JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03880-5 (2025)

Title: Efficient diagnosis for endoscopic remission in Crohn’s diseases by the combination of
three non-invasive markers
Version: 3 Date: 31 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
I thank the reviewers for addressing the previous comments by amending their manuscript. The
methods and results sections are now clearer, which will enhance readers' acceptance of the
article.
However, I still find the following text problematic:
“Two different classifiers were adopted: k-fold cross-validation as a resampling method and a
support vector machine (SVM) to validate the diagnostic ability of multiple markers. Regarding
k-fold cross-validation, we performed cross-validation from 2-fold to 10-fold on each subject's
data and adopted the k value with the highest diagnostic ability.”
This is concerning for two reasons:
1. As I highlighted previously, k-fold cross-validation (CV) is purely a resampling method, not
a classifier or a machine learning algorithm. Describing it as a classifier is incorrect.
2. It remains unclear why SVM was used and what value it added to the analysis. Typically,
SVM is employed for tasks such as feature selection or ranking. However, the features in this
study appear limited to three biomarkers and their combination. In such cases, the standard
approach would be to calculate the AUC, derive confidence intervals using resampling, and
compare discrimination abilities via the DeLong’s test. Given this, I am unable to understand
the role of SVM in this context.
Further clarification on these points would be beneficial.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03880-5 (2025)

Title: Efficient diagnosis for endoscopic remission in Crohn’s diseases by the combination of
three non-invasive markers
Version: 3 Date: 04 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
### Reviewer’s Comments:
1. **Explanation Needed for ROC-Derived Cut-off Values**
Please explain why the ROC-derived cut-off values in this study differ significantly from the
AGA-recommended cut-off values.
2. **Data Description Following Shapiro–Wilk Test**
Please clarify the method of data description for variables that were found to be non-normally
distributed following the Shapiro–Wilk test.
3. **Clarification on Figure 2**
In Figure 2, what do the numbers in brackets, such as 81.5% (74.5–88.5), represent? Are these
confidence intervals, ranges, or interquartile ranges?
4. **Dissatisfaction with Response on Comment 3 (why adopted SVM)**
The response regarding the choice of SVM and the included variables is not satisfactory. Given
that the continuous variables LRG, CRP, and Fcal were transformed into binary categorical
variables (negative or positive), a decision tree algorithm might have been more effective. Please
provide a rationale for choosing SVM over other methods.
5. **Detailed Explanation of SVM Model Parameters**
Please provide a detailed description of the parameter selection process for the SVM model,
including the type of kernel function used and the optimization method for the penalty
parameter. Additionally, it is recommended to include a detailed list of model parameters in the
supplementary materials.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03960-6 (2025)

Title: Association of clinicopathological factor with Lymph Node Metastasis in Rectal Cancer
Patients: a retrospective cohort study
Version: 1 Date: 18 Mar 2025
Reviewer:  Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors, please address the following points below
-While retrospective cohort studies are valuable, they are inherently subject to biases such as
selection bias and missing data. The retrospective nature of this study means that causality cannot
be established, and the results may not be generalizable to other settings or patient populations.
-The study does not mention if the findings were validated externally or if the findings are
applicable beyond the study cohort. External validation using an independent cohort would help
confirm the robustness and generalizability of the results.
-Although the exclusion criteria are robust, the study may still have unaccounted confounding
factors. For instance, factors like body mass index (BMI), comorbidities, or other inflammatory
conditions may influence NLR and PLR, but these are not mentioned as variables considered
in the analysis.
-The study includes only patients who underwent laparoscopic radical resection. However,
variations in surgical techniques could influence postoperative inflammatory responses and thus
the biomarkers, though this potential confounding factor isn't addressed.
-The study focuses primarily on preoperative inflammatory markers but does not provide in-
depth information on postoperative treatments, such as chemotherapy, which could influence
NLR and PLR. Follow-up data would also be helpful to assess how these biomarkers predict
long-term outcomes, including recurrence or survival.
-While NLR and PLR are the focus, the study does not discuss the role of other potential
inflammatory biomarkers, such as C-reactive protein (CRP) or interleukins, which may provide
additional insights or reinforce the findings of NLR and PLR.
-Although NLR and PLR were assessed independently, the study does not explore the potential
interactions of these markers with other known risk factors, such as PNI and LVI. A multivariate
analysis could provide more insight into the role of these markers when adjusted for other
important variables.
-The study could have mentioned other inflammatory markers, such as C-reactive protein (CRP),
interleukins, or tumor markers (e.g., CEA), which may play a role in predicting LNM. Including
a broader set of biomarkers would have provided more context and possibly enhanced the
predictive value of the study.
-The study does not provide a clear pathway for clinical application of NLR and PLR in rectal
cancer management. It would have been helpful to discuss how clinicians might use these
biomarkers, especially since other factors (e.g., PNI and LVI) were shown to be more significant.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03960-6 (2025)

