JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03027-4 (2023)

Title: Renal and bone side effects of long-term use of entecavir, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate,
and tenofovir alafenamide fumarate in patients with hepatitis B: A network meta-analysis
Version: 1 Date: 22 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
Interesting analysis, well-defined objective, systematic trials search, exclusion criteria given.
The choice for statistical method need to be justified.
Did you search statistical heterogeneity ?
Did you realised sensibility analysys (with follow-up duration) ?
The fact that the vast majority of included treated patients were from asian origin need to be
mentioned.
Blood phosphorus is only an intermediate criteria for bone damage.
Some details : p2 introduction (introductiong), anti-infectious (anti-infective), p3 1 trial (1 trials)
I recommand acceptance after answering these remarks and details corrections
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03027-4 (2023)

Title: Renal and bone side effects of long-term use of entecavir, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate,
and tenofovir alafenamide fumarate in patients with hepatitis B: A network meta-analysis
Version: 2 Date: 25 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
You have to correct a write error in the discussion chapter : "However, we found that the effect
of ETV on creatinine was less than that of TDF (not ETV)".
You have responded to the remarks and, after such correction,  your revision is ready for
acceptance.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03027-4 (2023)

Title: Renal and bone side effects of long-term use of entecavir, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate,
and tenofovir alafenamide fumarate in patients with hepatitis B: A network meta-analysis
Version: 2 Date: 26 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
1. In the methods part of Abstract section, you said "We included all randomized controlled trials
of nucleoside analogues in the treatment of patients with chronic hepatitis B through November
2021". The nucleoside analogues for HBV treatment
include lamivudine, adefovir dipivoxil, entecavir, telbivudine, TDF and TAF. However, the
inclusion should be entecavir, TDF and TAF.
2. In the results part of Abstract section, you said "The probability of three drugs reducing
relevant indicators is, eGFR: TDF(100.0%)#ETV(41.2%)#TAF(8.8%)".  The typeface for ">"
in the manuscript is Song typeface. However, it should be Times New Roman.
3. In the fourth paragraph of Discussion section, you said “However, we found that the effect of
ETV on creatinine was less than that of ETV". You said ETV twice, you should modify it.
4. In the fifth paragraph of Discussion section, you said “We conducted subgroup analysis of
studies that will use two drugs, ETV and TDF".  It should be "used" instead of "will use".
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03027-4 (2023)

Title: Renal and bone side effects of long-term use of entecavir, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate,
and tenofovir alafenamide fumarate in patients with hepatitis B: A network meta-analysis
Version: 3 Date: 02 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
The revision is ready for acceptance.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03027-4 (2023)

Title: Renal and bone side effects of long-term use of entecavir, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate,
and tenofovir alafenamide fumarate in patients with hepatitis B: A network meta-analysis
Version: 4 Date: 05 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
The article has been improved; the authors followed the suggestions
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03027-4 (2023)

Title: Renal and bone side effects of long-term use of entecavir, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate,
and tenofovir alafenamide fumarate in patients with hepatitis B: A network meta-analysis
Version: 4 Date: 07 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
Revised manuscript is now more clear and, for me, ready for acceptance.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03027-4 (2023)

Title: Renal and bone side effects of long-term use of entecavir, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate,
and tenofovir alafenamide fumarate in patients with hepatitis B: A network meta-analysis
Version: 4 Date: 10 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
In Figure 1, the font inside the blue box should be consistent.
In Figure 4, the authors should indicate the direction about the comparison of row-defining
treatment versus column-defining treatment in the annotation.
In Figure 7, the clarity of the picture needs to be improved. In addition, 6 month, 12 month, 24
month and 60 month should change to “6 months, 12 months, 24 months and 60 months”.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03027-4 (2023)

Title: Renal and bone side effects of long-term use of entecavir, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate,
and tenofovir alafenamide fumarate in patients with hepatitis B: A network meta-analysis
Version: 6 Date: 09 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors should check the manuscript carefully.
In the Inclusion criteria part, you said "Among them, decrease in eGFR and increase in creatinine
were us16ed to indicate injury to renal function." You should delete 16 in this sentence.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03029-2 (2023)

