JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03509-z (2024)

Title: Anti-CdtB and anti-vinculin antibodies to diagnose irritable bowel syndrome in
inflammatory bowel disease patients
Version: 3 Date: 19 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
I congratulate the authors for choosing this topic and doing such a nice study.
I only have a few criticisms
1. I suggest that detailed information be provided about the ethics committee approval number
and which ethics committee it is
2. A more detailed explanation should be provided on how the cut-off values for anti-CdtB and
anti-vinculin were found.
3.It is not stated which drugs IBD patients use. Could steroids and subsequent anti-TNF agents,
which are used intensively especially during activation periods, have an effect on these markers?
This issue should be clarified.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03540-0 (2024)

Title: Association between serum iron status and the risk of colorectal cancer in US adults: a
cross-sectional analysis of NHANES 2001–2020
Version: 1 Date: 17 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
Usually large polypoid lesions and Ca bowel tend to lose blood ( Diagnosis based on FIT or
FOBT) Thus there is no point to check anemia or low ferritin in close proximity to the diagnosis
of malignancy  Methods Covariates related to demographics and clinical data should be defined
Three grade stratification is not practical Authors should defined why they have selected it and
not a continious recording of contious variables Have they tried to overcome recalling bias by
using any objective data Statistics Sample size should be calculated ANOVA should be used
in comparison on non parametric variables with more than 2 stratification categories Definion
of time point ferittin was measured  should be defined One time point is not enough and time
distance should be adequate
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03540-0 (2024)

Title: Association between serum iron status and the risk of colorectal cancer in US adults: a
cross-sectional analysis of NHANES 2001–2020
Version: 2 Date: 31 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
It is worth noting that although iron deficiency anemia is related with high possibility to identify
advance neoplasia or advance adenomas iron deficiency without anemia is not  Methods Authors
should define the time point of iron deficiency measurement Moreover it should be defined if
more than one measurement was available and if Hb was measured as well  Statistics ANOVA
should be used for parameters with more than two subgroups Results analysis of iron deficiency
interconnection to colorectal neoplasia should be separately in patients with and without anemia
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03540-0 (2024)

Title: Association between serum iron status and the risk of colorectal cancer in US adults: a
cross-sectional analysis of NHANES 2001–2020
Version: 2 Date: 31 Oct 2024
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/s12876-024-03540-0 (2024)

Title: Association between serum iron status and the risk of colorectal cancer in US adults: a
cross-sectional analysis of NHANES 2001–2020
Version: 3 Date: 12 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
Abstract Authors should mention using data from NHANES registry Methods What is the
difference between the timepoint of iron measurement and Ca bowel diagnosis? Is a subanalysis
of patients with anal Ca fisible? Were data for Hb available so that authors could perform a
subanalysis for patients with normal Hb?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03540-0 (2024)

Title: Association between serum iron status and the risk of colorectal cancer in US adults: a
cross-sectional analysis of NHANES 2001–2020
Version: 4 Date: 15 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
I think authors have made all changes requested Thus the study could be accepted for publication
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03485-4 (2024)

Title: Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) and SMAD4 negatively correlated in the
Progression of Gallbladder Adenocarcinoma in Eastern Indian Patients
Version: 4 Date: 08 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
Comments to the authors:
In the manuscript titled “Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) and SMAD4 negatively
correlated in the Progression of Gallbladder Adenocarcinoma in Eastern Indian Patients,” the
authors investigated the mutational proportion of the KRAS gene. They also examined the
expression and amplification patterns of the ERBB2/Her2-neu gene, along with the expression
patterns of six mostly dysregulated genes, the expression status of TGF-beta, and the status of
bacterial infections such as S. Typhi and H. pylori. Additionally, the study analyzed two SNPs of
the ERBB2/Her2-neu and CCND1 genes in the context of the Indian population of West Bengal
in Eastern India.
This manuscript is well-written, with a thorough examination and analysis of the subject matter.
It provides important insights. However, the following concerns should be addressed:
• The aim and objective are not clear. A precise statement outlining the main goals of the research
is necessary to provide readers with a clear understanding of the study’s purpose.
• The sample selection criteria should be detailed in the methodology section.
• The basis for selecting these specific genes should be explained. The rationale behind the
selection of the specific genes studied needs to be clearly explained.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03485-4 (2024)

