JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02858-5 (2023)

Title: Treatment and outcome of hepatorenal syndrome in Japan: A retrospective cohort study
using a national inpatient database
Version: 2 Date: 29 Mar 2023
Reviewer's report:
Ref: Submission ID 92a7c6c0-2fe8-4e6b-9e36-ed2d79d8b1f5
"Treatment and outcome of hepatorenal syndrome in Japan: A retrospective cohort study using
a national inpatient database".
Tateishi R et al.
Authors retrospectively examined the treatment and outcome of patients with hepatorenal
syndrome (HRS) by Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination database in 2010-2019.
Authors confirmed that HRS was high mortality in Japan. Only 7 of 1640 patients with HRS
were underwent liver transplantation. Albumin was most frequently administered to HRS.
It was meaningful to elucidate the recent treatment and outcome of HRS in real-world.
Although more than 1000 patients were examined, there was a few findings beyond the previous
reports about HRS.
If possible, authors should address the below points. How about the prevalence of HRS type I
and II, the incidence of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, and the direct cause of death in the
present patients?
Authors stated that dopamine was more frequently used as a vasoconstrictor in clinical practice
although noradrenaline was recommended in guideline. Do authors think that noradrenaline
is suitable for HRS, compared to dopamine? Were there any differences in outcome between
noradrenaline group and dopamine group?
Minor; How many patients were two or more vasoconstrictors administered to?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02858-5 (2023)

Title: Treatment and outcome of hepatorenal syndrome in Japan: A retrospective cohort study
using a national inpatient database
Version: 2 Date: 02 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
I am pleased to review the manuscript entitled " Treatment and outcome of hepatorenal syndrome
in Japan: A retrospective cohort study using a national inpatient database" by Okushin K et al.
This is the first nationwide report on real-world management for HRS. Therefore, it is intriguing
and valuable for understanding the situation of HRS in Japan. However, the authors should
answer the comment below.
This study is based on the DPC database in Japan; therefore, the diagnosis of HRS is narrative-
based as a fundamental limitation. In both groups, a small number of patients were classified into
Child-Pugh grade A. The definition of HRS in the Japanese guideline indicates the “cirrhosis and
presence of ascites.” HRS usually develops during the terminal stages of liver disease. HRSs in
Child-Pugh grade A are not readily acceptable. In other reports*,**, there are no cases of Child-
Pugh A. I guess they should be eliminated. What do authors think about it? Please discuss it.
*https://doi.org/10.4254/wjh.v5.i12.685,
**DOI :10.1088/1755-1315/125/1/012214
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02858-5 (2023)

Title: Treatment and outcome of hepatorenal syndrome in Japan: A retrospective cohort study
using a national inpatient database
Version: 2 Date: 06 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
Authors reported a very important epidemiological study of HRS using a national inpatient
database of Japan. I found this manuscript deserves merits to be published, however, several
comments needs to be answered before it is accepted.
* The most important problem with this study is the definition of HRS. It looks like authors
defines HRS by ICD-10 codes during hospitalization, is it correct? If it is so, this "HRS" includes
many cases with acute kidney injury (AKI) other than HRS.  Although authors only touched the
definition of HRS in limitation section, I urge them to discuss more on this.
* In line with above comment, in this study, they show that Child-Pugh class A & B accounted
for around  20% among "HRS" cases, which  cannot be true. As you know, most cases with HRS
show C-P class C with only a few cases with class B in cases with definite HRS.
I strongly suggest that C-P class A (&B) cases should be excluded from HRS.
* Most cases with HRS should have significant portal hypertension. Authors may disclose the
information on prevalence/severity of portal hypertension.
*  I wonder if etiology of liver cirrhosis should includes alcoholic, since alcoholic cirrhosis is
the main etiology for HRS in US & Europe.
* The statistical analyses in Table 2 may misleads readers, such as albumin/vasoconstrictor
use and  worse prognosis (death/liver transplant) was causal relationship (The nature of the
study design should preclude causal relationship, but since authors dare to  compare using
statistical analyses, authors should tell the readers its meanings). Since authors discussed the
underuse of specific/intensive treatment in the DIscussion, authors should discuss much more
on  interpretation of the result of these analyses, and show more data if available or from other
studies, which underscores the authors argument of more  use of intensive treatment (albumin/
vasopressin/noradrenaline).
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02858-5 (2023)

Title: Treatment and outcome of hepatorenal syndrome in Japan: A retrospective cohort study
using a national inpatient database
Version: 2 Date: 08 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
In this manuscript, Okushin et al. reported the nationwide study of the clinical characteristics,
treatment details, and mortality of Hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) by using The Japanese
Diagnosis Procedure Combination database. The authors concluded that HRS in Japan has a
high mortality rate. Although noradrenaline is recommended in Japanese clinical guidelines,
dopamine was more frequently used as a vasoconstrictor in clinical practice.
This paper is interesting and useful contribution. On the other hand, I think that this paper still
has some problems as indicated below. There are several comments to be addressed.
Major comments
1. The majority of HRS-acute kidney injury (AKI) episodes are precursor by acute events. It
is important to identify and appropriately treat all precipitating symptoms. Complications of
bacterial infections such as spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in patients with cirrhosis are a
high risk factor for the development of HRS. Bacterial infections can induce AKI due to the
production of excessive inflammatory cytokines.
Would it be possible to add results and discussion regarding the presence or absence of SBP,
other infections, and antibiotic therapy?
2. The authors discuss the possibility that many HRS patients in Japan do not receive specific and
intensive treatment at the appropriate time. Would the authors be able to provide some insight
into the reasons for this?
3. Traditional diagnostic criteria for HRS have required a serum creatinine level greater than
1.5 mg/dL and have not taken into account the degree or rapidity of increase from baseline
values. In the Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for liver cirrhosis 2020, HRS-AKI
meets the diagnostic criteria for AKI in patients with cirrhosis proposed by the International
Club of Ascites. Would these diagnostic criteria allow for earlier diagnosis? Can the authors
describe their discussion of it?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02858-5 (2023)

Title: Treatment and outcome of hepatorenal syndrome in Japan: A retrospective cohort study
using a national inpatient database
Version: 3 Date: 18 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
In this manuscript, Okushin et al. reported the nationwide study of the clinical characteristics,
treatment details, and mortality of Hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) by using The Japanese
Diagnosis Procedure Combination database. The authors concluded that HRS in Japan has a
high mortality rate. Although noradrenaline is recommended in Japanese clinical guidelines,
dopamine was more frequently used as a vasoconstrictor in clinical practice.
I think the revised paper is a very interesting and useful contribution.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02849-6 (2023)

Title: Evaluation of clinical effects of a multidisciplinary-collaborated cancer support team
for gastrointestinal cancer chemotherapy: prospective observational study protocol of M-CAST
study
Version: 9 Date: 23 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
1. What exactly does "patients requiring intervention by the MCST" in the eligibility criteria
refer to? This statement appears to include all patients without stipulation.
2. The authors state the endpoint as "the number of patients improving side effects before and
after the intervention. What exactly does this improvement refer to, an improvement in CTC-
AE rates?
3. As noted in the discussion, even without MCST, most side effects can be improved by
reducing or discontinuing the drug; the role of MCST can only be assessed by drug dose
intensity. Please explain clearly the setting why you set the endpoints.
4. I think the authors should include within the INTRODUCTION the treatment completion rate
and side effects in the absence of MCST.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02849-6 (2023)

Title: Evaluation of clinical effects of a multidisciplinary-collaborated cancer support team
for gastrointestinal cancer chemotherapy: prospective observational study protocol of M-CAST
study
Version: 11 Date: 17 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
The paper has been appropriately revised in accordance with the reviewer's comments.  I think
this is adequate as a protocol paper.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02849-6 (2023)

Title: Evaluation of clinical effects of a multidisciplinary-collaborated cancer support team
for gastrointestinal cancer chemotherapy: prospective observational study protocol of M-CAST
study
Version: 11 Date: 23 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
N/A - no experiments or analyses
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
N/A - there are no statistics in this study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
N/A - no results to interpret
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 been responsive to the comments and made
changes to the paper. The manuscript has been improved. I checked the protocol (after
translating) and it generally seems to match the paper. I have no further comments.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
This paper merely describes a study protocol. I have no further comments. It would be useful
for the authors to publish the study protocol as supplementary material with the paper.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
I have no further comments.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02853-w (2023)

Title: Comparison of different second line treatments for metastatic pancreatic cancer: a
systematic review and network meta-analysis
Version: 0 Date: 26 Dec 2022
Reviewer:  Qiancheng Hu
Reviewer's report:
This is a good idea, but why did you choose this topic?.  The methods seem to simple. To realize
a comprehensive evaluation, I advised to add   risk of bias, quality of evidence, and publication
bias in this study.  I also advised to add subgroup analysis and sensitive analysis in the revised
manuscript.
Toxicity was also very important, so the secondary endpoint might include it. The SCURA
didnot display in the results. A higher SUCRA value indicates a better effect.
Throughout the manuscript,  there are numerous typo’s and grammatical mistakes. The text
should be edited by a native English speaker.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02853-w (2023)