Title: The incidence of chronic diarrhea decreases with increasing serum calcium levels: a cross-
sectional study based on NHANES 2005-2010
Version: 1 Date: 13 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
The incidence of chronic diarrhea decreases with increasing serum calcium levels: a cross-
sectional survey based on NHANES205-2010
This article is an exploratory study to assess chronic diarrhea and calcium levels in a large cohort
The study was well conducted and data gathered from the dta base and analysed appropriately
with results represented by figures and tables
No bias was in the design, conduct or  analysis
I would recommend that the study be accepted
Score 6 out of 10
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03029-2 (2023)

Title: The incidence of chronic diarrhea decreases with increasing serum calcium levels: a cross-
sectional study based on NHANES 2005-2010
Version: 4 Date: 04 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
Thank you for sparing your time to address my comments and suggestions in your manuscript.
However, there are still some grammatical and structural errors throughout the manuscript.
Please take care of those.
I hope you all the best.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03028-3 (2023)

Title: Factors associated with patency of self-expandable metal stents in malignant biliary
obstruction
Version: 2 Date: 12 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
This is a single-center, retrospective, observational study of factors associated with SEMS
patency in malignant common bile duct obstruction. However, the results of this study cannot
be generalized because the survival time of the subject group is too short of examining
factors associated with SEMS patency. Primary cancer and the type of SEMS used are also
hetrogenous.No new findings can be drawn from this study, as there are previously published
reports of better study designs.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03028-3 (2023)

Title: Factors associated with patency of self-expandable metal stents in malignant biliary
obstruction
Version: 2 Date: 23 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
General Comments
This is potentially a valuable contribution to the literature concerning some aspects of the
problems associated with metal stents used for maIignant biliary obstruction but conclusions
are limited by its retrospective design and inherently biased stent type selection.  Additionally,
some details of the procedures and findings are missing from the report which would help
interpretation of the findings.
Specific Comments
1  Introduction: it is misleading to state that there are no data defining the advantages of one
metal stent type over another and no mention is made of the removability of fully-covered SEMS
2  M&M Patients: how was 'unresectable malignant biliary obstruction' defined
3  It was only in the Results section that the patients were mentioned as naiive to stent placement.
This should be defined in the selection criteria.
4  Outcomes and Definitions: The primary outcome cannot be defined as 'factors affecting stent
patency'.  It is patency that is the primary outcome.
5  How was stent dysfunction recognized - was this purely on clinical criteria (regular visits
or symptomatic visits) or were patients followed at defined intervals after stent placement by
regular lab monitoring?
6  For the stent placement ERCPs, how was the length of stent chosen, was a sphincterotomy
always performed, were all stents 10 mm in diameter, were antibiotics used, was the position of
the cystic duct taken into account since all patients had a gallbladder in situ and was bile duct
clearance of stones/sludge undertaken in all cases prior to stent placement?
7  Results: what does the one p value represent in referring to stent dysfunction?
8  Results: The timing of complications  is not clear and presumably many patients suffered
more than one complication.  Are the 37 with stent dysfunction the same 37 with complications?
9  Table 1: please clarify 'bacterial contamination/infections'
10 Table 1: were there no cases of cholecystitis?
11  Figure 2: was statistical comparison of the different causes of stent dysfunction in each stent
type not possible because of small numbers?  This should be stated.
12  Discussion: this report suffers from the issue of inherent bias by being a retrospective analysis
of successful stent cases based on selection by the endoscopist at the time of the initial procedure
without defined selection criteria.  Inevitably, the numbers of the three types of metal stent
are not equally distributed and objective comparisons cannot therefore be made concerning the
causes of stent dysfunction which cannot be assumed to be the same for all metal stent types.
13  Conclusion: this section is probably not needed.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03028-3 (2023)

Title: Factors associated with patency of self-expandable metal stents in malignant biliary
obstruction
Version: 2 Date: 24 Apr 2023
Reviewer:  Katsuya Kitamura
Reviewer's report:
This paper examines SEMS patency factors for malignant biliary obstruction. Unfortunately,
this paper does not contain any new findings. Detailed studies have already been reported for
each site of biliary obstruction and for each tumor. Are these all the results of a single SEMS
placement across the papilla?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03028-3 (2023)