Title: Association of clinicopathological factor with Lymph Node Metastasis in Rectal Cancer
Patients: a retrospective cohort study
Version: 2 Date: 31 Mar 2025
Reviewer:  Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr
Reviewer's report:
The responses are satisfactory
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03960-6 (2025)

Title: Association of clinicopathological factor with Lymph Node Metastasis in Rectal Cancer
Patients: a retrospective cohort study
Version: 4 Date: 21 Apr 2025
Reviewer:  Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr
Reviewer's report:
PLR vs. LNM Clarification: While it is clarified that PLR is not an independent predictor of
LNM, but still emphasize its association with unfavorable features. Make sure this nuance is
clear in both the abstract and discussion.
Methodology Detail: The explanation of the multivariate model building process is added, but
you might want to ensure that the model selection criteria (e.g., stepwise, AIC, p-value threshold)
are clearly described in the main text or methods section.
Generalizability: You mentioned the use of laparoscopic-only surgeries as a limitation, but if
the study setting or population is especially narrow (e.g., single-center, Asian population), it’s
still worth noting for external validity.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03960-6 (2025)

Title: Association of clinicopathological factor with Lymph Node Metastasis in Rectal Cancer
Patients: a retrospective cohort study
Version: 5 Date: 29 Apr 2025
Reviewer:  Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr
Reviewer's report:
the responses are satisfactory
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03947-3 (2025)

Title: Evaluating the diagnostic significance of the R2* value on 3.0T MRI for assessing the
severity of warm hepatic ischemia-reperfusion injury
Version: 0 Date: 05 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Ali Kumanda#
Reviewer's report:
The project is generally well-designed. However, I recommend you seek help in some
applications related to laboratory animals. I have provided some of my suggestions in the
attached file. It would be useful to review the article in English grammar.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03947-3 (2025)

Title: Evaluating the diagnostic significance of the R2* value on 3.0T MRI for assessing the
severity of warm hepatic ischemia-reperfusion injury
Version: 0 Date: 05 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
Evaluating the Diagnostic significance of R2* value on 3.0T MRI for assessing the severity of
warm hepatic ischemia-reperfusion injury
Running title:  R2* value on warm hepatic IRI
Reviewer comments
Thank you for the time and effort you put into preparing this article. I have a few comments
and contributions as follows:
The present study appears to be original.
The study is written in an understandable language, without going into much detail, and does
not bore the reader.
Have you investigated or pre-studied any other parameter other than R2* obtained from 3.0T
blood oxygen level dependent MRI (BOLD MRI) in the assessment of WHIRI severity?
Is there a specific reason you used New Zealand white rabbits in the study?
Is it possible to determine the R2* values obtained by blood oxygenation level dependent
(BOLD) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) by methods other than MRI in assessing the
severity of hepatic warm ischemia-reperfusion injury (WHIRI)?
Regards.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03947-3 (2025)

Title: Evaluating the diagnostic significance of the R2* value on 3.0T MRI for assessing the
severity of warm hepatic ischemia-reperfusion injury
Version: 1 Date: 18 Mar 2025
Reviewer:  Ali Kumanda#
Reviewer's report:
It is understood that the author has made revisions in accordance with the suggested edits.
Overall, the article appears well-prepared and original.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03769-3 (2025)

Title: Eradication of Helicobacter pylori that contributes to hepatogenic ulcer is beneficial to
the healing of hepatogenic ulcer
Version: 1 Date: 06 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
The research on hepatic ulcer has not been extensively studied in recent years, and there is
inconsistency in the conclusions regarding its correlation with Hp infection. This study aims
to further explore the relationship between hepatic ulcer and Hp infection through two parts,
which has a certain extentclinical implications. 
1.It is unclear if both parts of the study were prospective studies, and if the patients of the second
part come from the first.
2.The pre-registration time for the second part of the study (ChiCTR2200061355) was in June
2022, while the patient enrollment time indicated in the study was from January 2010 to
December 2019. If the subjects in the second part of the study were derived from the patients
in the first part, there is a discrepancy in the timeline. Additionally, why did the study use
the standard triple therapy instead of the preferred bismuth-based quadruple therapy for Hp
eradication in 2022.
3.It is recommended to clearly list the inclusion and exclusion criteria.
4.If the C-UBT cessation period one month for bismuth rather than NSAIDs.
5.The study indicates that there should be 64 cases according to an 80% Hp positive rate, but
the final inclusion was only 60 cases. It is suggested to provide additional explanations for this
discrepancy.
6.The study results suggest a higher proportion of Hp infection in patients with mild esophageal
varices compared to moderate and severe cases. It is recommended to provide the clinical
significance and possible explanations for this finding.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03769-3 (2025)