Title: Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) and SMAD4 negatively correlated in the
Progression of Gallbladder Adenocarcinoma in Eastern Indian Patients
Version: 4 Date: 15 Aug 2024
Reviewer:  Pramod Kumar Tiwari
Reviewer's report:
In view of the higher incidence of GBC in Eastern Indian population, the authors of the
manuscript have made a detailed analysis on the genetic risk factors, associated with GBC,
including genes, like CCND1, MYC, EGFR, ERBB2/Her2-neu, CDKN2A, and SMAD4,
mutations in KRAS, amplification of ERBB2/Her2-neu gene, significance of certain SNPs of
ERBB2/Her2-neu and CCND1 gene and expression of TGF-beta. They observed EGFR and
SMAD4 expression to be negatively correlated in GBC.  About 30% of the GBC samples showed
overexpression/amplification of ERBB2. The expression of TGF- # was found significantly
downregulated in the studied population. Also, they observed a very low frequency of KRAS
codon 12 mutation in Indian GBC patients. Although the present study has revalidated
certain investigations made in other world populations earlier, apart from some of their new
observations made in the patient population, the study is significant in view of the high incidence
of GBC in this region of India and the reports of variations reported in the genetic regulation of
occurrence of GBC in different geographical and ethnic populations. However, there are certain
comments for the authors, mentioned below, for their careful response.
1. The English language and grammar need careful revision.
2. Methods: The details of setting of all PCR, RT-PCR reactions (as described in the text),
including primers, may be better given in a tabular form to have quick overview by anyone who
wishes to repeat the same. Such technical details in text format are often cumbersome. This can
also reduce the text size to some extent.
3. Sanger sequencing. The methodological details may be given as supplementary file.
4. Results: Page 12, second para, lines 5-10, Page 13, para1 &2. How many GBC samples
showed simultaneous overexpression and downregulation of particular genes, analysed? That is,
how many showed 2, 3 or 4 genes simultaneously over expressed and/with down regulation of
CDKN2A and SMAD4 together or independently and in combination? This is to determine the
relative roles of those genes in GBC. May be presented in a tabular form. It is concerned more
with their expression pattern (might be synergistic or antagonistic or else?) in individual sample,
may be useful in personalized diagnosis/therapy, in future. Only percentage gives an arbitrary
picture. If any correlation appears between expression pattern and gender/sex or tumour stage?
5. Discussion: Some overlapping statements between introduction and discussion may be
omitted to reduce the text length. For example, the second para in discussion section.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03485-4 (2024)

Title: Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) and SMAD4 negatively correlated in the
Progression of Gallbladder Adenocarcinoma in Eastern Indian Patients
Version: 5 Date: 30 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript is well-written, with a thorough examination and analysis of the subject matter.
It provides important insights.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03541-z (2024)

Title: Optimal Endoscopy Timing in Elderly Patients Presenting with Acute Non-Variceal
Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.
Version: 2 Date: 18 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
Well done study on an important topic; some clarifications are needed:
Materials and methods:  on the technique used for hemostasis; the different types doesn not
obtain the same results (for instance adrenaline injection)
In the results
there is a percentage of patients  (4.3%) where bleeding lesions were not visualized (what were
their destiny???)
Also when the authors describe clinical outcomes  and the need of sugical /radiological
interventions ii is not specified how the bleeding was severe and how clinical confditions were
compromised
Bibliography should be completed adding the papers recently published on this topic from the
group of Marmo R that agree with the conclusions of this study but reported the results of a big
group of patients enrolled prospectively
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03541-z (2024)

Title: Optimal Endoscopy Timing in Elderly Patients Presenting with Acute Non-Variceal
Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.
Version: 2 Date: 20 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
I have read your study and below you can find some suggestions about revision.
There is a confusing result among the abstract and highlights section about the mortality and
hospitalization rates. It needs to be clarified
Checking about the language is recommended. For example in the Introduction section the
sentence “Endoscopy is commonly suggested for patients with UGIB given that it can give not
only detection but also successful endoscopic hemostasis in instances with active hemorrhage
lesions” may be revised as “Endoscopy is commonly suggested for patients with UGIB not only
for diagnosis but endoscopic treatment in active bleeding lesions also.”
In Materials and Methods section the sentence “Patients were younger than eighteen, or whose
clinical status had declined prevented them from having an endoscopy were not included
in our analysis” can be revised as “Patients younger than eighteen years old, and/or whose
clinical status had declined prevented them from having an endoscopy were not included in our
analysis.”
“Based on the date of the endoscope…”. Does this sentence mean the date of endoscopy or the
timing of endoscopy?
“During the first twelve hours, endoscopic intervention was performed on patients who
continued to hemorrhage…” can be changed as “During the first twelve hours, endoscopic
intervention was performed on patients who continued bleeding…”
And even more revisions about language may be useful.
In the results section you explained your tables in each paragraph. However, it is expected that
you explain your findings first and refer the tables in which you show your data at the end of
the paragraph.
You mentioned that your study is the first study in the literature about timing of endoscopy in
the elderly patient with UGIB.  Which databases did you search using which keywords to be
sure about this postulation?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03541-z (2024)