Title: Factors associated with patency of self-expandable metal stents in malignant biliary
obstruction
Version: 2 Date: 04 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
I enjoyed reading this paper. This is a retrospective study evaluating risk factors associated
with metal stent dysfunction for patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction. I have several
concerns as follows.
1. The association between aspirin use and stent patency was previously reported, and author
needed to add this information.
2. In the uni- and multivariable analyses by cox regression model, some important factors were
not included (e.g., ECOG performance status, aspirin or ursodeoxycholic acid use, primary
cancer, primary tumor size, length of stricture, previous history of biliary drainage, current tumor
treatment).
3. This is a retrospective study included patients who underwent metal stent for unresectable
malignant tumor. In your institution, how many patients underwent plastic stent or percutaneous
biliary drainage for distal MBO during this study period.
4. The authors suggested that long SEMS was associated with short stent patency in the
multivariable model. However, it was misleading because long biliary stricture might be the
reason.
5. The majority of patients underwent partially covered SEMS placement in this study. The
authors described that these stents were chosen by the endoscopist preference. However, there
might be some strategy because most of endoscopist chose PC-SEMS in this study.
6. In the methods section, the description of sample size calculation was not clear.
7. In the results section, patient flowchart should be added.
8. Early adverse events associated with SEMS deployment were not shown.
9. Please explain clearly the meaning about perioperative bacterial colonization and intact
gallbladder.
10. About patient background, previous history of biliary drainage is important information.
11. For patients with suspected malignant biliary obstruction by imaging study, did the authors
perform direct SEMS deployment without pathological confirmation?
12. The Kaplan-Meier curves for recurrent biliary obstruction and overall survival were needed
in the Figure.
13. The authors showed causes of SEMS obstruction in the Figure 2. The time to recurrent biliary
obstruction for each cause was also needed.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03028-3 (2023)

Title: Factors associated with patency of self-expandable metal stents in malignant biliary
obstruction
Version: 3 Date: 20 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity  to review the revised manuscript.
The corrections I suggested have been made satisfactorily except one which may be a
grammatical misunderstanding.  The primary outcome needs to be an event: ie, "the occurrence
of stent dysfunction".  The factors that cause it are an analysis of the outcome, they cannot be
the outcome itself.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03028-3 (2023)

Title: Factors associated with patency of self-expandable metal stents in malignant biliary
obstruction
Version: 3 Date: 11 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: I read with interest the revised article by Suksai et al. The authors
have made substantive revisions based on reviewers comment. I have only two comments:
1. The authors should change in the methods: Primary outcome were SEMS patency and factors
associated with SEMS patency.
2. Why did the authors not include size of tumor in multivariate analysis? The univariate statistic
was significant and should be considered for multivariate analysis as well.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Please the comments above."
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03028-3 (2023)

Title: Factors associated with patency of self-expandable metal stents in malignant biliary
obstruction
Version: 4 Date: 26 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have satisfactorily answered my queries and made
appropriate revision.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03024-7 (2023)

Title: Efficacy and safety of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate versus entecavir in the treatment of
acute-on-chronic liver failure with hepatitis B: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 1 Date: 17 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript "Efficacy and safety of tenofovir
disoproxil fumarate versus entecavir in the treatment of acute-on-chronic liver failure with
hepatitis B: a systematic review and meta-analysis" where you examined whether there was a
difference between the use of entecavir and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in HBV related acute/
chronic liver failure. You found no difference with regards to survival (either short term or long
term) between the two agent with the major difference being the agents being renal function
with tenofovir having worse outcomes.
Comments on the manuscript are as follows:
1. Could you please include the search strategy used for this analysis (i.e. exact strings searched).
2. It is unclear which arm is which on the figures; please label them.
3. How was data extracted from the graphs? Was this done by hand or what technique was used?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03024-7 (2023)

