about the previous comment: the main bias of your study is the selection bias, as highlighted in
  the discussion. How many patients were treated with ESD during the study period? how many
with curative dissection? and, the most important information, how many patients were treated
with surgery after noncurative ESD? you must provide complete data (patients characteristics
and outcomes) in order to make your data more useful.
- in conclusion: I would like to suggest to perform a comparative study between ESD+ CRT
and ESD followed by surgery
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03328-2 (2024)

Title: Additional chemoradiotherapy for superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma after
near-circumferential or full-circumferential noncurative endoscopic submucosal dissection: A
retrospective study
Version: 3 Date: 06 Jul 2024
Reviewer:  Masanobu Nakajima
Reviewer's report:
I have no special comment.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03328-2 (2024)

Title: Additional chemoradiotherapy for superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma after
near-circumferential or full-circumferential noncurative endoscopic submucosal dissection: A
retrospective study
Version: 3 Date: 11 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: Dear authors
The manuscript now is better! I congratulate you for the effort made.
thanks
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03324-6 (2024)

Title: The relationship between the systemic immune inflammation index and the Nonalcoholic
fatty liver disease in American adolescents
Version: 2 Date: 04 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors Dong-fang Fu and Bin Chen have done a great job considering the reviewers´
suggestions in the article entitled "The relationship between the systemic immune inflammation
index and the Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in American adolescents" Now this paper is ready
for publication.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03324-6 (2024)

Title: The relationship between the systemic immune inflammation index and the Nonalcoholic
fatty liver disease in American adolescents
Version: 2 Date: 10 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
The research topic is commendable, addressing a critical area of study with the potential for
significant public health impact. Investigating the relationship between the Systemic Immune-
Inflammation (SII) index and Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD) could yield valuable
insights into disease mechanisms and potential interventions.
The authors have addressed all the comments from the previous review and have revised the
manuscript accordingly. Therefore, this manuscript merits acceptance.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03300-0 (2024)

Title: Exploring Factors Associated with Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Using
Longitudinal MRI
Version: 0 Date: 19 Feb 2024
Reviewer:  Jose Luis Martín-Rodríguez
Reviewer's report:
The authors present a longitudinal population study to help predict non-alcoholic fatty liver
disease clearly. The language used is appropriate. The figures and tables are adequate and easy
to understand. The methodology used is correct.
My opinion is that the article meets the basic criteria to be published.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03300-0 (2024)

Title: Exploring Factors Associated with Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Using
Longitudinal MRI
Version: 0 Date: 29 Apr 2024
Reviewer:  Manaav Mehta
Reviewer's report:
- Identify PDFF in abstract
- Discrepancy in study population prose and figure 1 for ship-start 2 n= value
- Please explain why absolute cutoff of PDFF > 5.1% was not used, but instead has a >37% from
baseline clause for diagnosis of fatty liver disease.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03325-5 (2024)

Title: Pregnancy Outcomes in Women with Celiac Disease in Northeast Iran: A Regional
Retrospective Cohort Study
Version: 2 Date: 07 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
I would like to commend the authors for this interesting single center review which compares
pregnancy outcomes in women with celiac disease with an age, geographic and socio-economic-
matched control group of pregnant women without celiac disease using electronic public health
records in Iran. The study design and analysis are robust, addressing the outlined deficiencies
could significantly strengthen the manuscript.
- I understand English is not the first language of the authors but at times the language is
confusing and not clear and would benefit from a review.
- can the authors comment on why pregnancies by assisted reproductive methods were excluded
and could this impact the generalizability of the study? Could this also introduce a bias in their
study, as women utilizing assisted reproduction are in general from a higher socio-economic
class, which is often associated with better access to medical care and healthcare utilization/
compliance.
- the authors claim to have matched the study participants by geographic and socio-economic
factors but do not provide any evidence to support this.
- I would use the term 'miscarriage' rather than 'abortion' in the manuscript.
- I do not fully understand the inclusion criteria. A total of 534K pregnancy records were
examined - which if we apply an expected 1% incidence rate of celiac disease should give
approximately 5,340 cases. How did the authors identify the 61 pregnancies included? The flow
chart is confusing and needs to be re-arranged.
- An important omission is any measure of disease activity in the pregnant women with celiac
disease? I agree that serology/TTG is not necessarily a good measure of disease activity, however
information on compliance/adherence to GFD, symptomatology/ micronutrient status/ evidence
of mucosal healing on histopathology would strengthen the study. An important message in
previous studies has been the impact of undiagnosed or poorly controlled celiac disease on
pregnancy outcomes. Could the absence of any significant difference in this study be due to the
absence of disease activity in the celiac group?
- Some of the abbreviations in the table (i.e. FGS, OGTT) need to be explained in the text/table.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03325-5 (2024)