Title: Comparison of different second line treatments for metastatic pancreatic cancer: a
systematic review and network meta-analysis
Version: 2 Date: 19 Mar 2023
Reviewer:  Qiancheng Hu
Reviewer's report:
Recently, the pairwise meta-analysis showed  fluoropyrimidine combination therapy had a
higher response rate and longer PFS in patients with gemcitabine-refractory advanced pancreatic
cancer compared with fluoropyrimidine monotherapy. Your topic is very good. However, I don't
think this article is fit for publication.  There are a lot of questions in this article.  Firstly, based
on your eligibility criteria in the NMA, MPACA-3 (Eur J Cancer. 2021 Nov;157:21-30) might
be included. Second, abbreviations (eg, PF, OXA,PEG) are best explained clearly in the picture.
Lastly, quality evaluation is also an important part of NMA.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02853-w (2023)

Title: Comparison of different second line treatments for metastatic pancreatic cancer: a
systematic review and network meta-analysis
Version: 2 Date: 20 Mar 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for revising the manuscript. The authors have addressed most of the comments.
However, in methods: "This meta-analysis is performed according to the extension of the
PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) statement
for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses statements ". Please
replace "meta-analysis", with "systematic review and network meta-analysis" and "performed"
with "reported" in this phrase.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02853-w (2023)

Title: Comparison of different second line treatments for metastatic pancreatic cancer: a
systematic review and network meta-analysis
Version: 5 Date: 14 May 2023
Reviewer:  Qiancheng Hu
Reviewer's report:
Recently, Citterio and co-workers have recently reviewed second line with oxaliplatin-
or irinotecan-based chemotherapy for gemcitabine-pretreated pancreatic cancer (2018 Jul
3;9(51):29801-29809). First, I want to know why you did it again; in other words, what  do we
know and what do we not know? Second, exclusion criteria is not standardized, such as 'Also, we
excluded observational or phase I studies, reviews, letters, editorials, meeting abstracts, and case
reports'. Lastly,for any network meta-analysis, we would like to see more the quality evaluation
and data analysis of related  drug and non-drug interventions (2019; 367: l5460).
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02853-w (2023)

Title: Comparison of different second line treatments for metastatic pancreatic cancer: a
systematic review and network meta-analysis
Version: 6 Date: 28 May 2023
Reviewer:  Qiancheng Hu
Reviewer's report:
Throughout the protocol, there are numerous typo’s and grammatical mistakes which the authors
should correct prior to publication.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02764-w (2023)

Title: Atrophic gastritis rather than Helicobacter pylori infection can be an independent risk
factor of colorectal polyps: a retrospective study in China
Version: 2 Date: 21 Nov 2022
Reviewer:  Thomas Wex
Reviewer's report:
Comments to authors:
Authors address a relevant clinical aspect; improving the management of screening for polyps
in context to colorectal cancer. However, study design chosen seems to be unsuitable for this
question.
Certainly, there exist several studies that suggest a higher prevalence of polyps in context to
H. pylori infection or certain type of gastritis compared to H. pylori-negative individuals   The
study design used in this manuscript remains somehow unclear. What was the underlying clinical
question for including patients who needed both gastroscopy and colonoscopy at the same time?
Surprisingly, based on Table 2, 791 of 792 patients had either atrophic or non-atrophic gastritis;
however the majority of patients were H. pylori-negative.  What are the underlying reason/cause
for the gastritis if not H. pylori?
The assessment of atrophy by the endoscopically focused Kimura-Takemoto classification
seems to be not accurate. Authors would need to implement histologic data based on
updated Sydney /OLGA/OLGIM classification system or alternatively serum-based markers
(GastroPanel including Pepsinogen I, II, Gastrin-17 and anti-H.pylori antibodies. In particular,
the serology-based approach would allow assessing previous H. pylori infection based on anti-
H. pylori-IgG.
Both the proportion of cases with gastritis and the proportion of atrophic gastritis among them
seem to be unusually high implying that a certain subgroup has been included, and therefore any
conclusion made cannot be addressed to normal population eligible for colon cancer screening
as the authors focused on.
Data from Figure 1 and 2 are completely redundant to data in tables, figures should be omitted.
Data of Table 3 (numbers of polyps) are far away from any normal distribution and should be
analyzed and presented using non-parametric tests/methodology.
The conclusion that atrophic gastritis can effectively predict colorectal polyps is not sufficiently
demonstrated by the manuscript.
Notably, authors claim that age, gender and atrophic gastritis are independent risk factors for
colorectal polyps, but the odds ratio of atrophic gastritis is 0.44 suggesting that gastric atrophy
is even a “protective factor” for the development of colorectal polyps.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02764-w (2023)