Title: Efficacy and safety of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate versus entecavir in the treatment of
acute-on-chronic liver failure with hepatitis B: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 1 Date: 10 Jul 2023
Reviewer:  Hee Bok Chae
Reviewer's report:
1. this is systematic review  about the efficacy of antiviral drug for ACLF patients.
2. this is an well organized and well written study with negative result.
3. please show the analysis result for safety issue about TDF drug.
4. Serum surface antigen conversion
In the study by Wan et al. [21], two HBeAg+ patients in the ETV group and four HBeAg+
patients in the TDF group survived for three months. Of these patients, 4 (100%; 4/4) in the
ETV group (0%; 0/2) and the TDF group (100%; 4/4) had no HBeAg loss (p = 0.067).
my comment: this sentence makes me confusing. How many patients (or percentage) get HBsAg
loss in each group? please express the HBsAg loss rate as positive, not by negative.
5. Safety of TDF and TAF in HBV-ACLF
Two studies by Zhang et al. and Li et al. [20, 22] provided changes in eGFR over four weeks, but
no significant differences between the two groups were found in their respective reports. Li et
al. [20] focused on eGFR at 12 and 48 weeks and found that eGFR levels decreased differently
from baseline at 48 weeks in the TDF and ETV groups, and the decrease ( in the TDF group)
was greater in the TDF group than in the ETV group. my comment: ( ) should be deleted.
6. Conclusion
In summary, our results suggest that TDF treatment of HBV-ACLF is similar to ETV in
improving survival, liver function, and virological response but has a more pronounced effect
on renal function during long-term use than ETV. In the future, more studies are need, especially
RCTs. my comment: please show the results. In Result, safety; there was only a description
without data.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03024-7 (2023)

Title: Efficacy and safety of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate versus entecavir in the treatment of
acute-on-chronic liver failure with hepatitis B: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 3 Date: 04 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review your revised manuscript.
The only comment is that the figures proper need to be labelled to clarify which arm is which.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03024-7 (2023)

Title: Efficacy and safety of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate versus entecavir in the treatment of
acute-on-chronic liver failure with hepatitis B: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 3 Date: 18 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: In their present revised version, authors have correctly addressed
comments raised by reviewers. The Discussion is nicely presented, however, authors might
consider the following suggestions to improve their content :
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Authors ended with only five eligible observational studies all from Asia. Given that HBV is
also highly prevalent in sub-Saharan Africa and to a less extent in South America, reports form
other regions should be supported.
In the conclusion, authors stated that TDF has a more pronounced effect on renal function during
long-term use than ETV. Given the small difference in found between TDF and ETV in eGRF
decrease (-5.83 vs -4.75 mL/min/1.73m2) I would mitigate the message that requires additional
studies."
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03024-7 (2023)

Title: Efficacy and safety of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate versus entecavir in the treatment of
acute-on-chronic liver failure with hepatitis B: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 4 Date: 02 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
All requested modifications have been made.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03024-7 (2023)

Title: Efficacy and safety of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate versus entecavir in the treatment of
acute-on-chronic liver failure with hepatitis B: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 4 Date: 26 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: Authors have correctly addressed my remaining minor comments.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03035-4 (2023)

Title: Integration of single-cell and bulk RNA sequencing to establish a prognostic signature
based on tumor-associated macrophages in colorectal cancer
Version: 2 Date: 26 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors report that TAM-related biomarkers useful for predicting the prognosis of CRC.
I recommend to address following points for the article more informative.
#Please let me know whether the cluster classification is based on previous reports or your own
research.
#We would like to determine if there is a significant difference in the percentage of M2
macrophages between normal and tumor tissues. It appears that there is a significant difference
in M1 macrophages.
#Please explain for the selection of seven gene symbols as factors for calculating the risk score.
#We would like to inquire about your assessment regarding the usefulness of the risk score in
predicting short-term or long-term prognosis, as determined by ROC curve analysis.
#Finally, in the paper, statistical analysis was conducted on three or more groups, and a
significant difference was observed. However, please verify the accuracy of the analysis.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03035-4 (2023)

Title: Integration of single-cell and bulk RNA sequencing to establish a prognostic signature
based on tumor-associated macrophages in colorectal cancer
Version: 2 Date: 02 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript by Hua Li and colleagues presents M2-like TAM-associated prognostic
signature.  It is interesting but still has some drawbacks as follows.
1. Your risk score was significantly correlated with overall survival. Is there a significant
difference between high- and low-risk groups in the survival analyses divided into different
subgroups according to their tumor stage, pathologic M stage, etc.?
2. Also, would there be a significant difference in DFS, etc.?
3. In this study, authors reveal that relationship between the risk score and anticancer drug
sensitivity. Did you analyze other drugs and find significant differences only in the four listed
drugs?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03035-4 (2023)

Title: Integration of single-cell and bulk RNA sequencing to establish a prognostic signature
based on tumor-associated macrophages in colorectal cancer
Version: 5 Date: 31 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for your well response and revision.
The manuscript has been greatly improved and is in a nice condition now.
I think that this paper is suitable for publication.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03035-4 (2023)

Title: Integration of single-cell and bulk RNA sequencing to establish a prognostic signature
based on tumor-associated macrophages in colorectal cancer
Version: 5 Date: 03 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for your thorough response.
It appears that the paper has been revised sufficiently and improved into a good manuscript.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02966-2 (2023)

Title: Incidence and predictors of elevated postpartum alanine aminotransferase in chronic
hepatitis B mothers: A prospective study protocol
Version: 4 Date: 14 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
Altrhough the aim of this research  is interesting,  the quality of this paper is not good.
The section of the results are missing. Therefore, I cannot evaluate this paper.
The  auther should show the all data in the revised version.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02966-2 (2023)

Title: Incidence and predictors of elevated postpartum alanine aminotransferase in chronic
hepatitis B mothers: A prospective study protocol
Version: 4 Date: 28 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
The recent protocol aims to explore the incidence and also predictors of ALT flare during
postpartum period of CHB mothers who received proper management of CHB by antiviral
therapy as  indicated  by international recommendation  which. I totally agree  with the study
concept. However, some issues according to study design should be clarified.
According to unapproved  using  transient elastography  in many countries,  there  are 2 points
of concerns about  this  procedure.
1.  Please confirm whether it is justified to use this equipment during pregnancy in China
mainland.
2. According to alteration of volume distribution to late pregnancy and early postpartum period,
it would be some interference with the normal cut off level of LSM . Please list the reference
for those cut off for exclude significant fibrosis in pregnancy.
For the secondary endpoint  aiming to define the normal ULN of ALT in postpartum period,
I may not quite clear why  we have to explore this question. It might need some scientific
background to describe more hypotheses why the recent  recommendation of normal  ALT cut
off might not accurate during postpartum period. This hypothesis is very crucial to link in the
design of study  why researchers what to compare ALT change in  CHB mother to normal
physiological change . Otherwise, the simple  report  from only CHB pregnant population itself
might be justified as well.
The planned statistical analysis is appropriate for initial design.
The protocol is well written.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02966-2 (2023)

Title: Incidence and predictors of elevated postpartum alanine aminotransferase in chronic
hepatitis B mothers: A prospective study protocol
Version: 5 Date: 10 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
N/A - no experiments or analyses
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
N/A - there are no statistics in this study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: - The authors have addressed my comments and suggested edits
- The authors have made necessary changes ti the manuscript
- As I mentioned in my initial evaluation, I don't recommend publication of study proposals
except for large randomized clinical trials. However, if editorial board is ok with this type of
studies, proposal is sound and can be published in current form
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The authors have made necessary changes
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02966-2 (2023)

Title: Incidence and predictors of elevated postpartum alanine aminotransferase in chronic
hepatitis B mothers: A prospective study protocol
Version: 5 Date: 14 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for your well-clarified point-by-point response.  There is no significant comment for
the revised protocol, except a few questions about
1. the definition of ALT flare in the postpartum period.
2. If healthy mothers develop a significant illness during their late pregnancy for example
developing preeclampsia, does the investigator plan to remove those subjects from the study?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03016-7 (2023)

Title: Multi-disciplinary cooperation for the micro-elimination of hepatitis C in China: A
hospital-based experience
Version: 2 Date: 23 Aug 2023
Reviewer:  Po-Yao Hsu
Reviewer's report:
Zheng et al. established a multi-disciplinary collaboration model to strengthen the tracking,
referral, and treatment of HCV infection, and it could accelerate the elimination of HCV in
China. This study demonstrated an useful HCV micro-elimination strategy in a hospital setting.
I have some comments as follows:
1. I'm curious about the reasons why the rate of correct diagnosis of HCV was so low (67.45%)
during 2016-2021 even though 91.77% of clinicians in 2021 knew that HCV RNA was the basis
of diagnosis?
2. The key of HCV micro-elimination is to establish a screening strategy for people at high risk
of HCV infection. You may describe more about that, and present the proportion of each risk
group in patients with positive HCV RNA (e.g., hemodialysis, HIV, PWID....).
3. Even though the rate of receiving RNA confirmation increased a lot after implementation
of multi-disciplinary collaboration, there were still 11.3% of patient with anti-HCV(+) didn't
receive HCV RNA tests. A reflex testing model built by Huang et al. might be a method to
diminish the gap in accurate HCV RNA diagnosis (Clin Mol Hepatol. 2021 Jan;27(1):136-143.
doi: 10.3350/cmh.2020.0150.)
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03016-7 (2023)

Title: Multi-disciplinary cooperation for the micro-elimination of hepatitis C in China: A
hospital-based experience
Version: 3 Date: 23 Oct 2023
Reviewer:  Po-Yao Hsu
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed my comments, therefore, I would like to recommend this manuscript
for publication. Congratulations for your contribution.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03020-x (2023)

Title: Construction of disulfidptosis-related lncRNA signature for predicting the prognosis and
immune escape in colon adenocarcinoma
Version: 0 Date: 25 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
1. Both "prognosis model" and "prognostic model" are often used in the manuscript. More
typically, the phrase "prognostic model" is employed.2. Materials and Methods. The primer
sequence of GAPDH is lacking and needs to be supplemented.3. The authors selected 6 DRLs for
constructing a COAD prognostic model. It is advised that the 6 DRLs be summarized in a table
to convey the results more directly.In summary, the authors identified DRLs for the construction
of prognostic prediction models. The model has high accuracy in predicting the prognosis of
COAD patients. In addition, qRT-PCR was used to identify the expression of 6 DRLs in COAD
cell lines, making the results based on bioinformatics more convincing.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03020-x (2023)

Title: Construction of disulfidptosis-related lncRNA signature for predicting the prognosis and
immune escape in colon adenocarcinoma
Version: 0 Date: 28 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
1. 3.1. Patient data are downloaded from the TCGA database for analysis, and the number of
tumor tissues and normal tissues included should be supplemented.
2. Table 1. In the materials and methods section, 476 tumor tissues were included in the analysis,
while only 447 tumor tissues were included in the Table 1. Please explain why the number of
tissues is different.
3. Authors should present DRLs in tabular format.
4.Table 1. 11/447#2.46%; 3/224#1.34%; 8/223#3.59%. Please explain why 11/447#2.47%;
3/224#1.35%; 8/223#3.58%.
5. Table 1. In TEST, T1+T2+T3+T4=99.99%. It is suggested that authors confirm the accuracy
of the data.
6. Table 1. In TEST, M0+M1+unknow=99.99%. It is recommended that authors double-check
the data for accuracy.
7.Figure 3E. Describe the meaning of Pr in the photo note.
8. Materials and Methods. Authors should provide details of the reagent used, including brand,
serial Number , and country.
9. There are some problems with the writing, please check the full text carefully. As shown in
Figure5, "Identification of the expression level of DRLs in colon cancer cell line." should be
changed to "Identification of the expression level of DRLs in colon cancer cell lines.”
10. The images in the whole text are consistent, and the manuscript is extremely readable.
The combination of bioinformatics analysis and simple verification ensures the accuracy of the
results.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03020-x (2023)

Title: Construction of disulfidptosis-related lncRNA signature for predicting the prognosis and
immune escape in colon adenocarcinoma
Version: 3 Date: 26 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
Every query I posed has received thoughtful responses and changes from the authors. The
authors have made some sensible and suitable changes to the work, in my opinion. I really
appreciate what this research group has tried to do.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03023-8 (2023)