Title: Pregnancy Outcomes in Women with Celiac Disease in Northeast Iran: A Regional
Retrospective Cohort Study
Version: 2 Date: 12 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
This paper investigated pregnancy outcomes in Iranian women with celiac disease compared to
without. I have some major concerns with this paper that leads to my recommendation to reject
this paper.
1. Figure 1, the selection process, matching and exclusion is not clear and easy to follow when
looking at Figure 1 together with the text. Were there only 61 pregnancies in the 982 women with
celiac disease from the celiac center? That seems like a very low number. What was the age of
all those excluded women with celiac disease– where they girls and therefor not in childbearing
age?
2. There is no descriptive data of the exposed population in relation to their celiac disease – how
long had they been diagnosed? Where they adhering to the gluten-free diet? Non-adherence is
very common and would make a large impact on pregnancy outcomes.
3. There is no clear definition of the unexposed group – How were they chosen? Were they in
any way matched? how did you know these did not have celiac disease as this is a diagnosis that
is commonly unrecognized, and would that make an impact on your findings?
4. Statistical analysis – it is not clear at all how the authors modelled the association analysis.
Were there several analyses were celiac disease (0/1) was used as the dependent variable and
one independent outcome variable?  And, they did not do any analyses for outcomes that were
not present in the exposed group but rather in the unexposed group. It is not stated in the methods
section or anywhere in the manuscript what the analyses were adjusted for and why.
5. It is not clear what outcomes the authors were interested in when reading the paper – it is not
consistent when reading the Methods Defining the outcomes and reading the results and tables.
Other concerns:
1. What is the problem with older ICD codes of celiac disease? If biopsy diagnosed – should
this pose a problem? And diagnosis based on serology is well established in children in Europe,
but as we don’t have information on the CD group in the paper, it is not possible to draw a
conclusion if the diagnosis were correct or not in this study either.
2. Mainly in the introduction, but also in the rest of the manuscript, there are no references for
several statements.
3. The introduction and discussion are unstructured.
4. Check spelling, grammar, tempus.
5. No line numbers
6. Suggest to do a table on the outcomes
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03325-5 (2024)

Title: Pregnancy Outcomes in Women with Celiac Disease in Northeast Iran: A Regional
Retrospective Cohort Study
Version: 2 Date: 24 Feb 2024
Reviewer:  Juha Taavela
Reviewer's report:
Here are my comments regarding the manuscript by Sahebdel et al entitled: Pregnancy Outcomes
in Women with Celiac Disease in Northeast Iran: A Regional Retrospective Cohort Study
- The article is well written and is nicely compact.
- the authors present in methods the transglutaminase titers of celiacs during diagnosis but had
titers normalised after diagnosis? ie. where they all respondent to gluten free diet. And also was
biopsy taken after CD diagnosis on GFD?
- How long had the celiacs been on GFD?
- State the kit manufacturer that was used to determine transglutaminase titers.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03325-5 (2024)

Title: Pregnancy Outcomes in Women with Celiac Disease in Northeast Iran: A Regional
Retrospective Cohort Study
Version: 4 Date: 21 May 2024
Reviewer's report:
I thank the authors for their effort to respond and revise their manuscript according to the
reviewers comments and feed back. Unfortunately, the main concerns have not been enough
clarified and still needs profound revisions.
The methods and statistical analysis section is unstructured and difficult to follow. There are
still major concerns regarding how the authors came to the numbers of cases and controls. For
example, the study population is described in several sections. And, in 522 women who were
married, did only close to 20% choose to become pregnant? And, how did the authors come up
with the 2,2254 pregnant women from the general population of 533,894 pregnant women, of
which they then chose controls.  It seems it is a highly selected cases and controls.
The concern of adjusting factors in the logistic regression models is not addressed, it is still
stated that analyses were adjusted but not for what factors.
The manuscript continues to be unstructured, and without enough scientific grounds and
comparison with other data in the Discussion.
There is an improvement in the language, but the manuscript would still need profound language
editing.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03325-5 (2024)

Title: Pregnancy Outcomes in Women with Celiac Disease in Northeast Iran: A Regional
Retrospective Cohort Study
Version: 6 Date: 05 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript has improved with the authors revision and is much clearer and more put into
context with the scientific literature on the subject.
There is still grammar and language concerns. I have included suggestions for improving the
abstract, please find file attached as a suggestion. But please go through the manuscript again
for language/wording editing.
There is still a confusion about Figure 1, not enough information is given, and the number does
not add up in the boxes. For ex, there is no information on the matching and the number of
pregnancies in the CD women and exclusions is not adding up. The answer provided by the
authors in the response to reviewers clarifies the matter, but the manuscript would also need
clarification in a structured manner.
The first part of the results section regards the selection process and is a part of methods. Please
remove.
In the results section, refrain from using the wording "significant association", instead use "was
not associated with" or "was associated with".  And in the Discussion, do not include OR's and
p values.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03323-7 (2024)

Title: Can Proximal Gastrectomy with Double-Tract Reconstruction Replace Total
Gastrectomy? a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity score-matched
studies
Version: 0 Date: 13 Jun 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thanks for the invitation to review this paper. Below are my comments:
For 5 year overall survival, I think it is more appropriate to do hazard ratio meta-analysis instead
of odds ratio meta-analysis, same thing might apply for recurrence, please consult with your
statistician.
The article needs to be proofread heavily (language, grammar, and sentences completion as
sometime I can tell that a word was dropped and the sentence isn’t complete).
In early phase complications, the word “pulmonary” stands alone, pulmonary what? Infection?
It seems decision to use random versus fixed model was based on heterogeneity, please add this
in the methods section, statistical analysis subsection.
In the prisma diagram, one of the reasons for exclusion written is low quality literature, did this
include some psm and rcts studies? If yes please specify how did you determine they are low
quality, did you assess them prior to excluding them using the Newcastle or the Cochrane tool?
Why lower number of harvested lymph nodes was considered advantage?
I think it is better to add specific complications analysis rather than just relying only on total
complications analysis, total analysis is good, but it is good too to analyze the most common
surgical complications separately, only the most common.
In figure 15, you forgot to add the graph labels, also make sure to switch and put lpg-dtr into
the right and ltg on the left.
Make sure to do the same switch to figure 17.
Given the limitations, the authors need to restrain for stating strong conclusions in the abstract,
discussion, and conclusions.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03323-7 (2024)