Title: Atrophic gastritis rather than Helicobacter pylori infection can be an independent risk
factor of colorectal polyps: a retrospective study in China
Version: 2 Date: 06 Dec 2022
Reviewer's report:
The title of the article fully corresponds to the content and main conclusion. In the abstract in
the "Methods" section, it is advisable to indicate the number of examined patients, methods for
diagnosing colorectal polyps and atrophic gastritis.
In the “Introduction” section, the authors skillfully explain the feasibility of the study,
demonstrating a good knowledge of previous studies. Methods of work correspond to the
purpose of the study, allow to achieve objective results.
The authors examined 792 patients. Colorectal polyps were found in 385 people, atrophic
gastritis - in 332 patients. Multivariate analysis showed that age, gender, and atrophic gastritis
were independent risk factors for colorectal polyps. AUC for association of atrophic gastritis and
colorectal polyps was 0.62 (p<0.001), for Helicobacter pylori infection it was 0.57 (p<0.001).
The "Discussion" section is written in a good, clear language. The authors interpret the results
obtained in the light of previous studies and skillfully substantiate the novelty of the work and
the possible pathogenetic relationship between atrophic gastritis and colorectal polyps. The list
of references includes 31 works that are modern and allow substantiating the significance and
novelty of the study. There are no remarks on the quality of diagrams and illustrations. Ethical
requirements in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki were observed in the work.
The work was performed using modern research methods on a large clinical material, which
made it possible to obtain original data on the direct relationship between atrophic gastritis and
colorectal polyps, which are of great practical and theoretical significance. The materials of
the article are presented in a good clear language. There are no significant comments on the
manuscript. The article may be published in the journal BMC Gastroenterology.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02764-w (2023)

Title: Atrophic gastritis rather than Helicobacter pylori infection can be an independent risk
factor of colorectal polyps: a retrospective study in China
Version: 2 Date: 19 Dec 2022
Reviewer:  Tran Tien Dao
Reviewer's report:
Recent trends have identified an increasing number of individuals with rectal and colon cancers.
However, it is difficult to detect CRC early due to the lack of typical clinical symptoms.
Colorectal adenomatous polyps are the most important precancerous lesions, developing into
CRC through the adenomatous cancer sequence. Therefore, early screening and detection of
precancerous lesions can prevent the occurrence and development of CRC. Gastric Helicobacter
pylori and the chronic inflammatory state caused by H. pylori infection are closely related to
the occurrence of gastric cancer. Besides, previous studies have indicated that gastric H. pylori
infection increased the risk of colorectal tumors. In contrast, however, several other reports have
concluded that gastric H. pylori infection was not correlated with colorectal polyps or CRC.
Thus, the results of different research studies in different regions vary significantly. Therefore,
the present study investigated the relationship between gastric H. pylori infection, and atrophy
gastritis with colorectal polyps and answers to questions regarding the necessity for colonoscopy
screening in patients with gastric H. pylori infection in China. For the research method, the
retrospective study was conducted on 792 patients with 332 (AG) and 385 (48,7%) colorectal
polyps. However, there is some information that the author should make clear. Firstly, the
author needs to make clear why the author chose a sample size ( <800 Pts). In my opinion, the
prevalence of colorectal polyp is about 18,1% in the Chinese population ( according to some
research in China), but in your research, this prevalence is very high (2,5 times), and you need
to explain the reason. Secondly, the author should be analyzed the characteristics of a polyp.
For example, the prevalence of hyperplastic polyps, adenomatous, or hamartomatous polyps.
We know that hyperplastic polyps are very common but have a very low malignant potential. In
addition, in table2 There was no statistically significant difference between adenomas with AG
and non-AG (p=0.09) meanwhile, adenomas polyps in the colon are at high risk of CRC. Finally,
the AUC of AG and H.p infection for colorectal polyp are 0,62 and 0,57 respectively. The value
is low and not enough accurate to identify the relative between AG with the colorectal polyp.
To sum up, there is some information the author needs to make clear before the conclusion
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02764-w (2023)