Title: Eradication of Helicobacter pylori that contributes to hepatogenic ulcer is beneficial to
the healing of hepatogenic ulcer
Version: 1 Date: 25 Feb 2024
Reviewer:  Abdullah Ozgur Yeniova
Reviewer's report:
The study titled “Eradication of Helicobacter pylori that contributes to hepatogenic ulcer
is beneficial the healing of hepatogenic ulcer” was reviewed according to the publication
guidelines of journal BMC Gastroenterology. First of all when I read the manuscript; I heard
first time the term “Hepatogenic ulcer”. Thus I made a search from Pubmed. The concept of
“ Hepatogenic gastroduodnal ulcer” was described firstly in 1964. There is almost no studies
regarding this issue in last decade. But I raised a question about the relationship between
Hepatogenic ulcer and Helicobacter pylori. When a liver cirrhosis patient have an ulcer and
colonized by Helicobacter pylori, how can we define this ulcer is not due to Helicobacter pylori.
I think this issue is the most important part of this manuscript. Authors must consider this
and write the discussion carefully about and they must refer to the studies that were published
in 1970s and 1960s even if most of them are not written in English. For example the first
study also asked the same question “ Is there a hepatogenic ulcer” (Strobach G, Wildhirt E. [Is
There a Hepatogenic Ulcer?]. Deutsche medizinische Wochenschrift. 1964;89:2241-4)  I did
not find this study furthermore it is written in German. Other wise; the questions whether HP
contributes to the ulcer pathogenesis in liver cirrhosis patient and we can diagnose these patients
as “hepatogenic ulcer” are worth to reseach. The manuscript can be published after revisions.
Revisions that must be corrected can be found below
1) Authors mentioned about the results of the study in introduction section. ( Page 2 line 52-
53) these sentences must be deleted
2) Authors explained how rapid urease test is done ( page 3 line 83- 90) I think this is unnecessary
because rapid urease test is a routine laboratory test and authors may give areferance intead of
explaining how it works detailly I suggest to delete this part but it is up to authors.
3) Authors must explain why do perform two test for HP diagnose. Both of the test have a
sensitivity above % 80 and they are routinely used by clinicians for their daily practice
4) Authors did not give treatment to 30 patients with HP and hepatogenic ulcer. I think itmat
raise an ethical problem because if one patient is diagnosed with HP, individual must receive a
treatment whether or not HP can be eradicated because HP is accepted as most significant risk
factor for gastric cancer.
5) Table 1 should be prepared again with p values appropriately
6) Why authors prefer” rabeprazole plus amoxicillin and  levofloxacin” for eradication of HP.
They may refer to the studies that shows the effectivity of this regimen
7) What is “FU group”. Authors did not give a abbreviation for “FU”. Did they mean “Functional
Dyspepsia and the abbreviation is “FD” ?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03769-3 (2025)

Title: Eradication of Helicobacter pylori that contributes to hepatogenic ulcer is beneficial to
the healing of hepatogenic ulcer
Version: 2 Date: 07 Apr 2024
Reviewer's report:
If patients of the second part were not from the first part, it is recommended to redraw the Figure
1.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03769-3 (2025)

Title: Eradication of Helicobacter pylori that contributes to hepatogenic ulcer is beneficial to
the healing of hepatogenic ulcer
Version: 4 Date: 26 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The criticisms and responses were reviewed step by step. The
authors provided sufficient and appropriate answers to the questions in the evaluations. They
also transferred their answers appropriately to the text. The text became much better thanks to
the changes and additions made. It is a beautiful text that can contribute to the literature.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
none
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03840-z (2025)

Title: ERMAP attenuates DSS-induced colitis  in mice by regulating macrophage and T cell
functions
Version: 1 Date: 17 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
This study focused on the role of ERMAP in IBD. In DSS-induced colitis mice, ERMAP protein
increased M2 macrophages, inhibited T cell activation. ERMAP knockdown in macrophages had
opposite effects. ERMAP inhibits NLR pathway. Overall, ERMAP protects colitis by regulating
T and macrophage functions. However, I have some questions regarding this study.
1. Why was the dose of ERMAP-Ig set at 25 µg? What was the basis for this choice? It is
recommended that the authors test two different doses.
2. It is recommended to use Western blot to detect the expression levels of Cleaved-GSDMD,
Cleaved-Caspase1 and Cleaved-IL1# in Fig. 5D.
3. The H&E staining images in Fig. 6E lack pathological scores. It is recommended that the
authors add them.
4. The possible mechanism by which ERMAP regulates the NOD - like receptor signaling
pathway should be discussed.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03840-z (2025)

Title: ERMAP attenuates DSS-induced colitis  in mice by regulating macrophage and T cell
functions
Version: 2 Date: 11 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
The revised manuscript has shown significant improvement in quality. However, several issues
still necessitate attention to ensure the clarity and accuracy of the presented data:
1. Please incorporate scatter points into the bar chats. This addition will provide a clearer
representation of the data distribution.
2. Please check the results in Figure 3B. The observed increase in CFSE staining levels within
the DSS+ERMAP groups require to confirm its validity?
3. Please check figure labeling in Fig. 4A. The distinction between the data presented in the
upper and lower sections is not evident, as they appear to convey similar information. Please
elucidate the difference.
4. In Figure 4B, the flow cytometry results illustrated lack sufficient differentiation among the
groups.
5. The rationale behind the selection of the NOD-like receptor for the study, as highlighted in
Figure 5, is not fully represented. The authors are encouraged to provide a more comprehensive
justification for this choice.
6. In Figure 5B, it is crucial to confirm whether control groups were subjected to infection with
a control viral vector.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03840-z (2025)

Title: ERMAP attenuates DSS-induced colitis  in mice by regulating macrophage and T cell
functions
Version: 2 Date: 14 Mar 2025
Reviewer:  Cangang Zhang
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed the issues I raised. This manuscript can be considered for acceptance
at present.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03980-2 (2025)

Title: A Network Meta-analysis of Different Interventional Treatment Strategies for
Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Version: 2 Date: 26 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
1.Although the study mentions that the heterogeneity test results show no significant
heterogeneity (I² < 50%), it does not delve into the potential sources of heterogeneity. It is
suggested that the discussion section should further analyze factors that may influence the
therapeutic effect, such as patient baseline characteristics and specific differences in treatment
protocols, to enhance the interpretability of the study results.
2. Due to the study being restricted to RCTs and PSM cohort studies, the sample size is relatively
small. It is recommended that future multicenter, large-scale clinical trials be conducted to
further validate the reliability of the study conclusions.
3.There is only one randomized controlled trial of HAIC in the study, and the reliability of its
results may be limited. It is suggested that the discussion section should provide a more cautious
interpretation of the efficacy and safety of HAIC as a standalone treatment, and emphasize the
need for more high-quality studies in the future to verify its clinical application value.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03952-6 (2025)

Title: A Novel Framework for Esophageal Cancer Grading: Combining CT Imaging,
Radiomics, Reproducibility, and Deep Learning Insights
Version: 3 Date: 14 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
1. How were the thresholds for reliability categories (e.g., ICC values) determined, and are they
consistent with other studies?
2. Why were DenseNet121 and EfficientNet-B0 selected over other deep learning models?
Would additional comparisons strengthen the study?
3. Could you elaborate on the criteria used to determine the number of radiomic features retained
after reproducibility assessments?
4. Were there any inter-observer variability assessments conducted during the multi-
segmentation strategy?
5. Why were RFE and PCA chosen as dimensionality reduction techniques, and were alternative
methods considered?
6. Table 2 mentions high reliability for morphology features. Were these more influential in
classification compared to texture features?
7. The study used the SERA toolkit for feature extraction. Were its limitations considered, and
would alternative platforms yield comparable results?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03952-6 (2025)

Title: A Novel Framework for Esophageal Cancer Grading: Combining CT Imaging,
Radiomics, Reproducibility, and Deep Learning Insights
Version: 5 Date: 17 Apr 2025
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the thorough revision. The reviewers’ comments have been adequately addressed,
and the revised manuscript is acceptable.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03952-6 (2025)

Title: A Novel Framework for Esophageal Cancer Grading: Combining CT Imaging,
Radiomics, Reproducibility, and Deep Learning Insights
Version: 5 Date: 21 Apr 2025
Reviewer's report:
This study presents a novel and promising framework for esophageal cancer grading by
integrating CT imaging, radiomics and deep learning. The innovative combination of multiple
techniques shows great potential for improving grading accuracy. The research has clear clinical
significance and provides a new direction for related studies, demonstrating high academic and
application value.
--In Figure 1, please provide the number of patients for each item in the inclusion and exclusion
process. Additionally, specify the number of patients in the training, validation, and testing
cohorts.
--For Table 1, conduct separate statistical analyses for the three cohorts. Further, stratify the data
into high - grade and low - grade categories to align with the classification task.
--The content regarding the Intra - Class Correlation Coefficient (ICC) evaluation of features is
excessive, causing the overall narrative to appear disorganized. It is recommended to move some
of the results to the supplementary materials and only present the key information. The focus of
the article should be on comparing the performance of radiomics and deep learning models.
--On page 13, please provide the corresponding website for the SERA software.
--The formula on page 14 can be removed.
--The Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve for the optimal model needs to be
presented.
--The activation maps on page 33 were selected . However, it is noted that the areas of focus by
the model mostly fall outside the tumor region.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03927-7 (2025)

