JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: The influence of uterine leiomyomatosis on the onset of psoriasis: a nationwide
population-based study of 2.5 million Korean females
Version: 1 Date: 09 Dec 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?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: 1. This electronic data based study has investigated possible
association between leiomyomatosis and likelihood of new onset psoriasis in Korean women
aged 20-39 years. Sample size is significant.
2. The study appears interesting and possible association of the two at molecular level has been
discussed with adequate literature review.
3. The possible limitations to the study have been well described.
4. The answers to all the comments and queries by the earlier reviewer incorporated in the
manuscript are satisfactory.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
1. Clarity with reference citation needed for the statement “--- emerging evidence indicate a
potential association.”
2. Reframe and shift statement “We acknowledge that specific diagnostic methods ---- limitation
of this study” from para on ‘Study population’ to the para on limitations.
3. Expand abbreviations at first appearance in the text."
Title: Increased plasma lipopolysaccharide-binding protein and altered inflammatory mediators
reveal a pro-inflammatory state in overweight women
Version: 2 Date: 03 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
None of the references currently provided in the manuscript demonstrate that circulating levels
of LBP correlate with circulating levels of LPS. Evidence that LBP is a marker of metabolic
endotoxemia needs to be provided, either in the form of references showing a correlation
between LPS and LBP levels or as data collected by the authors.
The manuscript does no provide any significant new information, as plenty of previous reports
have determined the alterations in the markers measured in this study in the presence of
overweight/obesity and the role of inflammation in obesity’s comorbidities.
Title: Increased plasma lipopolysaccharide-binding protein and altered inflammatory mediators
reveal a pro-inflammatory state in overweight women
Version: 2 Date: 11 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
The study titled "Increased plasma lipopolysaccharide-binding protein and altered inflammatory
mediators in overweight women suggest a state of subclinical endotoxemia," which I enjoyed
reviewing, presents interesting findings. The authors claim that overweight women have higher
levels of endotoxemia and inflammation, suggesting a possible link between obesity and
increased cardiovascular risk.
The study offers valuable insights, but I believe there are some gaps in the statistical analysis
that could affect the validity of the results. Here are my specific recommendations:
1. It would be appropriate to perform both the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (to assess data
normality) and Levene's test (to assess equal variances between the two groups) for each of the
six comparisons (lean_LBP vs overweight_LBP, lean_CRP vs overweight_CRP, etc.).
Although Welch's t-test can handle unequal variances, reporting the results of Levene's test
provides a clearer understanding of the nature of the data.
2. Effect size (Cohen’s d) should be reported for each of the six comparisons.
3. It should be explicitly stated in the text that Multiple Comparisons correction is not necessary,
as only the correlation between LBP and IL-6 is significant, while the others are not. Thus, a
significance level of # = 0.05 is sufficient.
4. The correlation lines in Figure 2 should be added in black to match the style of Figure 3.
5. For Figures 2, 3, and Supplementary Figure 1, it should be clearly mentioned that the
correlations are based on the combined data from both groups (n=40).
With these statistical clarifications and corrections, I believe this manuscript would be suitable
for publication.
Title: Risk Prediction Models for Stress Urinary Incontinence After Pelvic Organ Prolapse
(POP) Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Version: 2 Date: 06 Jan 2025
Reviewer:  Apisith Saraluck
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript.
The manuscript is a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the quality, applicability,
and performance of predictive models for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) after pelvic
organ prolapse (POP) surgery. The study analyzes seven retrospective studies comprising
nine models, using the PROBAST tool to assess risk of bias and applicability. The study
concludes that while these models hold clinical value, improvements in study design, predictor
selection, and external validation are essential. The authors emphasize the need for large-scale,
multicenter, prospective studies using advanced modeling techniques to develop more reliable
and generalizable predictive tools.
After reviewing the manuscript, here are the key points that need to be revised or addressed
before considering it for publication
I attached my comments in the file. Please carefully checke and revise.
Title: Risk Prediction Models for Stress Urinary Incontinence After Pelvic Organ Prolapse
(POP) Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Version: 2 Date: 06 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors, thank you for the opportunity of reading your manuscript. It is well written and
of great interest. However, I have some comments that I would like to share with you. The
methodology is compiled very well.
1. Please, change Figure 1 to the original PRISMA flowchart 2020 version, which can
be downloaded on the official website http://www.prisma-statement.org/PRISMAStatement/
FlowDiagram
2. The results section seems a bit short. Please describe in more detail the received outcomes,
if possible.
3. Please elaborate more on the clinical significance of your findings and future research in that
regard.
4. Please work to improve the quality of English throughout the manuscript, either with the help
of a native speaking colleague or with the assistance of a professional copyediting agency.
Title: Endometrial Polyps with Bizarre Stromal Cells: a Benign or a Low-grade Lesion?
Version: 3 Date: 28 Jun 2024
Reviewer:  Alp Usubutun
Reviewer's report:
This is a case report of atypical stromal cells found in an endometrial polyp with a molecular
study. Such a finding is very rare in endometrial polyps. I believe it’s worth publishing, but there
are some issues to address.
*The abstract is too long for a case report; it must be shortened and detailed with necessary
information like follow-up time.
*The mitotic rate of the lesion was not provided. Ki-67 immunohistochemistry was not low. I
believe you may have mitosis in the lesion. Please provide the number of mitoses in 10 HPF.
*In the case presentation section, you mention that “Stains for S100, CD68, and p53 showed
wild-type expression.” It would be better to rewrite this as “Stains for S100 and CD68 were
negative, and p53 showed wild-type expression.”
*In the discussion section, you may add “leiomyoma with bizarre nuclei”
in the differential diagnosis (Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2005 Oct;24(4):352-4.
doi:10.1097/01.pgp.0000166996.57196.cb. Atypical endometrial stromal cells related with a
polypoid leiomyoma with bizarre nuclei: a case report (PMID: 16175081).
*In the discussion section, the following article may improve your paper: Hum Pathol. 2020
Jun;100:38-44. doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2020.03.005. Epub 2020 Apr 22. The significance of
recurrence in endometrial polyps: a clinicopathologic analysis (PMID: 32334830).
*One of the weaknesses of the presentation is the short follow-up period. You can mention this
in the discussion.
*Please mention the magnifications of the H&E stained slides.
Title: Endometrial Polyps with Bizarre Stromal Cells: a Benign or a Low-grade Lesion?
Version: 3 Date: 28 Jun 2024
Reviewer's report:
This case report covers an interesting instance of an endometrial polyp with bizarre nuclei
with rapid regrowth during a relatively short time course. The manuscript is overall well-
written, particularly in the first half, but requires edits to the discussion (several sentences
contain awkward or unclear phrasing) and inclusion of other relevant literature before it can
be published. As the authors mention, relatively little is known about endometrial polyps with
bizarre atypia, so the rapid regrowth and identification of a gene fusion are interesting, although
insufficient to draw any definitive conclusions.
The authors do not adequately address the fact that endometrial polyps have been shown to
harbor clonal alterations including gene rearrangements in a subset (I will not list all references,
but PMID: 7882366 is a good start). There have also been two published investigations of
endometrial stromal polyps with morphologic and molecular overlap with adenosarcoma despite
a benign clinical course that should be addressed (PMID: 25118811 and PMID: 34675347)
considering one pathologist considered a diagnosis of adenosarcoma in this case. The authors
mention HGESS as a differential diagnostic consideration. While this is important to consider,
those tumors are not typically characterized by bizarre atypia regardless of the fusion they
harbor. The authors also seem to suggest that a quarter of LGESS would be reclassified as
HGESS with BCOR alterations with the addition of molecular testing - I would recommend
removing this comment as BCOR-altered HGESS are morphologically distinct from LGESS
and depending on the testing utilized, anywhere from 10-40% of LGESS may be negative for
gene fusions.
Title: Endometrial Polyps with Bizarre Stromal Cells: a Benign or a Low-grade Lesion?
Version: 3 Date: 29 Jun 2024
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.
Methodology is accurate and conclusions are supported by the data analysis. Nevertheless,
authors should clarify some point and improve the discussion citing relevant and novel key
articles about the topic.
Authors should consider the following recommendations:
- Manuscript should be further revised by a native English speaker.
-     It is a fairly good study; however, the manuscript needs extensive editing, and we suggest
you get assistance from a professional. Moreover, the title should reflect the research question,
and the Keywords should be based on MeSH terms.
- Inclusion/exclusion criteria should be better clarified.
- The authors have not adequately highlighted the strengths and limitations of their study. I
suggest clarifying these points.
- What are the actual clinical implications of this study? it is important to report the results
obtained by the authors in the context of clinical practice and to adequately highlight what
contribution this study adds to the literature already existing on the topic and to future study
perspectives.
- Hysteroscopic procedures to remove endometrial polyps are the most common in most
hospitals. Their number can be so high as to clog waiting lists. Having strategies to make
the scheduling of endometrial polyp removal easy is therefore of paramount importance. The
authors should discuss a brand new method of endometrial preparation for office polypectomy
procedures, which would appear to improve not only surgical outcomes but also the scheduling
of procedures. (Refer to the following PMID: 38897097)
Title: Endometrial Polyps with Bizarre Stromal Cells: a Benign or a Low-grade Lesion?
Version: 3 Date: 29 Jun 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors reported an unusual case of endometrial polypoid lesion with bizarre stromal cells
that developed rapid growth after polypectomy and was found to harbour a novel gene fusion.
The findings of this case are worthy of publication. There are some minor issues with the
manuscript that requires attention, as listed below.
- The polypoid lesion was described as "re-growing" after polypectomy, but the exact meaning
of "re-growing" is not well defined and it is uncertain whether this lesion really underwent
this kind of transformation. It is better to replace "re-growing"/"regrowth" with more objective
descriptions like "rapid enlargement".
- For the gene fusion between JAK2 and NFIB, the notation "JAK2::NFIB" should be used.
- In the Clinical History (p.4), there is no need to mention the date where the THBSO was
performed.
- In the Discussion (p.7), one of the features of adenosarcoma is stated as "increased stromal
mitotic activity (>3 mitoses/10 high power fields)", but by convention the mitotic count is
usually described as 2 or more (or greater than 1) mitoses per 10 high power fields.
- In the Discussion (p.7),  the statement "Contrary, EMPs with bizarre stromal cells lack of
above-mentioned features" should be revised for grammatical accuracy.
- In the Discussion (p.7), prefer to omit the word "extremely" in the statement "although the
morphology of stromal cells is extremely bizarre ..."
- In the Discussion (p.8), the statement "... or reclassify HG-ESS as LMNA-NTRK fusion
products tumor" is better revised as "LMNA-NTRK fusion products tumor" is not a recognized
term. "NTRK-rearranged sarcoma" is commonly used instead.
Title: Endometrial Polyps with Bizarre Stromal Cells: a Benign or a Low-grade Lesion?
Version: 3 Date: 03 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the manuscript, which falls within the aim of this Journal and offers a
high-quality overview of the topic. Although the manuscript can be considered already of good
quality, I would suggest taking into account the following minor recommendations:
- I suggest another language revision round to correct typos and improve readability.
- I find it interesting to include a reference to the new molecular classification of endometrial
cancer and its importance for tailoring the approach to this important disease (see D'Oria O,
Giannini A, Raad Besharat A, Caserta D. Management of Endometrial Cancer: Molecular
Identikit and Tailored Therapeutic Approach. Clin. Exp. Obstet. Gynecol. 2023, 50(10), 210.
https://doi.org/10.31083/j.ceog5010210).
-What do the results of this study add?
-What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? It is
important to report the results obtained by the authors in the context of clinical practice and to
adequately highlight what contribution this study adds to the existing literature on the topic and
future study perspectives.
- Discussions can be expanded and improved by citing relevant articles (I suggest authors
read and insert in references the following article: Raad Besharat A, Giannini A, Caserta D.
Pathogenesis and Treatments of Endometrial Carcinoma. Clin. Exp. Obstet. Gynecol. 2023,
50(11), 229. https://doi.org/10.31083/j.ceog5011229)
Title: Endometrial Polyps with Bizarre Stromal Cells: a Benign or a Low-grade Lesion?
Version: 5 Date: 04 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript has been improved after revision. Only some minor issues require further
modifications as listed below:
- p.2: "After the final surgery, she was uneventfual for over 11 months." The clinical outcome is
not mentioned in the main text but stated in the abstract only. This should be included in the main
text under "Clinical Information" which should include whether the patient was asymptomatic
with no evidence of disease as well as the duration of follow up. On the other hand this piece
of information is not absolutely essential for the abstract.
- p.2: "The rapid relargement of the polyp ..." For the word "relargement", consider replacing
it with "recurrence".
- p.3: "Polyps with bizarre stromal cells are a rare histological finding ..." The presence of bizarre
stromal cells are not too rare in vulvovaginal polyps, consider changing to "uncommon".
- p.3: "Notably, there has been no documentation of recurrence or metastatic activity following
treatment." Prefer replacing "metastatic activity" with "metastasis".
- p.3: "However, it has been reported that some of these polyps, particularly those diagnosed
from sampling specimens, have a recurrence rate of at least 5.6% within 4.36 months.
Cox regression multivariate analyses revealed no clinicopathologic features associated with
recurrence. Importantly, recurrence does not indicate malignancy" This paragraph should be
rewritten to convey the meaning more clearly, as there is no reference cited for the recurrence
rate provided and the Cox regression analyses, whereas the last statement does not seem to
follow the preceding data and is confusing.
- p.8: "Such rapid enlargement from a completely or nearly completely resected lesion to a 7 cm
polyp is atypical and unprecedented in the literature." Claiming something as "unprecedented
in the literature" would definitely require substantial supportive evidence and references. This
should be deleted if there is not supported by any reference.
- Fig. 4b: The legend mentions that p16 expression is "suggesting a possible senescence-
associated phenotype within the stromal cells", but this is largely speculative in the context of
this particular case. Prefer to delete this.
Title: Endometrial Polyps with Bizarre Stromal Cells: a Benign or a Low-grade Lesion?
Version: 5 Date: 05 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors have sufficiently addressed the comments of the reviewers and have considerably
improved the readability of the manuscript. In my opinion, it is not suitable for publication. I
have only two minor suggestions:
1) Please italicize all instances of “JAK2::NFIB”
2)  In the Abstract, the final line of the “Case Presentation” section is still a bit awkward. Please
consider changing to “After the final surgery, the patient had an uneventful clinical course for
over 11 months”
Title: Endometrial Polyps with Bizarre Stromal Cells: a Benign or a Low-grade Lesion?
Version: 6 Date: 13 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript is acceptable for publication. Just a reminder on two minor points which could
be corrected during copy editing.
- p.2: "The rapid relargement of the polyp ..." In the responses the authors stated that the term
"relargement" has been replaced with "recurrence", but in the full text the change has not been
made. Grateful if this could be amended before formal publication.
- p.6: "After the operation, she did not get futher treatments, and she was asymptomatic with no
evidence of disease for over 11 months." Please replace the typo "futher" with "further" before
formal publication.
Title: NAT10 promotes ovarian cancer cell migration, invasion, and stemness via N4-
acetylcytidine modification of CAPRIN1
Version: 0 Date: 12 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
In this study, the authors discuss the biological role of NAT10 in the occurrence and development
of ovarian cancer, proposing that NAT10 regulates the migration, invasion, and stemness of
ovarian cancer cells through ac4C modification of CAPRIN1. This is a significant study.
However, there are a few issues that the authors need to address:
1. In the uploaded Western Blot (WB) images, each image only shows one protein. Please display
the necessary protein information and the internal reference on the same membrane.
2. The authors did not discuss the effect of NAT10 knockdown on the proliferation of OC cells
in the manuscript. What was the reasoning behind this decision? Could this part of the results
be supplemented to provide a more comprehensive discussion of NAT10’s function?
3. In FIG. 3E and FIG. 3G, could the high data variability have led to an insignificant p-value? It
is recommended to repeat this part of the experiment to reduce data variability and then discuss
the p-value accordingly.
4. Corresponding to FIG. 3I, are there electrophoresis results that could be presented to make
the findings more convincing?
It is recommended that the authors fully address the above questions and supplement the data
before considering the acceptance of this study for publication.
Title: NAT10 promotes ovarian cancer cell migration, invasion, and stemness via N4-
acetylcytidine modification of CAPRIN1
Version: 0 Date: 16 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
In this study, Song and Cheng investigated the biological role of NAT10 in ovarian cancer.
They found that NAT10 was overexpressed and functions as an oncogene in OV. In addition,
they concluded CAPRIN1 as a target gene of NAT10 by rescue assays. In general, this work is
interesting but the research conclusion is preliminary. I have several questions.
1. Please provide the image results of the sphere formation experiment.
2. Please test the effect of NAT10 knockdown on the EMT signaling pathway. EMT signaling is
involved in metastasis, drug resistance and stemness. I think this publication (PMID: 36808651)
could help the authors.
3. The description about Figure 4i-j is missing.
4. The CAPRIN1 and NAT10 protein should be provided in the figure 5G
5. Xenografts tumor assays using animal model needs to be supplemented.
Title: NAT10 promotes ovarian cancer cell migration, invasion, and stemness via N4-
acetylcytidine modification of CAPRIN1
Version: 1 Date: 12 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
In this study, the authors looked into how acetyltransferase NAT10 contributes to ovarian cancer.
The authors discovered that NAT10 was highly expressed in several ovarian cancer cell lines
and that OC cell motility, invasion, and stemness were all markedly reduced when its expression
level was down-regulated. CAPRIN1's stability may be decreased and its ac4C level suppressed
by silencing NAT10. CAPRIN1 overexpression reversed the cell migration, invasion, and
stemness caused by NAT10 knockdown, whereas CAPRIN1 knockdown prevented these
effects. The outcomes of the in vivo tests demonstrated that NAT10 deletion could prevent the
growth of ovarian cancer tumors.
The article has the following problems:
1. It is recommended that the author revise the abstract.
2. The expression of NAT10 in three ovarian cancer cell lines has been detected. However, the
detection result of the expression of CAPRIN1 in the aforementioned cell lines is absent.
3. The IOSE80 cells in Figure 1 were not introduced in the article. The cell line used in the
article is FTE187 cells. Please check.
4. In Figure 3H, there are two groups, namely NC and ac4CIP groups. Is the group name
incorrect?