Title: Atrophic gastritis rather than Helicobacter pylori infection can be an independent risk
factor of colorectal polyps: a retrospective study in China
Version: 4 Date: 11 Jan 2023
Reviewer:  Thomas Wex
Reviewer's report:
The authors addressed issues raised either by correcting or explaining appropriately. The quality
of the manuscript has improved.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02764-w (2023)

Title: Atrophic gastritis rather than Helicobacter pylori infection can be an independent risk
factor of colorectal polyps: a retrospective study in China
Version: 4 Date: 02 Feb 2023
Reviewer:  Tran Tien Dao
Reviewer's report:
Recent trends have identified an increasing number of individuals with rectal and colon cancers.
However, it is di#cult to detect CRC early due to the lack of typical clinical symptoms.
Colorectal adenomatous polyps are the most important precancerous lesions, developing into
CRC through the adenomatous cancer sequence. Therefore, early screening and detection of
precancerous lesions can prevent the occurrence and development of CRC. Gastric Helicobacter
pylori and the chronic inflammatory state caused by H. pylori infection are closely related to
the occurrence of gastric cancer. Besides, previous studies have indicated that gastric H. pylori
infection increased the risk of colorectal tumors. In contrast, however, several other reports have
concluded that gastric H. pylori infection was not correlated with colorectal polyps or CRC.
Thus, the results of di#erent research studies in di#erent regions vary significantly. Therefore,
the present study investigated the relationship between gastric H. pylori infection, and atrophy
gastritis with colorectal polyps and answers to questions regarding the necessity for colonoscopy
screening in patients with gastric H. pylori infection in China. For the research method, the
retrospective study was conducted on 792 patients with 332 (AG) and 385 (48,7%) colorectal
polyps. However, there is some information that the author should make clear. Firstly, the
author needs to make clear why the author chose a sample size ( <800 Pts). In my opinion, the
prevalence of colorectal polyp is about 18,1% in the Chinese population ( according to some
research in China), but in your research, this prevalence is very high (2,5 times), and you need
to explain the reason. Secondly, the author should be analyzed the characteristics of a polyp.
For example, the prevalence of hyperplastic polyps, adenomatous, or hamartomatous polyps.
We know that hyperplastic polyps are very common but have a very low malignant potential. In
addition, in table2 There was no statistically significant di#erence between adenomas with AG
and non-AG (p=0.09) meanwhile, adenomas polyps in the colon are at high risk of CRC. Finally,
the AUC of AG and H.p infection for colorectal polyp are 0,62 and 0,57 respectively. The value
is low and not enough accurate to identify the relative between AG with the colorectal polyp.
To sum up, there is some information the author needs to make clear before the conclusion
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02764-w (2023)

Title: Atrophic gastritis rather than Helicobacter pylori infection can be an independent risk
factor of colorectal polyps: a retrospective study in China
Version: 4 Date: 13 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
The title of the article fully corresponds to the content and main conclusion. Our comment
about the expediency of indicating in the abstract the number of examined patients was not
implemented. I strongly repeat that in the abstract it is advisable to indicate the number of
examined patients, methods for diagnosing colorectal polyps and atrophic gastritis.
In the “Introduction” section, the authors skillfully explain the feasibility of the study,
demonstrating a good knowledge of previous studies. Methods of work correspond to the
purpose of the study, allow to achieve objective results.
The authors examined 792 patients. Colorectal polyps were found in 385 people, atrophic
gastritis - in 332 patients. Multivariate analysis showed that age, gender, and atrophic gastritis
were independent risk factors for colorectal polyps. AUC for association of atrophic gastritis and
colorectal polyps was 0.62 (p<0.001), for Helicobacter pylori infection it was 0.57 (p<0.001).
The "Discussion" section is written in a good, clear language. The authors interpret the results
obtained in the light of previous studies and skillfully substantiate the novelty of the work and
the possible pathogenetic relationship between atrophic gastritis and colorectal polyps. The list
of references includes 31 works that are modern and allow substantiating the significance and
novelty of the study. There are no remarks on the quality of diagrams and illustrations. Ethical
requirements in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki were observed in the work.
The work was performed using modern research methods on a large clinical material, which
made it possible to obtain original data on the direct relationship between atrophic gastritis and
colorectal polyps, which are of great practical and theoretical significance. The materials of the
article are presented in a good clear language. In the abstract, it is necessary to indicate the
number of examined patients, methods for diagnosing colorectal polyps and atrophic gastritis.
After correction, the article may be published in the BMC Gastroenterology journal.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02764-w (2023)

