JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/s12876-021-01656-1 (2021)

Title: Discriminant equation using mucosally expressed cytokines and transcription factor for
making definite diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease unclassified
Version: 1 Date: 15 Dec 2020
Reviewer's report:
Okuno et al. reported the results of the Discriminant analysis using mucosally expressed
cytokines and transcription factors to conduct a definitive diagnosis of inflammatory bowel
disease unclassified. The study is crucial as it demonstrates the discriminant analysis of
differential diagnosis of Ulcerative Colitis (UC) or Crohn’s Disease (CD) for Inflammatory
bowel disease unclassified (IBD-U) using mucosally expressed cytokines.
The results demonstrate that the discriminant equation using mucosally expressed cytokines can
be a diagnostic tool for a subtype of IBD; however, there are several concerns that need to be
addressed.
1. The authors should also note the clinical course of IBD-U patients, such as the duration it took
to diagnose each case with UC or CD. When were upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and small
intestinal examination including barium enema conducted? Were the diagnostic tests conducted
during the first visit for all cases?
2. The authors explained the reasons for why the three-parameter discriminant equation
displayed a high probability of 90%, but since 70% (7/10) of the final diagnosis in IBD-U was
CD, can this bias affect the result? In Fig 3B, in all situations of CD, only three-parameter
discriminant equations are zero or less. Please clarify.
3. The authors mentioned that the expression of inflammatory genes in patients with IBD-U can
overlap more frequently than conventional IBDs. Please mention the rationale for differential
expression patterns of inflammatory genes between IBD-U and conventional IBDs.
4. On page 9: Table S2 appears to be the same as Table S1. Please clarify.
5. In Table 1, Disease types contains two examples of Pancolitis. Please comfirm.
6. Please check the description method of reference 8 on page 17.
(Th1 response8 #Th1 response [8])
Review for 10.1186/s12876-021-01656-1 (2021)

Title: Discriminant equation using mucosally expressed cytokines and transcription factor for
making definite diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease unclassified
Version: 1 Date: 16 Dec 2020
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript examined whether the discriminant equation using the mucosally expressed
mediators could characterize IBD-U, PSC-UC, or AIP-UC. The authors found that the
discriminant equation using IL-13, IL-21 and T-bet can be used as a diagnostic tool for IBD-U,
PSC-UC and AIP-UC. The findings are interesting, but I have some comments.
My comments are as follows. 1) Was there a difference in the mucosal expression of
inflammatory mediators with age? Also, does the use of drugs, especially anti-TNF# antibody,
affect the expression of inflammatory mediators? 2) Authors examined whether there was any
difference in the expression patterns of inflammatory mediators based on the different locations
in one patient each with UC or CD. Then authors showed there are similar expression patterns
of inflammatory mediators among them. Are all these samples taken from inflamed areas? This
is because the ileum is less prone to inflammation in patients with ulcerative colitis. 3) Authors
showed that the three-parameter discriminant equation diagnosed patients with IBD-U as UC
or CD correctly with high accuracy. Please describe the clinical importance of this result more
concretely in the discussion section, for example, possibility of early intervention with biologic
agents before definitive diagnosis. 4) Please explain the principal component analysis in a little
more detail.
I hope these comments will be helpful.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-021-01657-0 (2021)

Title: Diagnostic yield of colon capsule endoscopy for Crohn’s disease lesions in the whole
gastrointestinal tract
Version: 2 Date: 12 Dec 2020
Reviewer's report:
This study was designed to evaluate the diagnostic yield of colon capsule endoscopy for CD
lesions in the whole GI tract. Study design comparing between the lesions of PCCE and DBE
is considered excellent. However, I am concern about some points with regard to the way of
evaluation.
Major problem
1. Is the primary evaluation point whether there are lesions or not in one segment? In the cases
that there are several lesions in one segment, how did you evaluate the diagnostic yield? As you
conduct DBE as the gold standard, I think it is better to consider the correlation with CECDAI
or Lewis score. Is it possible to compare the findings of DBE and PCCE-2 with the regard to
CECDAI or Lewis score?
Minor problem
1. PCCE-2 is conducted after oral approach DBE which occasionally injure the mucosa. Is not
it necessary to consider the mucosa damage caused by oral approach DBE?
2. Sometimes it is difficult to observe total GI tract by DBE for the patients with CD who received
the intestinal resection. Is the fluoroscopy sufficient as the criteria of observation for the entire
gastrointestinal tract? Is not the marking clip necessary as the criteria?
3. I think that the observation rate (75%) of PCCE-2 for the whole large intestine is low in spite
of the colon capsule endoscopy, though you state that PCCE is able to observe the whole GI
tract. Is the PCCE-2 useful for the observation of the whole GI tract in the patients with CD? Is
not it necessary to conduct lower GI endoscope? How long does the battery of PCCE-2 last?
4. It would be better to write down the names of two readers of capsule endoscopy in the author
contribution.
5. In the Montreol criteria, L2 is the large intestine, while L3 is the small and large intestine. Is
not L2 and L3 in the table2 defined by the Montreol criteria?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-021-01657-0 (2021)

Title: Diagnostic yield of colon capsule endoscopy for Crohn’s disease lesions in the whole
gastrointestinal tract
Version: 2 Date: 19 Dec 2020
Reviewer's report:
This is a wonderful prospective study examining the ability of colon capsule endoscopy to
diagnose the entire gastrointestinal tract of Crohn's disease.
I would like to accept your manuscript.
However, I request revisions to the following points.
#You state in the methodology that whole GI tract observation with DBE was defined when
several endoscopists judged that DBE observed the whole GI tract using fluoroscopy.  Is it valid
to determine total gastrointestinal observations by fluoroscopy? We encourage you to elaborate
on this point.
#In the classification of lesion sites in Table 2, it is classified as L1 / L2 / L3: small intestines /
small intestine and colorectum / colorectum.
Isn't it better to classify as L1 / L2 / L3: ileal / colonic / ileocolonic, in order to be consistent
with the international standard Montreal classification?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-021-01657-0 (2021)

Title: Diagnostic yield of colon capsule endoscopy for Crohn’s disease lesions in the whole
gastrointestinal tract
Version: 4 Date: 11 Jan 2021
Reviewer's report:
The Authors replied politely to my questions. My questions were solved clearly. I think revised
manuscript is worth to be accept
Review for 10.1186/s12876-021-01657-0 (2021)

Title: Diagnostic yield of colon capsule endoscopy for Crohn’s disease lesions in the whole
gastrointestinal tract
Version: 4 Date: 16 Jan 2021
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for your polite and appropriate answer to my comment. Your paper has been properly
revised and will be accepted.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-021-01652-5 (2021)

Title: Impact of obesity in colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: single-center
retrospective cohort study
Version: 2 Date: 26 Nov 2020
Reviewer's report:
The authors retrospectively reviewed the different outcomes of colorectal ESD among obese
and non-obese Japanese patients in the manuscript entitled, “Impact of obesity in colorectal
endoscopic submucosal dissection: a single-center retrospective cohort study”. The number of
participants was reasonable for comparison and plentiful parameters have been shown. The
major two findings were; hypoxemia which resulted in less amount of sedative drug usage
was observed in obesity and ESD in obese patients by trainees required longer procedure time.
However, a number of issues need to be addressed before this paper can potentially be accepted
for publication.
1. The two major points of ESD difficulty have been missed in this report; the degree of
submucosal fibrosis and the scope maneuverability which might affect the procedure time
difference in the group of obesity performed by trainees. Authors should demonstrate these
factors before making a conclusion. If the data was not available, these limitations should be
mentioned.
2. One of the factors, especially in the West, being concerned about undergoing ESD in obese
patients is the rotation or changing of patient position. Even though the degree of obesity in this
study was not severe, the authors should consider mentioning this concern in the discussion.
3. Another point that I feel surprised about is the very high success rate in ESD performed by
trainees. The process of supervision or takeover of the scope by an expert was not mentioned
in the Methods
4. The authors should demonstrate the difference in the degree of fatty tissue in the submucosa
among obese and non-obese patients. This factor might be the most important issue to explain
longer procedure time in the obese group.
5. The data demonstrated in the Table should be more concise. Tables 1 and 2 and the tables
5 and 6 can be incorporated.
6. The overall English language should be rewritten by a native speaker.
I hope these suggestions will help to improve this manuscript.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-021-01652-5 (2021)

Title: Impact of obesity in colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: single-center
retrospective cohort study
Version: 3 Date: 19 Jan 2021
Reviewer's report:
1, Thank you for redefining a long procedure as more than 90 minutes in the revised manuscript.
However, I think the references cited there (#14,15) may be different. And, are the other citations
(#16-19) in the correct place? Please check them.
2, In the “Japanese Classification of Colorectal, Appendiceal, and Anal Carcinoma” from
Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum, budding grade should be described only
in case of T1 cancer. Please check and modify them in tables.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-021-01652-5 (2021)