Title: HBV pregenome RNA as a predictor of spontanous HBeAg seroconversion in HBeAg-
positive chronic hepatitis B patients
Version: 2 Date: 17 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
Serum HBV pgRNA levels were found to be correlated with serum HBV DNA levels as well
as quantitative HBsAg in CHB patient. In this study, Song et al. investigated the association
between dynamic HBV pgRNA and spontaneous HBeAg seroconversion in untreated HBeAg-
positive patients in immune active phase. They found that HBV pgRNA and the reduction from
baseline (#HBV pgRNA) at week 12 or 28 were powerful predictors for spontaneous HBeAg
seroconversion. Although the findings are clinically important, several issues are worthy of
attention.
Specific comments
1. Is this study prospective or retrospective? The number of patients is too small to have
convincing results.
2. The patients of control group were selected by simple random sampling. Why not use
propensity score matching?
3. Are the patients in this study the same as the paper published in Journal of Medical Virology
in 2014 and 2017 (Ref No. 15 and 17)? If so, is there any updated follow-up data.
4. The authors suggest using HBV pgRNA and the reduction from baseline (#HBV pgRNA)
at week 28 to predict spontaneous HBeAg seroconversion. This suggestion indicates that the
patient should be observed for 28 weeks during an acute flare up before deciding to start antiviral
therapy. The 28-week follow-up period seems too long. The authors should compare the PPV
and NPV of HBV DNA at week 12 and week 28.
5. The method to evaluate the predictive values of the HBV pgRNA should be mentioned in the
section of Statistical Analyses. In addition, the figure of the AUROCs of the HBV pgRNA level
and the #HBV pgRNA at week 12 and 28 should be provided
6. How many patients in this study were cirrhotic patients? Is the dynamics of HBV RNA related
to liver cirrhosis?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03023-8 (2023)

Title: HBV pregenome RNA as a predictor of spontanous HBeAg seroconversion in HBeAg-
positive chronic hepatitis B patients
Version: 2 Date: 20 Aug 2023
Reviewer:  Ta-Wei Liu
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors, congratulations on your important work, which we believe will further elucidate
the dynamic change of viral/immune activity and enhance prediction of e seroconversion among
CHB patients. Here are my comments:
Q0: In the referred study conducted by the same author (#Ref 17, Song et al. Journal of Medical
Virology, 2017), the serum sample of one patient among the 36 patients (Group B) was polluted,
so the patient was removed. The number of the patients in group B was 35. However, in the
current study, table 1 still showed 36 patients in Group B. What happened to the polluted serum
sample mentioned in 2017?
Q1: Table 2 showed the AUROC numbers of the HBV pgRNA level and the #HBV pgRNA at
week 12 and 28. Since the aim of the study was to find out the predicting power of HBV pgRNA
for spontaneous HBeAg seroconversion, please consider to mention the AUROC numbers in
Abstract, and show the AUROC figure legends in the manuscript.
Q2: In "Discussion" line 267 and 268 stated "HBV pgRNA is derived only from intrahepatic
cccDNA and not affected by NAs". Theoretically, if NA suppressed cccDNA replication,
pgRNA will eventually be suppressed. It had also been reported that "HBV pgRNA virion levels
increased after blocking the reverse transcription activity of HBV DNA polymerase" (Wang et
al. J Hepatol. 2016). What are the authors' opinions?
Q3.0: In "Discussion" line 315 and 316 stated "All the patients enrolled in this study are Chinese,
and the HBV genotype of the patients is B or C." It had been reported that spontaneous HBeAg
seroconversion occurred less frequently in patients with genotype C infection than those with
genotype B infection (Kao et al. Journal of Medical Virology. 2004.) Were the genotypes of the
54 enrolled patients available in the current study?
Q3.1: It had also been reported that spontaneous HBeAg seroconversion were not statistically
different between patients with low and high baseline serum HBV DNA levels(Kao et al. Journal
of Medical Virology. 2004.). However, immune active HBeAg(+) CHB patients with lower
pgRNA seemed to have better chance of HBeAg seroconversion since week 12 in the current
study. What are the aurthors' opinions?
Q4: There were some misspelling, such as "enlargred" in line 80 and "continously" in line 201.
Please recheck the spelling and format of this paper.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03023-8 (2023)

Title: HBV pregenome RNA as a predictor of spontanous HBeAg seroconversion in HBeAg-
positive chronic hepatitis B patients
Version: 4 Date: 04 Oct 2023
Reviewer:  Ta-Wei Liu
Reviewer's report:
My questions and comments were well received and answered.
I have no further comments.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03006-9 (2023)