Title: Atrophic gastritis rather than Helicobacter pylori infection can be an independent risk
factor of colorectal polyps: a retrospective study in China
Version: 6 Date: 04 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
The title of the article fully corresponds to the content and main conclusion. In the “Introduction”
section, the authors skillfully explain the feasibility of the study, demonstrating a good
knowledge of previous studies.
Methods of work correspond to the purpose of the study, allow to achieve objective results. The
authors examined 792 patients. Colorectal polyps were found in 385 people, atrophic gastritis
- in 332 patients. Multivariate analysis showed that age, gender, and atrophic gastritis were
independent risk factors for colorectal polyps. AUC for association of atrophic gastritis and
colorectal polyps was 0.62 (p<0.001), for Helicobacter pylori infection it was 0.57 (p<0.001).
The Discussion section is written in good, clear language. The authors interpret the results
obtained in the light of previous studies and skillfully substantiate the novelty of the work and
the possible pathogenetic relationship between atrophic gastritis and colorectal polyps. The list
of references includes 31 works that are modern and allow substantiating the significance and
novelty of the study. There are no comments on the quality of diagrams and drawings. Ethical
requirements in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki were observed in the work.
The work was performed using modern research methods on a large clinical material, which
made it possible to obtain original data on the direct relationship between atrophic gastritis and
colorectal polyps, which are of great practical and theoretical significance. The materials of the
article are presented in a good clear language.
The authors made adjustments to the article in accordance with the comments made. The article
may be published in the journal BMC Gastroenterology.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02827-y (2023)

Title: Comprehensive analysis of candidate signatures of long non-coding RNA LINC01116
and related protein-coding genes in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma
Version: 2 Date: 30 Jan 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors examined the functions of long non-coding RNA LINC01116 and related protein-
coding genes in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. This finding is particularly significant
for uncovering the role of this lncRNA in hepatocellular carcinoma pathology. The manuscript
is well technically, experimentally, and writing. However, there is a few comments:
1- In the abstract, “The diagnostic potentials were then validated by real time-PCR and
Oncomine cohorts.” Mentioned, but in the manuscript, there are no data and results of the real-
time PCR. Authors must mention it in “methods” section.
2- Did the authors check the normality (normal distribution) of the expression data?
3- Authors should mention the cut-off, sensitivity percentage, and specificity percentage (in
ROC curve analysis) in a table.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02827-y (2023)

Title: Comprehensive analysis of candidate signatures of long non-coding RNA LINC01116
and related protein-coding genes in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma
Version: 2 Date: 27 Feb 2023
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?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
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?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: This study sought to investigate expression of LINC01116 and
correlated protein coding genes in HCC tumor versus non-tumor tissue. Overall, the study
seems exploratory, providing results that suggest correlations, prognostic/diagnostic potential,
and putative drug targets, but without any in vitro or in vivo experiments to confirm these
observations. The authors have looked at different aspects of LINC01116 involvement,
including generation of risk scores and methylation changes, which represents a broad
characterization approach.  The work would be significantly strengthened by validation of
findings using in vitro and in vivo characterization. In addition, it appears that the authors
explored LINC01116 within the context of HCC because of the lincRNA's involvement in other
kinds of cancers. This is not a very strong reason to pursue the study of a lincRNA. Is there
a biological rationale for thinking that LINC01116 might be important in the development of
HCC?
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
1. Since this manuscript was submitted for review, a paper has been published (Tao et al,
2022) that examined LINC01116 expression in the TCGA dataset. The main findings were that
LINC01116 is an immune-related oncogene that is associated with EMT and immune-regulation
in HCC. In vitro and in vivo experiments demonstrated that LINC01116 stimulated cell
proliferation, cell cycle progression, and tumor metastasis. This study complements the current
study well and the authors are encouraged to implement these findings into the Discussion
section to provide a deeper understanding of LINC01116 in HCC.
2. GSEA was performed to explore potential molecular mechanisms and a FDR
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02827-y (2023)

Title: Comprehensive analysis of candidate signatures of long non-coding RNA LINC01116
and related protein-coding genes in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma
Version: 3 Date: 28 Mar 2023
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
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 sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - 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?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have not adequately responded to the concerns raised
in my first evaluation of the manuscript. In fact, I could not find acknowledgement of all of
these concerns in the ""response to reviewers"" document. Is it possible that the authors did not
receive this information?
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The authors still need to address the concerns raised in the original evaluation of the manuscript.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
The authors should also more explicitly address the concerns raised by the other reviewer."
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02827-y (2023)