Title: Optimal Endoscopy Timing in Elderly Patients Presenting with Acute Non-Variceal
Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.
Version: 2 Date: 21 Jul 2024
Reviewer:  Riccardo Marmo
Reviewer's report:
This is a retrospective cohort study including patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal
bleeding (NVUGIB) who were hospitalized in the emergency department of a tertiary referral
center between January 2019 and April 2020
The study aimed to evaluate the optimal endoscopy time in elderly patients based on clinical
outcomes.
The authors considered two groups of patients based on their age,  < 65 vs  #65  years old:
208 (44.4%) were under 65 years of age, 260 (55.6%) were over 65 years of age.
The time to endoscopy was categorized into three groups:
very early  (<12 hours), early   (12-24 hours), and late (>24 hours).
They concluded that early endoscopy may benefit the management of acute UGIB, especially
in the elderly population with high comorbidities and severity of bleeding.
Major point
Please indicate primary and secondary outcomes
Include the sample size needed to reach a scientifically sound conclusion
Please define severe bleeding, this definition is crucial for the possible selection bias process.
The authors stated “Within the first 12 to 48 hours, patients who were clinically stable and had
not experienced severe bleeding underwent an endoscopy”.
The two groups are significantly different for number of patients with comorbidities and
treatment received: these two points “per se  “ impact the outcomes considered.
A multivariate analysis could be useful.
The results and conclusions can vary substantially after the proposed analysis
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03541-z (2024)

Title: Optimal Endoscopy Timing in Elderly Patients Presenting with Acute Non-Variceal
Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.
Version: 4 Date: 03 Aug 2024
Reviewer:  Riccardo Marmo
Reviewer's report:
The authors stated that the sample size was determined as 159 patients by taking the effect size
as 0.25, #=0.05, and power (1-#) =0.80 at a 95% confidence level; please report the reference.
The dimension  of the effect seems very high, the overall mortality observed  was 10.7%. Do
the  authors refer  to 25% of  relative risk reduction? If so, the sample size must be re-evaluated.
In the table 4 the authors splitted the sample size in three subgroups and than in two arms;  each
arm  includes  < 159 patients.
The authors stated “Patients presenting with severe bleeding,   had endoscopies within the
first 12 hours. Endoscopy was scheduled as soon as possible after 12 hours for patients whose
hemodynamically were stable. As a result, there could be discrepancies in the results if the
group that had an endoscopy within the first 12 hours had worse outcomes.” This point is very
important so that the timing to endoscopy must be included as covariate in a multiple logistic
regression.
In table 4 was clearly documented that the mortality varies by  timing to endoscopy according to
the two age groups. The clinical picture of the two groups are statistically different as reported
in table 1.
The authors try to document that age > 65 years is an independent  risk factor for the primary
outcome regardless of the timing to endoscopy and other factors (e.g. comorbidities) that can
influence the outcome investigated.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03541-z (2024)

Title: Optimal Endoscopy Timing in Elderly Patients Presenting with Acute Non-Variceal
Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.
Version: 7 Date: 12 Aug 2024
Reviewer:  Riccardo Marmo
Reviewer's report:
The primary endpoint of the study was 30-day mortality; but this event occurred in 50 patients
(10,7%). Please use the death rate as the baseline reference for your sample size calculation.
The statement “Taking the effect size as 0.4, #=0.05, and power (1-#) =0.80, the study population
was determined as 66 patients at a 95% confidence level” seems unrealistic; the effect of the age
(> or < 65 years) should impact the mortality rate to such an extent that in the higher mortality
group the estimate mortality could be of 50.7% (.40 + .107).
In the table 2 the mortality in the two groups was 4.8% vs 15.4%; I suggest to use the mortality
rate described in literature as a reference (reporting the literature) and to consider the impact
that the age >= 65 can lead on the mortality risk. For example, if the reference mortality is 10%
and age >= 65 impacts for an increase of the relative risk of 50% , the absolute difference is
(.10 ±.05) - .10 i.e .05.
I suggest to re-evaluate your sample size “ considering the mortality rate of xxx and taking the
effect size as xxx  of absolute difference, #=0.05, and power (1-#) =0.80, the study population
was determined as xxx patients at a 95% confidence level”.
On table 1 the two group are significantly different for many variables
Gender, Comorbidities,PPI usage,  Previous history of GIS surgery, Medication,
Antiaggregants,    Anticoagulants, Hgb level on admission, Urea level on admission
INR on admission ,Serum albumin level on admission
Use the primary end point as a dependent variable, include the variables significantly different
between the two groups in a multivariate logistic regression and evaluate their independent role
predicting the primary  outcome. Include also the two age groups as independent factor.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03541-z (2024)