Title: Diagnostic accuracy and influencing factors of microprobe endoscopic ultrasound for
gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions: a multicenter retrospective study
Version: 0 Date: 01 Mar 2025
Reviewer:  Ryosuke Sato
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for allowing me to review this manuscript. This study describes the usefulness of
microprobe endoscopic ultrasonography (MEUS) in differentiating subepithelial lesions (SELs),
and it is crucial for primary hospitals. The following are my comments for this manuscript.
Introduction:
The accuracy of EUS-FNA/B for SEL is stated as 59.9% (54.8% - 64.7%), but the cited literature
is a little old, and according to several recent meta-analyses (doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2024.02.003.
and doi: 10.1055/a-2156-0063.), the results are thought to be better.
Patient selection:
What is the reason for resecting tumors that are thought to not usually require resection, such as
leiomyomas and EPs? In particular, it seems that leiomyomas are being resected even though
about half of them are diagnosed as leiomyomas using MEUS.
MEUS process:
There is no detailed description of the differential diagnosis of SEL using MEUS (GIST,
leiomyoma, etc.). The authors should describe how they considered the diagnosis based on the
MEUS findings.
RESULTS:
In the case of GIST, there are also cases where it occurs in multiple locations, such as in
neurofibromatosis type 1, but it is also desirable to include information on family history and
hereditary diseases if possible.
RESULTS:
In the case of leiomyomas, 122 cases less than 2.0 cm in size (92.42%) were resected. If the
size is 2.0 cm or more, I think it is necessary to consider the possibility of GIST and resect it,
but I think that there is little significance in resecting leiomyomas that are less than 2.0 cm. For
differentiating between GIST and leiomyomas in SELs that are less than 2.0 cm, hyperechogenic
spots, hypoechoic halos, and cystic changes are thought to be useful, but are these findings also
commonly seen in GIST that is less than 2.0 cm?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03927-7 (2025)

Title: Diagnostic accuracy and influencing factors of microprobe endoscopic ultrasound for
gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions: a multicenter retrospective study
Version: 0 Date: 30 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
The study addresses an important clinical issue—improving diagnostic accuracy of MEUS for
gastrointestinal SELs and the study design is robust, with clear inclusion/exclusion criteria and
a multi-center dataset.
However, some areas of potential improvement could be:
1. There are some awkward phrasings and minor grammatical errors. For example:
a) "Microprobe endoscopic ultrasonography (MEUS) has gained widespread adoption in
primary hospitals due to its affordability and easy of user." Consider rephrasing it.
b) "The study aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of MEUS for classifying SELs, identifies
key influencing factors, and explores strategies to enhance diagnostic accuracy." Consider
rephrasing it.
2. Sometimes "diagnostic accuracy" is used inconsistently—ensure it is used in a uniform way.
3. Instead of “misdiagnosed as,” consider using “incorrectly classified as” for a more precise
clinical tone.
4. It is mentioned that forward-viewing or standard oblique-viewing linear echoendoscopes were
excluded. Could you clarify why? Was this to maintain uniformity across MEUS examinations?
5. Consider specifying how "unclear pathological diagnoses" were defined—were these cases
with ambiguous histology, inadequate biopsy samples, or conflicting pathology reports?
6. With respect to different ultrasound probes (Olympus, INNERMED), were there any
differences in image quality or resolution between them? If so, could this have influenced
diagnostic accuracy?
7. The study states: "Among 896 lesions across 31 SEL types, the overall DA was 70.31%."
Please include a brief summary of how this compares to prior EUS studies.
8. The subgroup analysis on gastric leiomyomas (DA 9.85%, misdiagnosed as GIST 99.17%) is
striking. It would be useful to discuss why this happens—does MEUS have limited resolution
in differentiating their structural differences? Are there echotextural overlaps?
9. The description of in-homogeneous echoes in gastric GISTs is excellent. However, a figure
or table summarising these key features visually would improve clarity.
10. The conclusion states: "Improving the analysis of echo heterogeneity and expanding
knowledge of atypical and rare cases could enhance diagnostic accuracy."
a) Consider adding specific recommendations for clinical practice. Should training programs
emphasise recognising in-homogeneous patterns? Should AI-assisted analysis be explored?
b) Could further prospective studies using AI-based image analysis or advanced imaging
techniques refine MEUS accuracy?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03927-7 (2025)