Title: Comprehensive analysis of candidate signatures of long non-coding RNA LINC01116
and related protein-coding genes in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma
Version: 5 Date: 26 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
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 sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
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?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: There continues to be some confusion with respect to the concerns
raised in the review of this manuscript. In the original review, there were five points requiring
revision, as well as requests to provide a biological rationale for studying LINC01116 within
the context of HCC in the Introduction and a concluding paragraph in the Discussion that
summarizes the main findings, places them in a general context, and proposes areas for future
studies. The authors have still not addressed points 4 and 5 in their response or in the revisions,
nor have the requested changes been made to the Introduction and Discussion.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Please see the commentary above.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
The authors should also more explicitly address the concerns raised by the Reviewer 1."
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02827-y (2023)

Title: Comprehensive analysis of candidate signatures of long non-coding RNA LINC01116
and related protein-coding genes in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma
Version: 9 Date: 18 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have responded to the concerns.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02854-9 (2023)

Title: Limited wedge resection for T1 colon cancer (LIMERIC-II trial) – rationale and study
protocol of a prospective multicenter clinical trial
Version: 2 Date: 20 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors
I have read their manuscript with great interest.
In line 47 you state “It has been proven that secondary surgery after initial local resection (or
an attempt) has no negative effects on the development of LNM or cancer recurrence(8,12-16)
…… quality of life (QoL) without increased fear of cancer recurrence compared to patients who
underwent a segmental resection(17)..
This is true as cited for endoscopic resections, CAL-WR is a different technique and therefore
your assumption that it is also true for CAL-WR is not shown in the publication you cite. Please
clarify. This is a topic which should be addressed as secondary endpoint.
The decision criteria of Expert panel and of the Multidisciplinary team meeting are not specified.
Therefor a possible selection bias can´t be properly identified. Please give standardized decision
criteria.
The sample size conclusion is not conclusive. Where does the “assuming a proportion of 45%
of all patients with pT1 CC to be cured with local resection” come from? Please clarify the
proportion of patients with pT1 colon carcinoma for whom CAL-WR could be a curative
treatment, based on histology and risk factors of published data and based on your published
technical success data.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02854-9 (2023)

Title: Limited wedge resection for T1 colon cancer (LIMERIC-II trial) – rationale and study
protocol of a prospective multicenter clinical trial
Version: 2 Date: 22 May 2023
Reviewer:  Kinichi Hotta
Reviewer's report:
Hanevelt and their colleagues submitted a protocol paper entitled” Limited wedge resection for
T1 colon cancer (LIMERIC-II trial) – rationale and study protocol of a prospective multicenter
clinical trial”. Colonoscopy-Assisted Laparoscopic Wedge Resection (CAL-WR) has been
reported from same group as a novel treatment method for deep submucosal invasive colon
carcinomas (T1 CCs). This multicenter prospective study seems to be interesting and promising.
I'm very curious to know how large a lesion can be resected with this method.  I have some
concerns about this manuscript as follows.
Major comments
1# In abstract, actual sample size should will be included.
2# In method section (Page 5, Line 83), they mentioned about Hiroshima C1-3, but I did not
found a reference about this classification and Hiroshima C1 included approximately 50%
adenoma cases. Is it best to use Hiroshima C1 for (T1 CCs)?
3# In method section, size < 40mm is one of inclusion criteria. How do you measure lesion size
in this study? Do you use some kind of measuring devises? Please clarify it.
4# Distant metastasis at baseline is one of the exclusion criteria. Do you carry out CT scans
before inclusion for all cases? Please clarify it.
5# Is there no need for an exclusion criterion for surgical tolerance?
6# In study design section (page 6, Line 112) they described about recommendation of local
resection strategies (ESD, eFTR or CAL-WR). Please clarify indications about ESD in this study
group.
Minor comments
1) In quality assurance section (Page 7, Line 136), they mentioned close up images. Do you
mean use of magnified endoscopy in all institutions?
2) Please correct Kayama to Koyama (Page 7. Line 140).
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02854-9 (2023)

Title: Limited wedge resection for T1 colon cancer (LIMERIC-II trial) – rationale and study
protocol of a prospective multicenter clinical trial
Version: 3 Date: 05 Jun 2023
Reviewer:  Kinichi Hotta
Reviewer's report:
The revised manuscript was well improved as reviewer's comments. So I have no additional
comments.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02842-z (2023)