Title: Can Proximal Gastrectomy with Double-Tract Reconstruction Replace Total
Gastrectomy? a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity score-matched
studies
Version: 0 Date: 20 Jun 2024
Reviewer:  Paolo Morgagni
Reviewer's report:
The study Can Proximal Gastrectomy with Double-Tract Reconstruction Replace Total
Gastrectomy? a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity score-matched
studies From Guangxu Zhu is a good, well presented study on an interesting new solution to an
old problem. I don't have great suggestions to improve what has been done , but in discussion,
authors must refrase the paragraph, starting with : How to ensure the safety of the tumor and
determine the best resection range mainly includes two aspects: "margin distance" and "lymph
node  dissection." Who said this? What references? There is no doubt on this topic …. But it
is not supported by this study. Generally and correctly, authors affirm in the other paragraphs...
…. this is our study conclusion…This is a possible meaning …. These are our suggestions. In
this part, in particular, you may say there is no difference in margins, no difference in survival,
…..  ans so  this technique may be proposed. Moreover, please add some more evidence on this
topic, especially on stage , infiltrative, and signed ring cells, which are always not considered,
and if possible on undifferentiated . Please also say something about specific distances.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03323-7 (2024)

Title: Can Proximal Gastrectomy with Double-Tract Reconstruction Replace Total
Gastrectomy? a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity score-matched
studies
Version: 0 Date: 21 Jun 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors performed a meta-analysis to compare short- and long-term postoperative outcomes
between proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction and total gastrectomy.
Although this meta-analysis is significant in that only RCTs or PSMs were included, the content
reviewed is general and not new. It is obvious that the oncologic prognosis after proximal
gastrectomy is not different from that of total gastrectomy if the indications are strictly followed,
and it is also known that there is no difference in perioperative safety. Currently, the topics
surrounding proximal gastrectomy are the merits and demerits of anti-reflux mechanisms in
esophagogastric anastomosis or the usefulness of proximal gastrectomy in Siewert's type 2
junctional cancer. From this perspective, the content of this paper is outdated.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03323-7 (2024)

Title: Can Proximal Gastrectomy with Double-Tract Reconstruction Replace Total
Gastrectomy? a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity score-matched
studies
Version: 2 Date: 08 Jul 2024
Reviewer:  Paolo Morgagni
Reviewer's report:
I think that the added part on distance  from  cancer and resection margin is adeguate.
I suggest to  combine in the same part (3)  signet ring cells and unindifferentiate (4) because it
seem that unindifferentiate is worst than SRC and it is not so
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03330-8 (2024)

Title: The causal relationship between inflammatory bowel diseases and erythema nodosum: a
bidirectional two-sample Mendelian randomization study
Version: 1 Date: 02 Apr 2024
Reviewer:  Menglong Zou
Reviewer's report:
In this manuscript, the authors attempt to investigate the relationship between IBD and EN using
Mendelian randomization. IBD may present with several kinds of extraintestinal manifestations
that impact multiple systems, primarily the musculoskeletal, skin, and eyes. This study is a great
idea, but I have the following concerns:
1. The authors did not meta-analyze the data, so why did they mention the meta-package in the
methods section?
2. Multiple corrections are required to eliminate false discovery rates.
3. The authors used the PhenoScannerV2 database to remove confounding SNPs, but in the
results section the authors failed to do so. This is not rigorous.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03330-8 (2024)

Title: The causal relationship between inflammatory bowel diseases and erythema nodosum: a
bidirectional two-sample Mendelian randomization study
Version: 1 Date: 25 Jun 2024
Reviewer's report:
This is a well-structured and statistically robust investigation into the bidirectional relationship
between IBD and EN using Mendelian randomization. Despite a few limitations due to the study
design, I believe the study effectively addresses an interesting topic. The following are some
of my comments:
1. Is it possible to perform subgroup analysis given that IBD is a heterogeneous disease? I wonder
how the age of onset (early-onset IBD, elderly-onset IBD, VEO-IBD, etc.) and disease extent
(especially in CD - ileocolonic, colonic, small bowel, UGI) would affect the outcomes.
2. As noted, there could be variations across different ethnic backgrounds, necessitating careful
interpretation.
3. Additionally, due to the study design, there are inherent limitations, such as the inability to
consider various clinical factors, including disease activity, medication use, and endoscopic/
radiologic findings.