JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Diagnostic gene biomarkers for predicting immune infiltration in endometriosis
Version: 1 Date: 23 Feb 2022
Reviewer's report:
1. This is a good study that aims to identify and validate microarray-based candidate genes,
which are closely related to immune cell infiltration in endometriosis, which is then followed
by the search for diagnostic markers, to create a diagnostic predictive model in endometriosis.
2. Besides that, the use of CIBERSORT to quantify the relative proportion of infiltrating immune
cells in endometriosis is also the beauty of this study since the CIBERSORT software is a
versatile computational method for measuring the cell fraction of a mass tissue gene expression
profile and is very good at preventing cell loss and distortion of results.
3. However, given the involvement of multiple genes, and their correlation with infiltrating
immune cells, regarding the validity and reliability of the results and as a basis for drawing
conclusions, this study requires a larger sample size.
4. This study appears to focus only on the relationship between pro-inflammatory factors and
the growth of endometriosis. In fact, several studies have published the idea that a complex
and interactive regulatory imbalance between pro-inflammatory cytokines/anti-inflammatory
cytokines which are regulated by sex hormones, especially estrogen, local metabolism, and pro-
inflammatory cytokines and anti-inflammatory cytokines implicated in endometriosis.
5. In endometriosis, anti-inflammatory factors may contribute to novel adaptive growth patterns
of the ectopic endometrium by creating a tolerant endometriotic environment and having an
important role in immune escape by ectopic lesions. This information is very important to add
to the discussion.
Title: Diagnostic gene biomarkers for predicting immune infiltration in endometriosis
Version: 1 Date: 06 Mar 2022
Reviewer:  Cihan Kaya
Reviewer's report:
The study is well written and comprehensive with adequate analysis. However before acceptance
the authors should clarify some clinical day to day practice approaches. Better to add a sentence
about the role of ultrasound and MRI before the laparoscopy in discussion part referring a recent
study (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-022-06451-1)
Another important part for a biomarker is surgical planning and informing young patients before
an extensive surgery. This should be stated also in the discussion as referred in another study
(PMID: 30071521)
Title: Diagnostic gene biomarkers for predicting immune infiltration in endometriosis
Version: 5 Date: 27 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
First of all, I suggest that the authors re-read the text in order to notice obvious errors in copying
sentences from previous publications.
The main comment by Reviewer 1 “However, there is no reasonable explanation how the
expression level of markers in endometriotic lesions and endometrial tissue could be used as
diagnostic markers.” is insufficiently answered. The authors continue to conclude that “ZWINT
and AQP1 may be reliable predictors of the severity of endometriosis, with high specificity and
sensitivity.” – But how? The currently used analysis still doesn’t allow to draw any conclusions
about the usability of these genes as diagnostic markers. Based on the current data, they may be
involved in the pathogenesis of endometriosis but no more.
Abstract.
“One hundred fifty-three differential expression genes were identified between EMS and
endometrial tissue with 83 upregulated and 51 downregulated genes.” If 83 genes were
upregulated and 51 were downregulated then what about the rest of the DE genes (83+51=134,
but 153 genes are mentioned as DE)?
Please provide the ethics review committee approval number. Page 28, declaration concerning
ethics: “… or their legal guardian(s)..” is this appropriate?
Page 8: To maintain the integrity of the ABCA1 protein, samples were not heated prior to
electrophoresis. How is ABCA1 related to the current manuscript?
RNA was extracted from snap-frozen placental samples. Placental????
The amplicon length was 201 bases – of which amplicon?
Many different studies have been described at the beginning of page 23, but no references have
been added.
In the context of machine learning, reference 38 is cited to (page 23). However, this article is
about AQP1. What is the correct reference?
At all, there seems to be a mess with citing. Several reference numbers in the text and in the
reference section are not matching. Furthermore, references 47-49 are about Helicobacter pylori
infection and I cannot find any connection between these articles and the current manuscript.
From discussion: “Fifty-three DEGs were identified, comprising 28 upregulated and 25
downregulated genes.” The number of DEGs is different in the results (134 DEGs is mentioned).