Title: Optimal Endoscopy Timing in Elderly Patients Presenting with Acute Non-Variceal
Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.
Version: 8 Date: 15 Sep 2024
Reviewer:  Riccardo Marmo
Reviewer's report:
The authors included 468 patients in the study, 260 of them were #65 years old, with acute
nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.
With regard to the sample size, they refer to a baseline mortality rate equal to 13.6 % reporting
a literature considering the mortality occurred in 118 with variceal bleeding out of 194.
Please report an appropriate reference and report if the sample size is referred to the study
population or to a single group.
Include in the multivariate regression model the significantly different factors in the two groups
as reported in Table 1, particularly the single comorbidities.
In Table 6 you calculated   the independent predictors for 30-day mortality and found that Age
#65 years had an HR of 0.962 (C.I. 95% 0.326 2.841) with a p-value < 0.945.
Please consider rewriting the result and the discussion section according to this result.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03541-z (2024)

Title: Optimal Endoscopy Timing in Elderly Patients Presenting with Acute Non-Variceal
Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.
Version: 11 Date: 07 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript addresses the timing of endoscopy in the elderly patients with nonvariceal upper
gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) and recommends that early endoscopy may benefit the
management of acute UGIB, especially in the elderly population with high comorbidities and
the severity of bleeding.
Major Comments
1. The single-center retrospective methodology significantly limits the generalizability of the
findings. The manuscript's conclusions may not apply to broader populations, which should be
addressed with multicenter trials.
2. The omission of H. pylori status, a key factor in peptic ulcer disease, undermines the study’s
thoroughness. This limitation hinders the ability to fully evaluate the etiology of UGIB in elderly
patients.
3. The manuscript inadequately incorporates modern risk stratification tools (e.g., Glasgow-
Blatchford Score) for guiding clinical decision-making. The limited discussion on the use of
these scoring systems weakens the study’s relevance in clinical practice.
4. The broad endoscopy time categories (very early, early, late) lack the nuance found in
other studies, which define more precise intervals (e.g., 6-12 hours). This could lead to missed
opportunities in refining optimal timing for interventions in different patient subgroups.
5. The manuscript does not provide adequate information regarding fluid resuscitation and
transfusion protocols. Given the heterogeneity of patients’ clinical statuses, standardizing
resuscitation approaches is crucial for assessing the true impact of endoscopy timing.
6. While it is acknowledged that very early endoscopy (<12 hours) may lead to complications
such as aspiration pneumonia and acute coronary syndrome, the manuscript fails to provide
detailed data on these adverse outcomes. This limits the ability to weigh the risks and benefits
of very early endoscopy.
7. The inclusion of patients with bleeding secondary to malignant lesions introduces potential
confounding, as these patients have inherently higher mortality rates. More robust stratification
or exclusion of these patients would enhance the validity of the findings.
8. The lack of a well-defined treatment and transfusion protocol for all patients weakens
the comparability of outcomes. Without uniform treatment measures, it becomes difficult to
attribute differences in outcomes to endoscopy timing alone.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03541-z (2024)

Title: Optimal Endoscopy Timing in Elderly Patients Presenting with Acute Non-Variceal
Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.
Version: 11 Date: 08 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Riccardo Marmo
Reviewer's report:
Unsolved issues
In the abstract section, the authors reported that “Patients over 65 years of age had …..  higher
30-day mortality compared with younger patients”. This statement disagrees with the results,
and it could be useful to remove or correct the sentence.
In the Results section the authors should include the subsection univariate and multivariate
analysis
In Table 6,  the Authors state that “ Diabetes mellitus (HR: 0.389, 95% Cl:0.187-0.810, p:0.012),
…  Clinical Rockall Score (HR: 0.648, 95% Cl:0.426-0.985, p:0.042)  …were found to be
independent predictors for 30-day mortality but  HR less than 1 is a protective factor, please
explain.
In the conclusion section, you should clearly report what is the optimal endoscopy time in elderly
age #65
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03541-z (2024)

Title: Optimal Endoscopy Timing in Elderly Patients Presenting with Acute Non-Variceal
Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.
Version: 12 Date: 15 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
Thank you for the opportunity for reviewing your study.
Here are some suggestions:
1. describe background and a more clear aim in the abstract. In elderly patients with what
condition? Abstract gives the impression that you are studying all types of GI bleeding.
2. there were no patients excluded? How was the screening for cases? Please provide more
information on patients selection and exclusion.
3. I would recommend using higher than greater when you compare rates. Greater suggest better
which it is not in some outcomes presented.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03541-z (2024)

Title: Optimal Endoscopy Timing in Elderly Patients Presenting with Acute Non-Variceal
Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.
Version: 13 Date: 24 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
Abstract  Instead of low Ht is better to give a certain value or percentange of drop In the results
section is better to provide numerical values than qualitative description Early intervention
group should be described separately for younger and elder patients Methods Was there any
alternative for immergency angiography or CT angiography for patients failed to stabilize
despite intensive resuscitation? Which were the criteria for operational treatment ? Were any
patients with high risk stigmata undergone second look endoscopy? Comorbidities should be
defined Statistics Power of the study should be calculated Results Significant numerical values
should be presented in the text Uni and multivariated analysis is sufficient for all primary
and secondary end points Comparison between young and elderly patients should be restricted
mainly in an introductory table since it is not the main objective of the study Some pictures
could be introduced
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03541-z (2024)

Title: Optimal Endoscopy Timing in Elderly Patients Presenting with Acute Non-Variceal
Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.
Version: 13 Date: 31 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Riccardo Marmo
Reviewer's report:
Unresolved Issues In the abstract section, the authors reported that "Patients older than 65 years
had... higher 30-day mortality than younger patients." This statement is at odds with the results
and it may be helpful to remove or correct the sentence. In the Results section, authors should
include the subsection univariate and multivariate analysis. In Table 6, the authors state that
"Diabetes mellitus (HR: 0.389, 95% Cl: 0.187-0.810, p: 0.012), ... the Rockall clinical score (HR:
0.648, 95% Cl: 0.426-0.985, p: 0.042) ... were found to be independent predictors for 30-day
mortality, but a HR less than 1 is a protective factor, please explain. In the conclusion section,
you should clearly report what is the optimal timing of endoscopy in older age #65 years. In the
Table 4 and 5 is reported that mortality in the age group >65 years and the timing to endoscopy
<12 hrs is higher than the comparison group; the mortality in the age group >65 seems lower in
the timing 12/24 hours: please  verify your discussion and abstract section
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03541-z (2024)

Title: Optimal Endoscopy Timing in Elderly Patients Presenting with Acute Non-Variceal
Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.
Version: 14 Date: 13 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
Abstract Because the aim of the study was not to compare old and young patients with UGI
bleeding all irrelevant data should be removed and expand the part about risk factors of
rebleeding ! Methods What was the institutional strategy for patients with UGI bleeding admited
during working hours? After all the majority of cases take place between 8 am and 6 pm
Definitions for all risk factors recorded should be provided For insance significant lung disease
or IHD Definition of hypotension should be also provided Was there any diffrence in hospital
policy for resuscitation of patients with severe heart failure Was rate of bleeding taken into
consideration for CT angiography? In which case did authors performe  exloratory laparotomy
with concurrent pan-small bowel endoscopy? Was no neighbouring hospitals provide capsule
endoscopy? Results I am not sure that describingbleeding in patients older than 65 is relevant
to the study question
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03541-z (2024)

Title: Optimal Endoscopy Timing in Elderly Patients Presenting with Acute Non-Variceal
Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.
Version: 15 Date: 20 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
Abstract Numerical and p-values should be presented proving that over and below 65 subgroups
were comparable concerning time of endoscopy  I wonder whether time of the day endoscopy
was performed could affect the chance for re bleeding Otherwise the document is almost ready
for publication
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03541-z (2024)

Title: Optimal Endoscopy Timing in Elderly Patients Presenting with Acute Non-Variceal
Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.
Version: 16 Date: 22 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
I think that authors have applied all changes requested Thus the document is ready for publication
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03534-y (2024)