Title: Diagnostic accuracy and influencing factors of microprobe endoscopic ultrasound for
gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions: a multicenter retrospective study
Version: 2 Date: 15 Apr 2025
Reviewer:  Ryosuke Sato
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript has been revised according to the reviewers' comments. I don't have any
comments to make.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03927-7 (2025)

Title: Diagnostic accuracy and influencing factors of microprobe endoscopic ultrasound for
gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions: a multicenter retrospective study
Version: 2 Date: 16 Apr 2025
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed and accepted all the suggestions and hence, it could be accepted
for publication.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03953-5 (2025)

Title: Care needs profiles of Crohn's disease patients and their associations with symptom
clusters, post-traumatic growth, and family function: A latent profile analysis
Version: 0 Date: 25 Mar 2025
Reviewer:  Katarina Pihl Lesnovska
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript discusses an important and timely issue—care needs among Crohn’s disease
(CD) patients. The authors use latent profile analysis (LPA) to categorize these needs into
distinct groups and then explore the factors influencing these groups. This approach appears to
provide a more nuanced understanding of patient care needs. The study’s design, including the
use of multiple scales and a large sample size, is robust.
The introduction provides useful background information on CD, its impact on patients, and
the significance of understanding care needs in this context. The use of LPA to identify latent
classes of care needs is an innovative and appropriate methodological choice. Please find further
comments on each section in the attached uploaded file.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03953-5 (2025)

Title: Care needs profiles of Crohn's disease patients and their associations with symptom
clusters, post-traumatic growth, and family function: A latent profile analysis
Version: 1 Date: 22 Apr 2025
Reviewer:  Katarina Pihl Lesnovska
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors, I am satifsfied with the revision of the manuscript!
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03963-3 (2025)

Title: Milligan–Morgan hemorrhoidectomy combined with rubber band ligation and
polidocanol foam sclerotherapy for the management of grade III/IV hemorrhoids: A
retrospective study
Version: 0 Date: 14 Apr 2025
Reviewer:  #. Çolak
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript has positive and negative aspects. The positive aspect includes the comparison
of two surgical methods used in the treatment of hemorrhoidal disease, which affects the majority
of the world's population. In this respect, it provides useful information in surgical practice. The
negative aspect is that the study is retrospective and similar studies have been conducted on
hemorrhoids.
There are publications in the literature on combined surgical treatment of hemorrhoids. The
feature that makes this study stand out is the use of sclerosing agents that minimize the
complications of band ligation. This situation makes this study slightly different from others.
In the world of science, the contribution of very small nuances to practical life is very valuable.
Therefore, it deserves this article.
Similar studies have been published in your journal before, so it is appropriate for the editors
to decide on your publication policy.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03950-8 (2025)

Title: Association of cardiometabolic index with gallstone disease and insulin resistance based
on NHANES data
Version: 2 Date: 15 Apr 2025
Reviewer:  Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr
Reviewer's report:
The authors were thorough and responsive, and most of their revisions are acceptable. However,
a minor revision would be appropriate to clarify a couple of points:
Further discuss bias implications of self-reported data.
Briefly suggest how future studies might address this with medical validation or imaging.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03964-2 (2025)

Title: Dual energy CT-derived quantitative parameters and hematological characteristics predict
pathological complete response in neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy esophageal squamous cell
carcinoma patients
Version: 2 Date: 09 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
Comments for the Authors:
# Methods
1. “Two phases contrast enhanced DECT images were import into post-processing workstation
(ISP version 12, Philips).” Two phase appears for the first time, it is recommended to mark it
in detail.
2. “The images of all patients were independently delineated by two experienced radiologists.” It
is recommended to supplement the results of inter-observer consistency to ensure the reliability
of data.
# Results
3. “Table 1 displayed the baseline clinical characteristics of all enrolled patients in different
group.” Table 1 only shows the characteristics of all patients, and does not show the
characteristics in different groups.
4. It is recommended to supplement how to obtain AEF-NIC.
# Statistics
5. Sample size of population is very limited. What is the power of your statistical tests with
this sample size? The large number of statistical tests requires some type of multiple testing
correction. Please consider reporting corrected p-values to avoid this issue.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03964-2 (2025)

Title: Dual energy CT-derived quantitative parameters and hematological characteristics predict
pathological complete response in neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy esophageal squamous cell
carcinoma patients
Version: 2 Date: 12 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
The present work is of interest. Howeer, there are some major points to address:
Introduction:
please give an overview about the possibility to predict pCR based on different imaging findings/
imaging biomarkers.
M&M
More data about the included tumors should be added: Tumor grade, proliferation index KI67,
lymphovascular invasion, perineural invasion.
Results:
Associations between tumor grade, stage, vessel invasion, Ki 67 and iodine accumulation should
be added.
I suggest, the authors should use normalized values of the iodine accumulation in every phase.
Discussion
A ore detailed explanation of ssociations between iodine accumulation and  pCR.
Associations with histopathology?
References: some references should be added and discussed.
Figures: well
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03964-2 (2025)

Title: Dual energy CT-derived quantitative parameters and hematological characteristics predict
pathological complete response in neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy esophageal squamous cell
carcinoma patients
Version: 3 Date: 17 Feb 2025
Reviewer:  Amira A A Othman
Reviewer's report:
I want to extend my congratulations to all those involved in this work. All the required
amendments have already been made carefully and satisfactorily. I hope that the research will
be presented to science.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03964-2 (2025)

Title: Dual energy CT-derived quantitative parameters and hematological characteristics predict
pathological complete response in neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy esophageal squamous cell
carcinoma patients
Version: 3 Date: 18 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
No - there are minor issues
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Not sure - I am not able to assess the 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 - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: I had the pleasure to review the manuscript entitled “Dual energy
CT-derived quantitative parameters and hematological characteristics predict pathological
complete response in neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy esophageal squamous cell carcinoma
patients”. The authors have satisfactorily responded to the previous reviewers' comments.
The manuscript has improved significantly.  I would like to invite the authors to revise their
manuscript considering the following points:
- There is no background information or description of the problem in the abstract to support
the study rationale. You have only mentioned the study objectives in your abstract. I would add
one or two sentences as the lead of the abstract to provide an introduction to the main study
topic, to highlight the gap in knowledge and the motivation or rationale for the study for the
abstract readers.
- Instead of "Material and methods" please use "Patients and methods".
- To shorten the abstract, the last sentence of the method section (statistical analysis) could be
removed.
- The conclusion section of your abstract mainly repeats your study findings with no
definite interpretation. I suggest providing a statement that mentions the overarching clinical
implications of your findings and explains why your findings are relevant/important and how
they can shape future research.
- Please be more specific about "two experienced radiologists". How much experience?
Fellowship trained?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03964-2 (2025)

Title: Dual energy CT-derived quantitative parameters and hematological characteristics predict
pathological complete response in neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy esophageal squamous cell
carcinoma patients
Version: 5 Date: 06 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Not sure - I am not able to assess the 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 satisfactorily responded to the reviewers
comments. The manuscript had imprived
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
As above
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03909-9 (2025)

Title: Prolonged time to treatment of biologics in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: disparities from
a retrospective study in a tertiary referral centre in the UK
Version: 3 Date: 08 Apr 2025
Reviewer:  Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr
Reviewer's report:
The responses are satisfactory
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03951-7 (2025)

Title: Comprehensive analysis of ferroptosis-related long non-coding RNA and its
association with tumor progression and ferroptosis in gastric cancer
Version: 1 Date: 25 Jan 2025
Reviewer:  Dimitrios Kehagias
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this well-written and presented manuscript. The
structure and methods are clear, enabling reproducibility, while the model is correctly
constructed. The authors well acknowledge the limitations. Below are only some minor
comments for the authors:
1. Have you assessed the type of gastric cancer? For instance if it is diffuse type with signet ring
or an intestinal type? Can this affect the RNAs and mRNAS?
2. Regarding patient characteristics, you mention the stage but we do not have information
regarding neoadjuvant treatment which again might affect ferroptosis.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03951-7 (2025)

Title: Comprehensive analysis of ferroptosis-related long non-coding RNA and its
association with tumor progression and ferroptosis in gastric cancer
Version: 1 Date: 26 Jan 2025
Reviewer:  Shantanu Prakash
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript is properly written and presents essential findings. The research on ferroptosis-
related lncRNAs in gastric cancer is especially relevant, especially given the global burden of the
ailment, and take a look at has ability implications for advancing each knowledge and healing
strategy.
The moist lab work covered inside the look at is strong and helps the key findings, demonstrating
a radical technique to investigating the molecular mechanisms involved in gastric cancer
progression.
however, there is no disclosure of funding resources within the manuscript. it's far important for
transparency and the integrity of the studies that the authors include a statement regarding any
financial support or conflicts of interest. I kindly suggest that the authors cope with this omission
with the aid of including funding details within the revised manuscript.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03951-7 (2025)