Further: “We found that GO enrichment was mainly associated with lung development,
respiratory tube development… there is no such data in the results. KEGG pathway enrichment
was mainly associated with drug metabolism-cytochrome P450, tyrosine metabolism, - ?”  Are
these sentences copied from some other article? Because Fig. 2 shows something else instead.
Page 27, the sentence “… the decision to choose a wide range of surgery, such as low
anterior……” is completely unclear. Why should anyone perform such unnecessary procedures?
Figure 5 in the manuscript and as a separate fail are not identical. What are the additional lines
not presented in the manuscript?
Title: Determinants of modern contraceptive utilization among married women in sub-Saharan
Africa: Multilevel analysis using recent demographic and health survey
Version: 2 Date: 10 Feb 2022
Reviewer:  Joshua Okyere
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. The authors attempted to determine the
prevalence and determinants of modern contraceptive utilization in Sub-Saharan Africa. Here
are my comments.
Background
1. In the background, the story remains incomplete. Your readers need to appreciate what has
been done globally and locally to improve modern contraceptive use. This is absent.
2. The background section is not linked to the SDG or any international framework. Kindly link
the section to issues like the ICPD PoA and the SDG.
Discussion
1. How are the findings linked to the SDG? This is extremely important as the SDG are the
roadmap for development until 2030.
Minor revision
1.  Line 54-57 is a single sentence and cannot be a paragraph. Check your paragraphing.
2. In line 301, the authors state: This study indicated that low modern contraception utilization
in sub-Saharan Africawas low.
The authors should check their grammar.
Title: Determinants of modern contraceptive utilization among married women in sub-Saharan
Africa: Multilevel analysis using recent demographic and health survey
Version: 2 Date: 16 Feb 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
I am glad to have reviewed your manuscript and I must say I am impressed with your output.
Nonetheless, there are a few things you need to consider
1. Thoroughly read through the entire manuscript and correct all grammatical errors.
2. On lines 54-55, I suggest you add "spacing of children" since that is one of the reasons for
contraception
3. On line 87, your statement is unclear, kindly check that, please.
4. On lines 305 and 306, be specific with your recommendations. What should be done and how
should it be done?
Title: Determinants of modern contraceptive utilization among married women in sub-Saharan
Africa: Multilevel analysis using recent demographic and health survey
Version: 2 Date: 18 Feb 2022
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting paper. However, the manuscript can be improved by addressing the
following comments.
First,  the manuscript needs thorough editing.
Abstract
Page 2, Line 25-26: The authors should revise the objective of the study by indicating the study
population.
Page 2, Line 32-34: The authors should emphatically state that they employed multilevel
regression analysis to examine the determinants of modern contraceptive use among married
women.
Background
The background lacks a lot of information to highlight the need for the conduct of this study.
What is the current rate of contraceptive use among married women in countries in sub-Saharan
Africa? Is there a peculiar reason for studying only married women?? What are some of the
previously determined factors associated with modern contraceptive use in sub-Saharan Africa?
The authors should incorporate the responses to the above questions in their background the
strengthen the paper.
Methods
Page 6, line 106, the authors should replace "mother" with women.
Page 6, line 110: The authors should provide references to support the selection of the
explanatory variables.
Page 8: In table 1, some of the countries have more recent datasets than the ones used in the
study. I recommend the authors revise the analysis by utilizing the current dataset.  For example,
countries such as Liberia, Gambia, Sierra Leone, Cameroon have more recent dataset than what
was used in this study.
Discussion
The authors should summarise the key findings in the first paragraph before discussing them.
Literature on modern contraceptives are numerous. As a result, the manuscript should benefit
from a more enhanced discussion that what is current done.
Page 13, Lines 217-219: These sentences seems to be repetition.
I recommend a comprehensive editing of the entire manuscript.
Title: Knowledge on risk factors and practice of early detection methods of breast cancer among
graduating students of Debre Tabor University, Northcentral Ethiopia
Version: 3 Date: 21 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors.
This is one of important study. However, few corrections need to be done in order to improve
the writings of this manuscript.
Abstract:
1) In the background section, authors mentioned "However, evidence is sparse on knowledge
of risk and practice of breast cancer screening methods used among women of reproductive age
". However, this study is only confined to young female students. Therefore kindly revise you
statement.
2) In the methods, authors mentioned about "  Data were collected with a self-administer
questionnaire". Kindly state either this questionnaire is newly developed or validated?
3) In the result section, line 3 "About 206 (76.67% of ", there is a missing close bracket. Please
add the bracket.
4) In the result section, authors highlighted about the factors associated with practice of
breast self-examination. However, how is about the factors associated with knowledge? Kindly
included.
Introduction:
This study is about knowledge and practice of breast cancer screening, however the literature
review only confined towards risk factor of breast cancer. Authors should include factors
associated with knowledge and practice of public on breast cancer screening.  Please do the
major improvement for the literature review.
Methods:
Authors highlight about "Measurement" section. However, the instrument tool or questionnaire
used was not highlighted. Kindly state the details of the questionnaire, its validation study and
Cronbach's alpha score.
Results:
1) Figure 1, 2 and 3 are not necessary. Instead of pie charts, authors can present the data in tables.
2) Figure 1 data can be compiled in the sociodemographic table.
Discussion:
There is no discussion on factors contributing to the level of knowledge and practice  were
mentioned. Kindly elaborate on this.
References:
Few references are outdate and beyond 10 years (eg reference no 1,2,3,14,20)
Kindly revised.
Title: Knowledge on risk factors and practice of early detection methods of breast cancer among
graduating students of Debre Tabor University, Northcentral Ethiopia
Version: 3 Date: 26 Mar 2022
Reviewer:  Liyew Mekonen
Reviewer's report:
General comments
1. While you look at the title, The aim of this study seems to describe only certain factors. But,
it has also Inferential statistics. So, modify it accordingly
2. Abstract
2.1  methods have to be consistent throughout the document. Write either multistage or stratified
sampling techniques throughout the document.
2.2 Result: Include findings on knowledge of breast cancer.
3. Source Population: The study was conducted at Debre Tabor university's graduating female
students. Their level of education might have a relationship with their knowledge and practice
toward self-breast examination. Since it is difficult to generalize these research findings to all
female students, better to modify the source population.
4. Explain the reason for considering P =50%
5. Why do you apply stratified sampling? It is better to elaborate reasons to apply the stratified
sampling technique by using departments as strata.
6. It would be nice if you put references of sources to develop a questionnaire.
7. Include here variables used to measure knowledge on risk factors and practice of early
detection of breast factors in study variables.
8. Use the word knowledge or awareness through the document.it has to be consistent
9. It is better to define mass media in the operational definition.
Title: Knowledge on risk factors and practice of early detection methods of breast cancer among
graduating students of Debre Tabor University, Northcentral Ethiopia
Version: 3 Date: 28 Mar 2022
Reviewer:  Redhwan Ahmed Al-naggar
Reviewer's report:
This publication addresses a critical topic, particularly in low-income countries; breast cancer
awareness should be the researchers' primary focus in order to emphasize the importance of BSE
and early diagnosis. However, there are a few issues in this manuscript:
1- The literature review is insufficient because prior similar research conducted in the nation
should be mentioned.
2-It is unclear whether the questionnaire was translated into the local language or used in English.
3- The questionnaire's source is not recognized in the methodology section.
4- Ten data collectors were trained; we'd like to know who they are: students, research assistants,
etc.
5-Table 1 should include Figures 1-3.
Title: Knowledge on risk factors and practice of early detection methods of breast cancer among
graduating students of Debre Tabor University, Northcentral Ethiopia
Version: 5 Date: 18 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
Thank you for your effort in improving the manuscript. However there are still further
corrections need to be done:
1) Introduction:
Kindly mentioned what are the factors associated with knowledge and practice with regards to
breast cancer screening among previous studies / other population. I still can not identify this
information from the introduction part. Kindly include this points in your writing.
The structure / paragraph of your introduction is not balanced. Each paragraph should be
balanced in terms of number of sentences and should have continuity / connection from one
content to the other. Kindly revised.
2) Methodology:
Authors mentioned about " There were 10 knowledge assessment questions and 8 practice
assessment questions with the reliability of 76% and 78% ". Please state what kind of reliability
test had been done before.  How is about the content validity?
3) Discussion:
The discussion section should not mainly repeating what have been written in results section.
Discussion section should discuss about the reason and explanation of what you have observed
in the result section. I hope authors can improved the writing style and discuss in depth about
the findings.
Overall:
There are a lot of grammatical and technical errors in the manuscript. I hope the authors can send
this manuscript for professional proofreading first before submitting it for subsequent review.
Title: Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Related Knowledge, and Recommendations Among
Healthcare Providers in Southern China: A cross-sectional survey
Version: 1 Date: 10 Feb 2022
Reviewer's report:
- some grammatical/editing errors that need attention
- Background: an explanation of the organization of healthcare in China - especially primary
care and public health - should be provided
- Methods: more information for how cities were selected in each province
- Results: more information needed on the exclusion of 'undesirable responses'
Title: Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Related Knowledge, and Recommendations Among
Healthcare Providers in Southern China: A cross-sectional survey
Version: 1 Date: 20 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
The paper by Chen S et al presents useful results on the awareness, knowledge, barriers and
recommendations toward HPV vaccine among healthcare provides in China. As the scale-up of
HPV vaccine is ongoing in mainland China, the current study provides significant evidence to
facilitate the HPV vaccination. However, there are several questions that need to be answered.
Background:
The study was for healthcare providers in Southern China, not for the whole country. Why only
focus on the Southern China, the reason/significance should be briefly described in the section
of background.
Methods:
1. The description on the questionnaire is not very clear. Was there any pilot conducted before the
study initiative? The most important sections of the questionnaire were awareness, knowledge
and recommendation. Currently, only details on the knowledge were in place, how about the
questions on awareness and recommendation? “… including socio-demographic information,
knowledge of HPV and HPV vaccine, attitudes, and beliefs about getting HPV vaccination…”
are those the main sections of the questionnaire?
2. Statistical analysis, “Multi-variable logistic regression analyzed factors (including age group,
sex, ethnicity, education, profession, title)” the province was not included in the multi-variable
regression module?
Results:
1. “...and 2054 were included in final analysis after excluding incomplete and undesirable
responses...” what’s the definition on “undesirable responses”?
2. In the current study, 90.6% of participants were female. Does this have an impact on the
result? If the gender distribution is in line with that of other/country-level healthcare providers,
this is fine. Otherwise, the potential bias should be discussed in the discussion section.
3. Table 2 is confusing. The classification of age included >40 and #40 with the former as the ref?
4. “Compared with other subgroups, Guangxi, Hainan, the older (#40), male, Han, HCPs from
DEPI, master and above and Associate senior/Senior group obtained a higher knowledge score
of HPV and HPV vaccine” However, the table 3 indicated that female has a higher score. Please
check.
5. The last line of table 4 (HPV vaccination recommendation behavior) was HPV vaccine
knowledge. Please check.
Discussion:
More discussion on the comparison on the current study and others conducted in other countries
should be addressed. And the brief summary on the process of HPV vaccination scale-up in
China should be mentioned.
Minor:
there were some errors (typos and grammar) in the current manuscript, for example, in
the abstract, “The difference of HPV vaccine knowledge among difference professions”
“Profession-specific gaps on HPV an HPV vaccine knowledge and recommendation behavior
emphasized”
Title: Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Related Knowledge, and Recommendations Among
Healthcare Providers in Southern China: A cross-sectional survey
Version: 3 Date: 03 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed the majority of the comments, but few questions still need more
clarification:
1) Is the gender distribution of participants in line with China's country-level or  Southern China
level?  "But this gender distribution is in line with other country-level healthcare providers, so
the result in the present study is still convictive evidence.” Currently, the conclusion may not
be achieved yet.
2) Brief summary of the process of HPV vaccination scale-up in China should be mentioned.
This comment is not fully addressed. The summary of scale-up/pilot/demonstration project of
HPV vaccination is needed. Is there any city/province initiating the free-administration?
3) For table 3, as per the current clarification "Male obtained a higher knowledge score with a
mean(SD) of 14.31(3.07) compared with females [13.72(3.49)]. Though OR>1 in the
Multi-variable logistic regression, it is not significant and cannot indicate that females have a
higher score." Here OR is adjusted one for the female group compared male group, which is not
significant. And the direct comparison indicates the similar result(82.4% vs 77.5%, P=0.141).
So it is not appropriate to conclude that the male group have the higher score. And how to
conclude that “Compared with other subgroups, Guangxi, Hainan..." obtain the higher score
(result section), since based on the direct comparison(%) or (OR), Guangdong group has the
higher score? This is in conflict with the conclusion in the abstract.
Title: IVF OUTCOME WITH A HIGH LEVEL OF AMH: A FOCUS ON PCOS VERSUS
NON-PCOS
Version: 1 Date: 04 Dec 2021
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the manuscript, which falls within the aim of this Journal. In my honest
opinion, the topic is interesting enough to attract the readers’ attention. Nevertheless, authors
should clarify some points and improve the discussion, as suggested below.
Authors should consider the following recommendations:
- Manuscript should be further revised in order to correct some typos and improve style.
- Accumulating evidence suggests that one of the most important mechanisms of PCOS
pathogenesis is the insulin-resistance. For this reason, the use of insulin-sensitizers, such as
inositol isoforms, gained increasing attention due to their safety profile and effectiveness.
Authors may better discuss this point, taking to account these recent articles: PMID: 26927948;
PMID: 27579037.
- To date many efforts are spent to identify a correct algorithm which considers woman's age
and ovarian reserve markers as a tool to optimize the recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone
(rFSH) starting dose in IVF procedure. Nevertheless, current available evidence regarding PCOS
women, particularly the ones with high AMH, does not seem adequate. I would be glad if the
authors discuss this important point, referring to: PMID: 30242498; PMID: 30607593.
- I recommend to add further elements to discuss the pregnancy rate without in PCOS population
when IVF is not used (PMID: 33876903).
Title: IVF OUTCOME WITH A HIGH LEVEL OF AMH: A FOCUS ON PCOS VERSUS
NON-PCOS
Version: 1 Date: 01 Feb 2022
Reviewer's report:
The topic of this study is interesting as clinicians are constantly  confronted with this populations
of patients.
However I think multiple things in this article need further work:
-English needs minor revision. It is comprehensible, but grammar can be optimized.
-Abstract mentions it is a cross-sectional survey and articles mentions retrospective cohort study.
-No multivariable analysis was performed was performed to control for confounding. why not?
Other potential confounded were not accounted for at all, such as BMI.
-In the first paragraph of the results: what do  the numbers in brackets refer to ? This should
be explained
-There are too many tables: table 2 and 4 can be combined, table 6 can simply be explained
in words.
Discussion:
The first sentence should really mention the main findings of the study. It seems that the
primary outcome here was the response level, as that is what is more discussed and mentioned
in the conclusions, however in the methods sections - you mention that primary outcomes are
pregnancy outcomes. These are barely mentioned in the study.
Title: IVF OUTCOME WITH A HIGH LEVEL OF AMH: A FOCUS ON PCOS VERSUS
NON-PCOS
Version: 4 Date: 24 Mar 2022
Reviewer:  Akmal El-mazny
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this interesting study "IVF OUTCOME
WITH HIGH LEVEL OF AMH: FOCUS ON PCOS VERSUS NON-PCOS".
However, I have some comments and recommendations:
Comments:
Title:- Is appropriate for the content of the article.
Abstract:- Represents a suitable summary of the work.
Article content:- The methods and results have been well explained.
Conclusions:- Are justified on the basis of the study.
Recommendations:
Discussion:- Mention the limitations of the study.
References:- Stick to the format of the journal.
General:- Revise language, grammar and syntax.