Title: The Effect of Trolox on the Rabbit Anal Sphincterotomy Repair
Version: 1 Date: 29 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors
I read your article with interest. Some conceptual and emphatical lacks are striking in your
article . In case of the anal sphincteric damage occurs, anal sphincters retracts and defect filled
with fibrous tissue. Is the main purpose of this article to showed the increase of the myocytes in
the fibrotic  healing tissue by the use of the vitamin E ?
If so, no emphasis has been placed on it. Perhaps, it would be more appropiate to demonstrate
the effects of vitamin E on the healing tissue in the rabbits undergone to sphincteroplasty.
Also, the resting anal pressure is mainly provided by internal anal sphincteric muscle, not by
external anal sphincteric musculature (Discussion).
Sincerely .
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02842-z (2023)

Title: The Effect of Trolox on the Rabbit Anal Sphincterotomy Repair
Version: 1 Date: 01 May 2023
Reviewer:  Massimo Mongardini
Reviewer's report:
Considerations
In the introduction and in the discussion, the statement that sphincter injury surgery produces
an insufficient result is not precise: the result of sphincter repairs is directly proportional to the
earliness of the repair itself: in obstetric injuries with immediate surgical repair, operated in
high-volume centres, the success rate even in the long time is optimal and favourable.
The role of vitamin E in antioxidant and antifibrotic processes is certainly important, but a
proactive role in muscle regeneration need to be strongly demonstrated: this is the underlying
reason, perhaps not clearly stressed in the workplace. There is no specification of the extent
(extension, not just length) of the damage and the times of injury/repair.
The method of detecting manometry and electromyography should be specified: were the rabbits
sedated for the examination, for how long and in what manner? How much does this sedation
affect the reported findings?
A further study group would have been useful in which Trolox was taken after the lesion and
not at the same time and before the lesion itself: this to evaluate the real clinical applicability of
the procedure: no patient with lesions knows before being injured and, in the best of hypothesis,
obstetric lesions with evident symptoms are repaired or repairable after a few days or weeks.
It would also be useful to verify the reliability of vitamin E after ablation of more significant
quantities of the sphincter system (5-10 degrees - 1 or 2 cm) to actually measure the myogenic
potential. The study track could be interesting by combining the demonstrated capabilities of
Trolox with early surgery. In this way the meaning of the study could be clearer and more
evident.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02846-9 (2023)

Title: Changes in liver stiffness values assessed using transient elastography in chronic hepatitis
B patients treated with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate: a prospective observational study
Version: 1 Date: 21 Oct 2022
Reviewer's report:
The current study aims to investigate the changes in LS values during the 144-week TDF
therapy in treatment-naïve CHB patients. A significant decline in LS was defined as #30%
decrease in LS value at week 96 from baseline. At week 96, 21 of 36 (58.3%) patients
showed a significant decline in LS value from baseline. A higher baseline LS value was
revealed to be a single independent predictor for the LS value reduction at week 96 from
baseline. A linear-regression prediction index was thereafter built to predict the LS value
at Week 96. The current study has been correctly implemented and the results are just
compatible with observations worldwide. Concerns: -Current interesting and correct observation
results have been commonly seen in research and review reports published over the past
years. -Introduction section should convey explicit yet concise, relevant published statement
and references. Please try addressing interesting and professional collections of the known
and unknown statements while the text proceeds to eventually addressing the study aims.
Oversimplification is noted; e.g., "Chronic hepatic inflammation during chronic infection of
hepatitis B virus (HBV) may lead to liver fibrosis.[3] " sounds incomplete and unprofessional
to hepatologists tackling longitudinal, serial or paired liver histology and LSMs over the past
decade. -On-treatment and off-treatment decline in LS values is an already and well-known fact.
Please try implementing other statistical methods including paired comparisons of values and
categories, generalized linear mixed modeling, whatever. However, the sample size is currently
too small to implement such approaches. -The current report would be a novel contribution
if kinetics of concurrent invaluable markers quantitated in liver histology, direct and indirect
fibrosis/necroinflammation biomarkers quantitated in blood sample, and novel LSM modalities
could be available longitudinally in the current small sample.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02846-9 (2023)

Title: Changes in liver stiffness values assessed using transient elastography in chronic hepatitis
B patients treated with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate: a prospective observational study
Version: 1 Date: 14 Nov 2022
Reviewer's report:
Interesting paper and this long follow ups are usefull. Despite the cohort is not so large, the
conclusions are interesting. One common mistake can be found in the text, is to insert [x]for
refferences after the dot. Please be carefull. Secondly you use only the M probe in the cohort. Did
you have 100% fesability? To the end use title of conclusion for your conclusion of the study.