Title: Comprehensive analysis of ferroptosis-related long non-coding RNA and its
association with tumor progression and ferroptosis in gastric cancer
Version: 1 Date: 30 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
In this study, the authors identified lncRNAs correlated with ferroptosis-related genes in GC
patients using the public database TCGA. Additionally, they extracted eight lncRNAs related to
patient prognosis among these ferroptosis-related lncRNAs, and derived the risk score from their
expression levels and Cox regression coefficients. Finally, they conducted in vitro functional
analyses focusing on HAGLR among these lncRNAs, suggesting that this lncRNA could be
a prognostic factor and potentially a therapeutic target. However, this study lacks scientific
evidence in the following important aspects, and its conclusions are excessive.
1. In Figures 3-5, they state that the risk score derived from the expression levels of the eight
lncRNAs is correlated with prognosis. However, they initially extracted lncRNAs related to
prognosis, and their risk score considered the COX regression coefficients within the same
cohort. It is natural for this score to correlate with prognosis when validated in the same cohort.
Moreover, the cohort used for validation was an intrinsic cohort extracted from the cohort
where the expression of these eight lncRNAs correlated with prognosis, making it predictably
correlated with prognosis. In other words, they need to use an entirely different validation cohort
to evaluate this prognostic risk score properly. Otherwise, at this point, their derived score can
only be said to apply to the 334 cases within TCGA.
2. Among the eight lncRNAs, they conducted in vitro functional analyses on HAGLR. They
showed that targeting HAGLR resulted in the inhibition of proliferation, apoptosis induction,
and migration suppression. At the same time, the authors should evaluate how ferroptosis
changes when targeting HAGLR. Is ferroptosis indeed involved in these tumor suppressions?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03951-7 (2025)

Title: Comprehensive analysis of ferroptosis-related long non-coding RNA and its
association with tumor progression and ferroptosis in gastric cancer
Version: 2 Date: 09 Apr 2025
Reviewer:  Dimitrios Kehagias
Reviewer's report:
I would like to thank the authors for the careful revision of the manuscript. They have fully
addressed my comments and significantly refined the manuscript. I have no further suggestions.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03951-7 (2025)

Title: Comprehensive analysis of ferroptosis-related long non-coding RNA and its
association with tumor progression and ferroptosis in gastric cancer
Version: 2 Date: 18 Apr 2025
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed all concerns so effectively.
One residual point:  If the FerrDb V1 includes 108 Driver, 69 Suppressor, and 111 Marker, does
the number of remaining genes become 259  after removing 28 genes ? Isn't it simply calculated
as follows: "(108+69+111)-28=260"?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03951-7 (2025)

Title: Comprehensive analysis of ferroptosis-related long non-coding RNA and its
association with tumor progression and ferroptosis in gastric cancer
Version: 2 Date: 24 Apr 2025
Reviewer:  Shantanu Prakash
Reviewer's report:
This revised manuscript presents a robust ferroptosis-related lncRNA prognostic model for
gastric cancer, supported by rigorous bioinformatics, experimental validation, and improved
methodological clarity. The authors’ responsiveness to critiques—particularly the addition of
ferroptosis assays, pathway discussions, and clinical correlations—elevates the work’s impact.
The study’s limitations are appropriately acknowledged, and the nomogram’s clinical utility is
well-validated. This work is now suitable for acceptance in its current form.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03937-5 (2025)

Title: M64HCl, a focal adhesion kinase activator, promotes intestinal mucosal healing in rats
Version: 0 Date: 02 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
In this manuscript, Guiming Liu and colleagues concluded that M64HCl, a water-soluble FAK
activator, promotes acetic acid-induced ulcer healing in rats. Some experiments were well
designed and performed. The text was written in a scientific and professional manner. However,
the data are not suitable for publication at this stage. Further experimental data are needed to
support the conclusions of this study.
1.It would be better to add images of acetic acid-induced intestinal ulcers to Figure1.
2.It would be better to add H&E staining to show the morphology of the bowel in both the normal
state and the acetic acid-induced ulcer before treatment in Figure 2.
3.It would be better to show the p-FAK IHC staining in both the normal condition and the acetic
acid-induced ulcer before treatment in Figure 3.
4.The authors should perform a thorough histopathological analysis of the tissues collected in
the acetic acid-induced ulcer experiments. Intestinal epithelial cell proliferation and apoptosis
assays are required to assess the effect of M64HCl on intestinal epithelial repair.
5.The level of inflammation and intestinal barrier permeability before and after M64HCl
treatment are also important indicators. HE staining alone is not sufficient, it would be better to
add serum IL-1#, TNF-# and other inflammatory factors to Figure 2.
6.The authors should quantitatively analyse p-KAK expression by Western blot in intestinal
tissues treated with M64HCl vs. controls.
7.When M64HCl enters an organism such as a mouse or rat, is there a metabolic change in its
molecular structure?