Title: Clinicopathological features and prognostic significance of TAF1L in gastric cancer
Version: 2 Date: 26 Aug 2024
Reviewer:  Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors, please address the following points below:
-How did you calculate your sample size?
-It is important to consider that the collection of postoperative tissues and clinicopathologic
characteristics from a single center may introduce an impact on the study.
-Moreover, certain limitations within the study design are proving to have an influence on the
research outcomes.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03534-y (2024)

Title: Clinicopathological features and prognostic significance of TAF1L in gastric cancer
Version: 2 Date: 12 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear fellow scientist,
Thank you for conducting this research.
It is a very well and solidly executed study with relevant sections that are well-described, along
with a very neat discussion relating to relevant other studies and a good perspective on future
developments. The conclusion, where a good tone is discussed, is also well-articulated.
The study clearly demonstrates survival, and the appropriate statistical techniques have been
properly applied.
In the multivariate regression, primarily antigen and tumor values are analyzed using a base of
age and gender.
Wouldn't it also be advisable to consider variables that occur more frequently in daily practice?
I have no further comments and would like to express my compliments. I read it with great
pleasure.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03534-y (2024)

Title: Clinicopathological features and prognostic significance of TAF1L in gastric cancer
Version: 2 Date: 15 Sep 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
Abstract background can be reduced and numerical values can be provided in the results Any
speculations in the results should be avoided and presented in the conclusions The last two
sentences in the results might be placed at the begining.  Methods are reporting that patients with
missing data were excluded Results should mention how many patients were excluded because
of missing data and the relative weight of their exclusion discussed in the discussion section
Methods Patients characterists and demographic data definitions should be provided Smoking
habits, alcohol consumption, BMI,   and other risk factors should be introduced in the analysis
if available. Definition of  TAF1L need not to be repeated in the results Percentages should
be given in addition to the numerical values and p values. Bioinformatics analysis should be
incorporated in relevant sections Pictures for TAF1L positive and negative should be provided
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03534-y (2024)

Title: Clinicopathological features and prognostic significance of TAF1L in gastric cancer
Version: 3 Date: 10 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
Abstract Numerical values should be given for all significant risk factors Better organisation of
the ersults is needed since the text is rather confusing Data on OS could be eliminated on behalf
of multivariated analysis Methods Description of the study population should be moved to the
results section Frequency of phone follow-up and in person visits should be defined Were they
interchanable? What determined the second period of follow-up? How staining intensity was
clasified? What diffrentiated each one grade?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03534-y (2024)

Title: Clinicopathological features and prognostic significance of TAF1L in gastric cancer
Version: 4 Date: 22 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
Methods Description of patients excluded from the study belong in the result section dMMR
status definition should be described
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03534-y (2024)

Title: Clinicopathological features and prognostic significance of TAF1L in gastric cancer
Version: 5 Date: 25 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
Abstract The effect of risk factors evaluated in Cox regression should be defined Methods Data
on patients evaluated for the study belong to results section and should be moved there Results
results of univariated analysis could not be presented in the text
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03534-y (2024)

Title: Clinicopathological features and prognostic significance of TAF1L in gastric cancer
Version: 6 Date: 29 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
Patients excluded from the study should be moved from methods to results section Otherwise
the study is ready for publication
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03504-4 (2024)

Title: Association between circadian syndrome and gallstones: a cross-sectional study of
NHANES 2017–2020
Version: 3 Date: 07 Sep 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
Authors tried a leap of logic connecting  cicardian syndrome and gallstone formation
Since metabolic syndrome and gallstone formation are strongly connected it is expected
that at least 5 parameters of cicardian syndrome are connected with gallstone formation
(minimum requirement for cicardian syndrome diagnosis) Short sleep and depression have been
biographically connected tp gallstone formation Authors should provide data especially for those
two factors that make the difference From the first table it seems that at least short sleep is not
connected to gallstone formation Univariated and multivariated analysis results should be clearly
presented Other ways connecting cicardian rythm to  gallstone formation would be useful, like
number of meals (a parameter that has been connected to gallstone formation), diulnar rythm
of living (people working during  daytime vs those working night shifts) Finaly authors should
exlain some descrepancies to what is known for intance high frequency of gallstone disease
among Hispanics a parameter not verified by their data or peak of gallstone disease in 35-49 age
age group, while literature supports high gallstone prevalence in higher ages Actually the first
table is supportive to medical literature rather than what appears in the text
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03504-4 (2024)

Title: Association between circadian syndrome and gallstones: a cross-sectional study of
NHANES 2017–2020
Version: 5 Date: 29 Oct 2024
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/s12876-024-03504-4 (2024)

Title: Association between circadian syndrome and gallstones: a cross-sectional study of
NHANES 2017–2020
Version: 5 Date: 30 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
Methods Patients excluded from the study should be moved in the results section Otherwise I
think that authors have successfully answered to most matters requested
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03504-4 (2024)

Title: Association between circadian syndrome and gallstones: a cross-sectional study of
NHANES 2017–2020
Version: 5 Date: 30 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
The article investigates the association between circadian syndrome (CircS) and gallstones using
data from the NHANES during a four years period. The study suggests a positive correlation,
indicating that CircS may increase the risk of gallstone development. The research employs
robust statistical methods.
The article addresses a previously unexplored subject which is the relationship between CircS
and gallstones,
The study’s cross-sectional nature limits causal inferences. It is unclear in the study whether
CircS directly contributes to gallstone formation or vice versa.
Self-reported diagnoses of gallstones is a bias in the prevalence estimation
The discussion effectively contextualizes the findings within existing literature on circadian
rhythms. The authors appropriately speculate on the biological mechanisms linking CircS to
gallstone formation, such as disruptions in metabolism and the role of gut microbiota.
Overall, the article presents significant findings. Future research could benefit from a
longitudinal approach to establish causality. between CircS and gallstone development.
Expanding research to include diverse populations could help validate findings across different
demographic groups.
This article makes a valuable contribution to the literature on circadian health, presenting a fresh
perspective on gallstone risk factors and emphasizing the significance of circadian rhythms in
managing chronic diseases.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03529-9 (2024)

Title: Efficacy of B - Mode and Elastography Ultrasound Technique in the Prediction of
Helicobacter Pylori: A Prospective Study
Version: 2 Date: 13 Sep 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
Abstract Study population should be defined in methods section It should be clared different
pathologies have been evaluated Methods Using the term gastritis without pathological
verification  is anot acceptable Use of dyspepsia can replace the term gastritis Authors presume
that inflammation is present when wall thickness of the antrum is increased As study has been
designed different types of gastritis cannot be discriminated For instance it cannot be verifies
that difference in wall thickness between H. pylori positive and negative gastritis donot represent
diffrence in the severity of antral atrophy Absence of biopsies could have been overcome by
measument of PGI/PGII levels Patients with autoimmune gastritis HP (-) should have been
excluded otherwise they could have ended up included in the asymptomatic group at least in the
intial phase of the study A normal antrum in those cases is not sufficient Dyspepsia should be
defined and Rome IV criteria should be preferably used. Authors should define how gastric ulcer
and early gastric cancer have been excluded Those two groups should be excluded from the study
Instead of medical history antitTG serology, hepatatitis antibodies and fecal calprotectin would
have been preferable for GI pathology exclusion Recent use of NSAIDs and not any use should
be an exclusion criterion Also social alcohol consumption I cannot see how it can have affected
Thus it should be preferably to have provided a limit for alcohol use instead of abstinence
Definition of medical comorbidities and the level of organ impairement that is acceptable
should be defined Only melanoma, gastric and pancreatic malignancies are reported Were other
malignancies accepted as entry criterion? Why patients with coagulopathies were excluded and
level of PT, PTL or APTT were accepted? A symptom severity scale use for dyspepsia  weighting
is preferable. Stool HP Ag should be explained in more detail What test has been used Are there
any data for this test if it is a Home run one Otherwise commercial data should be provided
and if possible any data about running this test in any local population   Definition of residence
should be provided Statistical analysis of the effects of patients demographics on AUC should
be provided Chi-square 2X3 or preferably ANOVA should be used to compare three variables
Because there are no  differences in demographics they should be presented in table I and not
repeated in the text
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03529-9 (2024)

Title: Efficacy of B - Mode and Elastography Ultrasound Technique in the Prediction of
Helicobacter Pylori: A Prospective Study
Version: 2 Date: 18 Sep 2024
Reviewer:  Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors, please address the following points below:
1. How was the sample size calculated for your study?
2. Given that US-EG is an operator-dependent process, how did you address the potential impact
of operator experience?
3. Have you conducted any follow-up procedures to track the outcomes of the study?
4. Could you elaborate on the multivariate analysis method used in your study?
5. What is the secondary endpoint of your research?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03529-9 (2024)

Title: Efficacy of B - Mode and Elastography Ultrasound Technique in the Prediction of
Helicobacter Pylori: A Prospective Study
Version: 3 Date: 30 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
Abstract Numbers should better moved from methods in result section  Groups A and B if
symptomatic symptoms should be mentioned The same is valid for methods section Methods
Were any results of gastric histology available? It would be useful since H pylori identification
in gastric biopsies is seen as a gold standard In addition a comparison between EUS and bioptical
findings might be useful
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03529-9 (2024)

Title: Efficacy of B - Mode and Elastography Ultrasound Technique in the Prediction of
Helicobacter Pylori: A Prospective Study
Version: 3 Date: 04 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr
Reviewer's report:
The authors' responses are satisfactory, and the manuscript can be accepted for publication.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03529-9 (2024)

Title: Efficacy of B - Mode and Elastography Ultrasound Technique in the Prediction of
Helicobacter Pylori: A Prospective Study
Version: 5 Date: 12 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
I think that all changes needed have been applied Thus the document could be accepted
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03535-x (2024)

Title: Determining the sensitivity and specificity of the calculated fatty liver index in
comparison with ultrasound
Version: 1 Date: 19 Jun 2024
Reviewer's report:
1. Since all the ultrasound (US) results were double-checked by another radiologist, was any
inter-observer variation analysis performed? How did the authors address discrepancies between
observers?
2. The authors should explain all abbreviations when they are first used in the paper to ensure
better understanding.
3. The cut-off points (COPs) of the Fatty Liver Index (FLI) at 30 and 60 are from a reference
paper. The authors need to mention this in the Methods section; otherwise, readers might be
confused by the multiple COPs.
4. In Table 2, Body Mass Index (BMI) showed a significant difference between NAFLD and
non-NAFLD with a COP at 30, but no significant difference with a COP at 60. Is there any
possible explanation for this? The same question applies to diabetes mellitus (DM).
5. On Page 8, Line 146, the statement "no significant differences in the area under the curve
(AUC) between genders, NAFLD grades, or the total population" should be supported by
statistical analysis. If such an analysis was performed, please include the details in the Methods
section.
6. On Page 11, second paragraph of the Discussion, please clarify whether the COPs of FLI in
males and females agree or disagree with the references. The current result, 33.4 for males and
27.8 for females, does not align with References 40 and 41, which show higher FLI in females
than males, but is consistent with Reference 20, which states that "females were less than in
males." Please double-check this information.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03535-x (2024)

Title: Determining the sensitivity and specificity of the calculated fatty liver index in
comparison with ultrasound
Version: 2 Date: 03 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors responded adequately to my questions. I enclose minor
observations as note marked in RED in the MS file
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
I have enclosed comments in the enclosed .rtf file
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03533-z (2024)

Title: Impact of exercise on outcomes among Chinese patients with Crohn's disease: A mixed
methods study based on social media and the real world
Version: 1 Date: 12 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
I have a handful of suggestions to the writing and presentation of information. Though, overall,
this is of very high quality and I congratulate the authors on their hard work.
Line 100. “… the environment etc.” – citation needed. Also, I feel the sentence is unfinished
with “etc.” it implies the reader needs prior knowledge that they may not have. I think it would
be better to state the strongest related factors and close the sentence out.
Line 102 citation needed for treatment methods
Line 152. I suggest just stating the university here rather than saying “the author’s university”.
Line 169 What is the “Chron’s disease post forum”? Is this an open public forum that anyone
can post to, or is it people that much be verified in some way? Is it known how many participants
engage with the forum, either passively just reading the information or actively contributing to
comments? Is it possible to know the average age of these participants?
Line 191 Where were the qualitative participants conveniently selected from? What was their
age range? Duration of CD diagnosis?
Line 277 In the methods you say “webpages” and here you say “social media”, it would be nice
to have more clarity about where exactly this information came from. Is it one particular social
media platform, multiple difference platforms?
Figure 2 and Table 1 More elaboration in the interpretation of these results would be nice.
Line 294 I think it would be clearer and relatively short to include here “45% female, range 18 to
57 years”, this information is pertinent to interpreting the themes and not all readers will bother
to download and look at the supplement just for this information.
Line 332 double space between “… used by…” and “… an increasing… “
Line 332 paragraph one is somewhat repetitive from the introduction, if you are limited by word
count I suggest this paragraph be deleted and the words put toward describing/interpreting the
results in more detail.
Line 345 any previous similar research that can be compared? Even if not CD related, maybe
another chronic condition?
Line 355 these barriers and enablers to exercises can be compared to other research, for example
similar themes have been found in physical activity for chronic back pain