Title: Risk factors of additional surgery after non-curative endoscopic submucosal dissection
for early gastric cancer
Version: 1 Date: 18 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
the authors performed a retrospective analysis of 133 patients operated following an ESD for
an eCura  B or C early gastric cancer.
My comments are the following :
The study lacks originality, since multiple larger reports on the topic have been published in
Japan, Korea and US. However, the present study be of interest provided additional data is added.
1. The occurence of metastases in the follow up period ( and the follow-up duration) is of
paramount importance : if most patients with LNM present cancer recurrence, than the benefit
of the surgery is questionable.
2. Please condiser adding the morbidity and the mortality o the surgery.
3. Data in the colon indicate that the depth of submucosal invasion is not a significant
independant predictor of LNM. Please add the comparison of  the rates of LNM among T1 a,
T1b sm1 and T1b sm2 tumors  in the table 3.
4. Taking the study findings into account, the lymphatic invasion rate is the best predictor of
LNM. Please add a table indicating, for each of the 14 patients with LNM, what where the poor
histoprognostic factors involved. Please add  in the discussion a comment, specifiying how many
of the 14 patients with LNM would have been picked up using only the L+, V+ criteria ? the
vertical R1  criterion ? the Mixed histological type criterion ?
5.Although not confirmed by the multivariate analysis,  the higher prevalence of LNM with
mixed histological type than with undifferentiated type is a remarkable finding. You briefly
refer to different carcinogenesis mechanism : please elaborate in the discussion on possible
explanations for this more aggressive tumor behavior.
6. Small typos remain in the paper, like "ecure" or "cardiac and bottom" and need to be corrected
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03006-9 (2023)

Title: Risk factors of additional surgery after non-curative endoscopic submucosal dissection
for early gastric cancer
Version: 1 Date: 03 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
This is a retrospective study on the risk for recurrence and lymph node metastasis after non-
curative ESD of early gastric cancer. The authors found that 78.2% of patients with incomplete
ESD who underwent additional surgery had no residual disease and no lymph node metastasis.
Independent risk factor for recurrence/residual cancer was a positive horizontal margin and
lymphatic infiltration was an independent risk factor for lymph node metastasis.
I have the following comments:
The authors should mention in the abstract that they were dealing with ESD of early gastric
cancer. This was mentioned in the title only.
The authors should provide a table explaining the different curable resection grades mentioned
in the introduction. The general reader won’t be aware of this grading.
How many patients without one of the mentioned risk factors had residual cancer or lymph node
metastasis?
Can you provide post-surgical follow-up? Did patients experience recurrence after surgery? How
many patients died from gastric cancer?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03015-8 (2023)

Title: The clinical characteristics of focal acute pancreatitis based on imaging diagnosis:
comparison with non-localized acute pancreatitis- a preliminary result
Version: 2 Date: 29 Aug 2023
Reviewer:  Konstantin A. Lesko
Reviewer's report:
The article dedicated to interesting and important subject - focal acute pancreatitis (AP)- a special
type of acute pancreatitis, which diagnosis is based on image showing a focal mass formation
in the pancreas.
I have a list of minor comments that I would like to recommend to revise in the article.
General recommendations
1. Imaging is crucial for focal AP diagnosis, literally one or two figures would be great to
illustrate this disease in comparation with non-localized AP.
2. Study group is quite small and authors mentioned that the larger sample size and multicenter
research work are needed in the future. Could you explain why sample size was so small in
your center? Groups enlargement could make your results more significant or even modify and
specify them.
Abstract
3. There are results of clinical and laboratory signs of focal AP in results-part in the abstract.
Only significant differences are shown, but in conclusion-part differences described as non-
significant.
4. The AP severity comparison in result-part did not note, but described in conclusion. So, your
decision upon severity looks non-obvious.
Background
5. If you place some abbreviations it could be better use them in whole text.
6. [non-mandatory] I suppose it could be better to replace a part about AP in the beginning of
the background part.
Methods
7. All abbreviations should be decoded (e.g. CT, MSAP, SAP).
Results
8. Why authors did not put concrete p-values in results, despite the had already noted in abstract,
for example p-value for abdominal tenderness comparison.
Discussion
9. Authors noted that signs and laboratory indicators of focal AP are not obvious, however
statistically significant differences between groups with focal AP and non-localized AP were
shown in results. How can you explain your decision upon non-obviousness, any criteria? From
my point of view this explanation could make discussion part better.
10. [non-mandatory] The study disadvantages were correctly described, but did you think about
article’s title change into “first or preliminary results”? It is non-mandatory comment, only
humble opinion.
11. I recommend authors extend the abbreviations list to make article clearer.