Title: Impact of obesity in colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: single-center
retrospective cohort study
Version: 3 Date: 20 Jan 2021
Reviewer's report:
Thank you the authors for consideration of reviewing according to my comments. There are
some minor suggestions that I hope to improve this revised version, as follows.
1. Please rigorously check the typo; ie. in the Abstract, Method section (BMI < 25 kg/m2), in
the Result line 7 (BMI of 30 kg/m2 or more),  the number of cases and lesions in Figure 2 is
not consistent with data in Table 1, the median specimen and lesion size in the Result section
are also not consistent with data in Table 2, etc.
2. You did not record the prevalence of OSA in your patients as mentioned in the Discussion.
However, the comorbidities of respiratory disease that you showed in Table 1 might confuse the
readers, as no obese patients suffered from respiratory disease. You may clarify the definition
or the entity of respiratory disorder that you have collected.
Sincerely yours,
Uayporn Kaosombatwattana
Review for 10.1186/s12876-021-01648-1 (2021)

Title: Development of a novel model of cholecystectomy in subsequently ovariectomized mice
and characterization of metabolic and gastrointestinal phenotypes: A pilot study
Version: 2 Date: 19 Jan 2021
Reviewer:  Birgit Rathkolb
Reviewer's report:
Dear Celeste Alexander and Kelly S. Swanson,
thank you for carefully implementing all suggested corrections and additions and also the
suggested improvements for the figures.
From the revised method description I now conclude that heart puncture was performed as trans-
thoratic puncture before the abdominal cavity was opened. Hope I understand it correctly.
However, everything else is well understandable for me now.
Thanks for introducing this interesting model. I hope it will be used to collect additional data
to follow up on your preliminary results.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-020-01598-0 (2021)

Title: Macrophage migration inhibitory factor is an early marker of severe acute pancreatitis
based on the revised Atlanta classification
Version: 2 Date: 14 Nov 2020
Reviewer's report:
The authors investigated the diagnostic yield of serum MIF in predicting occurrence of SAP.
The paper is overall well written, and this biomarker has poorly been investigated before, so the
manuscript has some potential interest.
I have some major concerns regarding the study design:
1. There is no need of healthy controls in this study and they should not be included in all the
analyses. Potentially, the authors may leave the data on controls at the beginning, just to show
that MIF is not elevated in healthy controls, but these subjects should not be included in all the
following calculations.
2. Please check statistics. For continious variables is distribution normal or skewed? were
appropriate tests chosen accordingly? Are your  reporting mean (SD) or median (IQR)? this is
unclear to me.
3. As for the regression analysis, the authors state that "increased MIF" has an OR of....
What do the authors mean by "increased"? is it above normal values?
They should perform a ROC analysis to find the best cut-off of MIF and then use it in the logistic
regression analsysis.
4. The BISAP and APACHE score may well be colinear variables as they investigate similar
factors. Please check for the logistic regression analysis.
5. For all tables and figures make clear which data are presented (mean, SD, median, range...).
6. Report data on correlation between timepoint (aparently it is "whitin 48 hours") blood
sampling and MIF levels. This may well skrew-up the results.
7. The quote of "HTG-AP" is far too high compared to what is normally expected, please explain.
Also, try a separate analysis without these patients.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-020-01598-0 (2021)

Title: Macrophage migration inhibitory factor is an early marker of severe acute pancreatitis
based on the revised Atlanta classification
Version: 2 Date: 15 Nov 2020
Reviewer's report:
The authors aimed to evaluate the potential predictive value of macrophage migration inhibitory
factor (MIF) in acute pancreatitis. They studied 143 patients with AP classified according to the
revised Atlanta criteria and ten healthy subject were studied as control group.
Major comment
1. The number of healthy subject is very low and should be improved.
2. The number of patients by etiology is not likely
3. The characteristics of MIF should be extensively reported
4. Atlanta criteria recognize three groups and the author should analyze the data accordingly
5.      Statistical analysis and the tests applied should be better described. In addition, the
distribution of data, normal or no-normal, should be added.
5. In Figure 1 the direction of IL 6 and MIK is opposite of those reporting the BISAP and
APACHE II. Please delete also Group.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-020-01598-0 (2021)

Title: Macrophage migration inhibitory factor is an early marker of severe acute pancreatitis
based on the revised Atlanta classification
Version: 5 Date: 07 Dec 2020
Reviewer's report:
None of the suggestions of the reviewers were followed and the paper is not suitable for
publication. It is frustrating for a reviewer that none of the suggestions are followed by the
authors.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-020-01594-4 (2021)

Title: Effectiveness, safety, and factors associated with the clinical success of endoscopic biliary
drainage for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: A retrospective multicenter study
Version: 3 Date: 10 Nov 2020
Reviewer's report:
To the authors:
“Effectiveness, Safety, and Factors associated with Clinical Success of Endoscopic Biliary
Drainage for patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma: a retrospective multicenter study”
My comments are as follows.
1. Please evaluate the HCC stage also with the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer classification.
2. Please show the detailed breakdown of Child-Pugh score not just A, B, and C in Table 1.
3. Which IHBD diameter (B 1-8) did you evaluate?
4. How did you diagnose the presence of cholangitis?
5. Please unify Table 3 and 4.
I hope that my comments will be useful in improving the article.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-020-01594-4 (2021)

Title: Effectiveness, safety, and factors associated with the clinical success of endoscopic biliary
drainage for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: A retrospective multicenter study
Version: 3 Date: 13 Nov 2020
Reviewer's report:
In this manuscript, the authors have retrospectively assessed effectiveness, safety, and factors
associated with clinical success of endoscopic biliary drainage for patients with hepatocellular
carcinoma (HCC) at 11 hospitals in Japan.
It is well known that biliary drainage would be helpful for obstructive jaundice and liver
dysfunction in patients with HCC.
They conclude, liver function, Child-Pugh C is an important predictor of the effectiveness of
endoscopic biliary drainage in HCC patients with liver dysfunction with or without cholangitis.
The clinical success is achieved, the prognosis gets better. It should be recommended for active
promotion of biliary drainage for HCC jaundice actively.
The authors have shown clinical benefits and references regarding biliary drainage for HCC
with jaundice.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-020-01532-4 (2021)

Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Overexpression of P-glycoprotein, MRP2, and CYP3A4 impairs intestinal
absorption of octreotide in rats with portal hypertension
Version: 
1 
Date: 
23 Jun 2019
Reviewer: 
Marcus Hollenbach
Reviewer's report:
All concerns were satisfyingly addressed by the authors. The paper is now
acceptable from my point of view.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the
authors.
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you
recommend an additional statistical review?
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects
require further assessment in your comments to the editors.
I am able to assess the statistics
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Acceptable
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following
questions:
1
. 
Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or
salary from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially
from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
2
. 
Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way
gain or lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now
or in the future?
3
. 
Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the
content of the manuscript?
4
. 
Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organization that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of
the manuscript?
5
. 
Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6
. 
Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this
paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing
interests' below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
I declare that I have no competing interests
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name
will be included on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted
for publication, my named report including any attachments I upload will be
posted on the website along with the authors' responses. I agree for my report to
be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY license
(
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
). I understand that any comments
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as
confidential comments to the editors, which will not be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
Review for 10.1186/s12876-020-01532-4 (2021)

Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Overexpression of P-glycoprotein, MRP2, and CYP3A4 impairs intestinal
absorption of octreotide in rats with portal hypertension
Version: 
3 
Date: 
17 May 2020
Reviewer's report:
Basically, the authors have responded to the previous comments clearly. I have
no further concerns.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the
authors.
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you
recommend an additional statistical review?
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects
require further assessment in your comments to the editors.
I am able to assess the statistics
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Needs some language corrections before being published
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following
questions:
1
. 
Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or
salary from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially
from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
2
. 
Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way
gain or lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now
or in the future?
3
. 
Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the
content of the manuscript?
4
. 
Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organization that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of
the manuscript?
5
. 
Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6
. 
Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this
paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing
interests' below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 I agree for my report to be made available
under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY License (
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the editorial
office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your name in your published report. Please note
you must decide whether to include your name at the start of the process and
confirm this decision whenever prompted. If you change your decision later, we
will not be able to publish your name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please 
do not
 publish my name
with my report. (default)
Review for 10.1186/s12876-020-01568-6 (2021)

Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Non-Celiac Wheat Sensitivity: Rationality and Irrationality of a Gluten-
Free Diet in Individuals affected with Non-Celiac Disease
Version: 
1 
Date: 
10 Jun 2020
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed all reviewer comments and the manuscript has
significantly improved.
I don't have any further comment. Thank you for allowing me 
reviewing this
interesting manuscript. 
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Acceptable
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following
questions:
1
. 
Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or
salary from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially
from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
2
. 
Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way
gain or lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now
or in the future?
3
. 
Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the
content of the manuscript?
4
. 
Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organization that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of
the manuscript?
5
. 
Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6
. 
Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this
paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing
interests' below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
I declare I have no competing interests
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 I agree for my report to be made available
under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY License (
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the editorial
office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your name in your published report. Please note
you must decide whether to include your name at the start of the process and
confirm this decision whenever prompted. If you change your decision later, we
will not be able to publish your name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please 
do not
 publish my name
with my report. (default)
Review for 10.1186/s12876-020-01494-7 (2020)

Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Deep Learning for Sensitive Detection of Helicobacter Pylori in Gastric
Biopsies
Version: 
1 
Date: 
11 Mar 2020
Reviewer: 
Yu-Ching Tsai
Reviewer's report:
Please check the table of Figure 4B. The proportion at the 2nd column (the red
bar) might be 6.9% (6/87).
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the
authors.
Unable to assess
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you
recommend an additional statistical review?
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects
require further assessment in your comments to the editors.
Not relevant to this manuscript
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Acceptable
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following
questions:
1
. 
Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or
salary from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially
from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
2
. 
Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way
gain or lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now
or in the future?
3
. 
Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the
content of the manuscript?
4
. 
Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organization that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of
the manuscript?
5
. 
Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6
. 
Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this
paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing
interests' below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
I declare that I have no competing interests.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name
will be included on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted
for publication, my named report including any attachments I upload will be
posted on the website along with the authors' responses. I agree for my report to
be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY license
(
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
). I understand that any comments
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as
confidential comments to the editors, which will not be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
Review for 10.1186/s12876-020-01494-7 (2020)

Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Deep Learning for Sensitive Detection of Helicobacter Pylori in Gastric
Biopsies
Version: 
1 
Date: 
16 Mar 2020
Reviewer: 
Chun-Rong Huang
Reviewer's report:
The authors have adequately answered the reviewer's comments.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the
authors.
Unable to assess
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you
recommend an additional statistical review?
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects
require further assessment in your comments to the editors.
Not relevant to this manuscript
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Acceptable
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following
questions:
1
. 
Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or
salary from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially
from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
2
. 
Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way
gain or lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now
or in the future?
3
. 
Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the
content of the manuscript?
4
. 
Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organization that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of
the manuscript?
5
. 
Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6
. 
Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this
paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing
interests' below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
I declare that I have no competing interests' below.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name
will be included on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted
for publication, my named report including any attachments I upload will be
posted on the website along with the authors' responses. I agree for my report to
be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY license
(
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
). I understand that any comments
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as
confidential comments to the editors, which will not be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
Review for 10.1186/s12876-020-01510-w (2020)

Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Characterization of Gut Microbiota Associated with Clinical Parameters in
Intrahepatic Cholestasis of Pregnancy
Version: 
1 
Date: 
05 Apr 2020
Reviewer: 
Valerio Iebba
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript is suitable for publication in its present form.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the
authors.
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you
recommend an additional statistical review?
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects
require further assessment in your comments to the editors.
I am able to assess the statistics
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Acceptable
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following
questions:
1
. 
Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or
salary from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially
from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
2
. 
Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way
gain or lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now
or in the future?
3
. 
Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the
content of the manuscript?
4
. 
Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organization that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of
the manuscript?
5
. 
Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6
. 
Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this
paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing
interests' below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
I declare that I have no competing interests.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name
will be included on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted
for publication, my named report including any attachments I upload will be
posted on the website along with the authors' responses. I agree for my report to
be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY license
(
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
). I understand that any comments
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as
confidential comments to the editors, which will not be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
Review for 10.1186/s12876-020-01496-5 (2020)

Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Management of syphilitic hepatitis
Version: 
0 
Date: 
19 Mar 2020
Reviewer's report:
I agree that further investigation into the rash would have perhaps resulted in
earlier diagnosis. I also agree that syphilis testing should be part of the initial
work-up in patients presenting with hepatitis. However, it is worth mentioning
that, from our experience with HIV patients, about 50% present with mixed
enzyme pattern and in 13% only hepatocellular enzymes are elevated. 
Along with the genital and buccal examination, authors also noted in general no
veneral exposure.
I agree that the treatment described is not standard of care. Perhaps it is worth
mentioning in which situation a more prolonged treatment is recommended. The
statement that SH is a mild disease is not always true (Lo et al. Syphilitic
hepatitis resulting in fulminant hepatic failure requiring liver transplantation. J
Infect. 2007). 
Last paragraph needs minor language corrections.
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Needs some language corrections before being published
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following
questions:
1
. 
Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or
salary from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially
from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
2
. 
Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way
gain or lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now
or in the future?
3
. 
Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the
content of the manuscript?
4
. 
Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organization that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of
the manuscript?
5
. 
Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6
. 
Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this
paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing
interests' below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
I declare that I have no competing interests
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name
will be included on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted
for publication, my named report including any attachments I upload will be
posted on the website along with the authors' responses. I agree for my report to
be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY license
(
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
). I understand that any comments
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as
confidential comments to the editors, which will not be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
Review for 10.1186/s12876-020-01496-5 (2020)

Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Management of syphilitic hepatitis
Version: 
0 
Date: 
02 Apr 2020
Reviewer: 
Necla Tulek
Reviewer's report:
Dear Author,
This is a clear and well-written manuscript.
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Acceptable
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following
questions:
1
. 
Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or
salary from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially
from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
2
. 
Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way
gain or lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now
or in the future?
3
. 
Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the
content of the manuscript?
4
. 
Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organization that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of
the manuscript?
5
. 
Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6
. 
Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this
paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing
interests' below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
I declare that I have no competing interests
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name
will be included on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted
for publication, my named report including any attachments I upload will be
posted on the website along with the authors' responses. I agree for my report to
be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY license
(
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
). I understand that any comments
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as
confidential comments to the editors, which will not be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
Review for 10.1186/s12876-020-01496-5 (2020)

Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Management of syphilitic hepatitis
Version: 
1 
Date: 
24 May 2020
Reviewer's report:
Well written and interesting
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Acceptable
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following
questions:
1
. 
Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or
salary from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially
from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
2
. 
Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way
gain or lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now
or in the future?
3
. 
Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the
content of the manuscript?
4
. 
Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organization that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of
the manuscript?
5
. 
Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6
. 
Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this
paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing
interests' below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 I agree for my report to be made available
under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY License (
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the editorial
office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your name in your published report. Please note
you must decide whether to include your name at the start of the process and
confirm this decision whenever prompted. If you change your decision later, we
will not be able to publish your name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please 
do not
 publish my name
with my report. (default)
Review for 10.1186/s12876-020-01495-6 (2020)

Reviewer’s report
Title: 
ACUTE CHOLESTASIS AS UNCOMMON ONSET OF KAWASAKI
DISEASE: CASE REPORT
Version: 
1 
Date: 
30 Dec 2019
Reviewer's report:
Rare presentation of an uncommon disease
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the
authors.
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you
recommend an additional statistical review?
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects
require further assessment in your comments to the editors.
Not relevant to this manuscript
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Acceptable
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following
questions:
1
. 
Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or
salary from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially
from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
2
. 
Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way
gain or lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now
or in the future?
3
. 
Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the
content of the manuscript?
4
. 
Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organization that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of
the manuscript?
5
. 
Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6
. 
Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this
paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing
interests' below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
I declare that I have no competing interests
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name
will be included on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted
for publication, my named report including any attachments I upload will be
posted on the website along with the authors' responses. I agree for my report to
be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY license
(
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
). I understand that any comments
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as
confidential comments to the editors, which will not be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
Review for 10.1186/s12876-020-01453-2 (2020)

Reviewer’ s report
Title: ROLE OF SEX HORMONES AND THEIR RECEPTORS ON GASTRIC NRF2 AND
NEURONAL NITRIC OXIDE SYNTHASE FUNCTION IN AN EXPERIMENTAL HYPER-GLYCEMIA MODEL
Version: 2Date: 02 Mar 2020
Reviewer: Inge Bauer
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for providing the original western blots:
-please also show the protein size marker (kDa) on the membranes-please repeat actin blots for figures 3A and 6D using the same samples (or reprobe the respectivenNOS blots with anti-actin antibody)
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
YesDoes the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
YesAre you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an
additional statistical review?If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require furtherassessment in your comments to the editors.
I am able to assess the statisticsQuality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
AcceptableDeclaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of thismanuscript, either now or in the future?
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the
manuscript?
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that holds
or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?6. Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' below.
If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
I declare that I have no competing interestsI agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named reportincluding any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons
CC-BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). I understand that any comments
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential commentsto the editors, which will not be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal