Reviewer’s report
Title:  Age-specific values of Access anti-Müllerian hormone immunoassay carried out on Japanese  
patients with infertility: A retrospective large-scale study
Version: 0 Date: 28 Jul 2018
Reviewer: Tod Charles Aeby
Reviewer's report:
This is an important study looking for racial differences in AMH levels by age.  While the sample size  
seems sufficient, I have concerns about selection bias in the population studied.  Given that this was a  
group of women seeking fertility treatment, one might assume that their AMH levels might differ from  
an  age-matched  group  of  reproductive  age  women  randomly  selected  from  a  general  Japanese  
population.  Much in the same way that bilirubin levels at a hepatology clinic might not represent  
bilirubin levels in the general population and probably should not be used for determining "normal".  
That being said, close reading of reference #6 (Seifer et al), which seems  to supply the current  
reference standards, shows that they also used a large number of randomly selected patients presenting  
to several Infertility Clinics throughout the United States.  If we can assume that the Japanese and the  
US patients are otherwise similar, then the results would, at least, be compatible.  
I have no concerns with the rest of the manuscript, but I feel that a discussion of this concern would  
make the paper stronger.
The authors used some abbreviations (PCOS, POI) that might not be familiar to the general BMC  
readership and they might want to spell them out, the first time they are used.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
No
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an additional  
statistical review?
If  an  additional  statistical  review  is  recommended,  please  specify  what  aspects  require  further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.
I am able to assess the statistics
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Acceptable
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation  that  may  in  any  way  gain  or  lose  financially  from  the  publication  of  this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially  
from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
3. Do  you  hold  or are  you  currently applying  for  any patents  relating  to  the  content  of  the  
manuscript?
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that holds or  
has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6. Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' below. If  
your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
I declare that I have no competing interests.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included on my  
report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report including any 
attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' responses. I agree for my 
report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY license 
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments which I do not wish to 
be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments to the editors, which will not  
be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal