JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Primary yolk sac tumor of the endometrium combined with situs inversus totalis: A case
report and literature review
Version: 0 Date: 15 Jun 2023
Reviewer:  Raffaele Scognamiglio
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the Manuscript titled “Primary yolk sac tumor of the endometrium
combined with total visceral inversion: A case report and literature review”, 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 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.
- Does this manuscript conform the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health
Research (EQUATOR) network guidelines? It would be mandatory to declare about this
element. In accordance with CARE guidelines it would be appropriate to specify:
-Physiological and pathological anamnesis, psychosocial history, including aspects of: diet,
lifestyle, genetic information if available, and details of relevant comorbidities, including
previous therapeutic interventions and related outcomes.
- Recent advanced robotic approach allows a proper and safe debulking surgery for early-stage
ovarian cancer. Although authors support the possibility to use minimally-invasive techniques,
it would be appropriate to further discuss this point, referring to: PMID: 27856387; PMID:
27040423; PMID: 26529370.
Title: Primary yolk sac tumor of the endometrium combined with situs inversus totalis: A case
report and literature review
Version: 2 Date: 23 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
I have reviewed the manuscript entitled “Primary yolk sac tumor of the endometrium combined
with total visceral inversion: A case report and literature review” with keen interest and in detail.
After analyzing the reviewers' comments and clarifying doubtful issues by the authors, it seems
that all corrections have been made. The article may be accepted for publication.
Title: Primary yolk sac tumor of the endometrium combined with situs inversus totalis: A case
report and literature review
Version: 2 Date: 28 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting article of a very rare tumor in a woman with a rare developmental condition.
It does make for an interesting read, and can potentially add to the understanding of these
tumors (cause, detection and treatment), but there needs to be some more clarification to the
article.  First, while this tumor is extremely rare, it does appear (based on the lit search in
the discussion) to match the patient presentation, AFP concentration, and treatment of similar
tumors in the literature.  For these reasons, perhaps the tone of the language can change to be
more confirmatory, as opposed to suggesting these things are new in this paper.  Second, the
article would benefit from a very thorough editorial review to correct several grammatical errors
that make it a little hard to read.  Also, using consistent, standardized medical/clinical language
such as ovary, as opposed to appendage (which the ovary is called a few times) throughout
the article would be of great benefit.  Third, labels on some of the figures, especially the MRI
image of the tumor (Image 1) would help.  The immunohistochemistry images are more straight
forward, but labels for certain things like papillae in one of the images, may still be beneficial
for some readers.  Fourth, the lit search results presented in the Discussion are a confusing
read.  Suggest making a table of the 40 or so papers that were reviewed for the same tumor,
with patient ages, AFP, and treatment information contained for each of these papers.  Also
extremely important, is that I did not see the years of literature searched in the article--how far
back did the authors look?  It mentioned all English papers, but again, the years would be very
important to know.  Fifth, the standard chemo regimen for yolk sac tumor in the ovary is BEP
(mentioned in the paper); and that's what the authors say is generally used for endometrial yolk
sac tumors.  It's not clear why the authors used pingyangmycin instead of bleomycin--do they
think that somehow yielded more effective results?  Was that the reason for the switch?
Or was it just more readily available?  Please explain this since there is no standard regimen
for these tumors and the authors suggest their results could lead to this.  Also, it's probably a
good idea to include more info on the dosing for these agents, in addition to the fact there were
six cycles.  Finally, I'm not an expert on situs inversus totalis, but I don't think it affects the
reproductive organs the same way as GI and thoracic organs (there are two ovaries and tubes,
and the uterus is more in the midline of the body).  So I think it's a leap to suggest that this
developmental condition may relate to the development of the yolk sac tumor, as the authors
suggest in the discussion.  I would either back that assertion up with more information from the
literature describing how these two could be related, or remove that assertion.
Title: Primary yolk sac tumor of the endometrium combined with situs inversus totalis: A case
report and literature review
Version: 3 Date: 02 May 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?
N/A - no methodology
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
N/A - no experiments or analyses
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
N/A - there are no statistics in this study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: This is an interesting case and despite cases of endometrial YST are
described, the association with SI is interesting, and the authors are educational in their text.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The authors addressed the previous reviewers comments.
The authors should improve their introduction, there are Ref missing, terms like asexual cell
tumor not known, and the theories of YST origin either should be supported by Ref or further
explained.
Despite trying to change their discussion considering SI and YST in view of previous comments,
maybe 2-3 phrases explaining more about this rare association -indeed not etiologically related
necessary- could be added."
Title: Primary yolk sac tumor of the endometrium combined with situs inversus totalis: A case
report and literature review
Version: 6 Date: 20 Aug 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?
N/A - there are no statistics in this 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: I carefully evaluated the revised version of this manuscript.
The authors have performed the required changes, improving significantly the quality of the
paper.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
I have no further concerns.
Title: Breast cancer and cervical cancer: a comparison of the period before andduring the
COVID-19 pandemic
Version: 1 Date: 20 Jun 2024
Reviewer:  Víctor Manuel Vargas Hernandez
Reviewer's report:
With current COVID-19 cases in the hundreds of millions worldwide, the full public health
ramifications of this novel viral disease are still not fully understood and elucidated. The effects
of the pandemic are likely to be long-lasting and manifest in changing the epidemiology of
many breast and cervical cancers. A subsequent result of the pandemic may be an increase in
the incidence of these advanced-stage cancers, as well as an increase in specific mortality from
these cancers.
Title: Breast cancer and cervical cancer: a comparison of the period before andduring the
COVID-19 pandemic
Version: 1 Date: 22 Jun 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors, thank you for your time and effort in writing this manuscript:
Here is my comments:
Please revise the title. Title should be specific. “Breast cancer and cervical cancer: a comparison
of the period before and during the COVID-19 pandemic” The title should tell the whole study.
Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on diagnosis? Treatment?
Abstract:
When was study done?
Which two period time were compared to?
What was the population of this study?
What was the outcomes of this study?
“the Poisson Regression model was applied to model the number of reported cases of COVID-19
and the amount of procedures” What procedures?
There is some discrepancy in result section: first sentence says:
“There was a decrease in the number of mammograms and cytopathological exams during
COVID-19”
“Meanwhile, there was an increase in the number of mammograms,” Which is correct?
Method:
Wasn't this study an ecological study?
When this study was done?
What is inclusion criteria and the sources and methods of selection of participants?
Clearly define all outcomes and potential confounders? How data were gathered?
Explain how the study size was arrived at.
What was the defination of diagnosis of breast or cervical cancer? Pathology confirmed?
Please explain all variables and how were they categorized?
statistical analysis should be complete. How quantitative data were reported? how qualitative
data were reported?
Why Mann-Whitney U test was used?
Title: Breast cancer and cervical cancer: a comparison of the period before andduring the
COVID-19 pandemic
Version: 1 Date: 01 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
the paper is easy to follow by the reader. However, I may require some comments on the
following issues.
Title: The title is good.
Abstract: This section was well-written and easy to understand. But ICD should be equated with
data shource (C53.0 to C53.9)
Introduction: Adequate.
Material and Methods: data shource (C53.0 to C53.9) should be equated with abstact.
Results: good
Discussion: there are results discussed that are not in the table
Conclusion: Good.
The limitations and strengths of this study have been discussed
Ethical clearance: Yes. It is totally clear.
Title: Breast cancer and cervical cancer: a comparison of the period before andduring the
COVID-19 pandemic
Version: 1 Date: 01 Jul 2024
Reviewer:  Tofan Widya Utami
Reviewer's report:
Overall Assessment: Rejection
Reasons:
a. Timeliness: The focus on COVID-19 is outdated, and the timing of the study is less relevant
post-pandemic. There is no relevancy of this manuscript output for todays conditions.
b. Incomplete Abstract: Important sections in the abstract lack clarity and necessary details,
affecting the manuscript's comprehensiveness.
c. Methodological Issues: Missing critical information in the methods section, including data
collection specifics and incorrect use of abbreviations.
d. Result Presentation: The results section is poorly organized, and key elements mentioned in
the results are not covered in the methods.
Title: Breast cancer and cervical cancer: a comparison of the period before andduring the
COVID-19 pandemic
Version: 1 Date: 04 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the Manuscript titled " Breast cancer and cervical cancer: a comparison
of the period before and during the COVID-19 pandemic" which falls within the aim of the
Journal.
Although the manuscript can be considered already of good quality, I would suggest following
recommendations:
- I suggest round of language revision, in order to correct few typos and improve readability;
- Prevention and screening of oncological disease are still challenge. Considering topic and
results of this study, I suggest reading and adding current evidence about on the importance
of correct screening, early treatment of cervical anomalies, and the state of the art on HPV
infections. I would be glad if the authors discuss this important point with PMID: “State of
the art on HPV-related cervical lesions, Tullio Golia D’Augè, Ilaria Cuccu, Andrea Etrusco,
Antonio D’Amato, Antonio Simone Laganà, Ottavia D’Oria, Giorgio Bogani, Violante Di
Donato, Ludovico Muzii, Andrea Giannini, doi: 10.36129/jog.2024.16. “
- HPV infection is a significant problem worldwide, and the persistence of HPV infection is a
challenge due its crucial role in precancerous gynecological lesions progression. Considering
result of this study, I would be glad if the authors discuss this important point with PMID:
37747763 and
Because of these reasons, the article should be revised and completed. Considering all these
points, I think it could be of interest to the readers and, in my opinion, it deserves the priority
to be published after minor revisions
Title: Breast cancer and cervical cancer: a comparison of the period before andduring the
COVID-19 pandemic
Version: 3 Date: 13 Aug 2024
Reviewer:  Víctor Manuel Vargas Hernandez
Reviewer's report:
The COVID-19 pandemic has emerged as one of the most pervasive challenges to global
public health in this century. The magnitude of illness and mortality associated with this new
disease led to the suspension of routine health care, including age-appropriate cancer screening;
with significant decline in incidence of cancer screening during the pandemic, screening
mammography decreased to 63% and cervical cancer screening 10% in this case attributed to
invasive screening compared to breast cancer. The most concerning potential effect of decreased
cancer screening with increased mortality; mortality data on decreased screening during the
COVID-19 pandemic are not available and the magnitude of increased mortality adds to the
global public health burdens of this pandemic.
Title: Breast cancer and cervical cancer: a comparison of the period before andduring the
COVID-19 pandemic
Version: 3 Date: 20 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
the paper is easy to follow by the reader.
Title: The title is good.
Abstract: has been revised.
Introduction: Adequate.
Material and Methods: consistent with abstract
Results: good
Discussion: previously revised results
Conclusion: Good.
The limitations and strengths of this study have been discussed
Ethical clearance: Yes. It is totally clear.
Title: An Assessment of ChatGPT’s Responses to Frequently Asked Questions about Cervical
and Breast Cancer
Version: 0 Date: 12 Mar 2024
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting evaluation of AI responses to healthcare questions in a field where
anonymous query has the potential to lend to earlier education and medical direction for women
facing health concerns that may be related to cancer.
Overall I thought this was well organized, particularly given the substantial amount of detail
offered in supplements, etc.
There are a few areas I have suggestions for revisions.
1) at times (examples below), the language presents as a commentary rather than objective
reporting: p3,L68-69 "Of course"
p6,L159: "Besides,..."
p9,L235: "Seriously,..."
2) p5L119:" The primary outcome was the overall performance"  not "to assess" as that was
the goal or method was the actual outcome is the performance so can take "to assess" out of
the sentence
3) p8,L203:  "opinions"  I think this should be "answers" or "responses" as they are assumed to
be educated responses and not opinions the physicians offered
4) p8,L225: "ChatGPT's more challenging answers..." I question the use of the word
"challenging" here. it is unclear the meaning of this sentence.
5) in discussion it is interesting the reduced consistency in responses with age guidelines.
I suspect this may in part be due to reduced consistency in such guidelines across lead
organizations.  This may be worth noting in discussion.  and for future development, how would
Ai response be able to articulate that there are differences across sources so patients know the
guidelines themselves are unclear.
6)p10, L263-265:  This statement goes beyond the scope or context of this study. Women who
are concerned about symptoms (eg, vaginal discharge) are likely to ask questions about the
symptoms rather than jump to an understanding it could be cancer and ask questions about
cancer screening.   The questions tested here were cancer-forward, but someone who doesn't
know what something about their body is is more likely to use a system to ask symptom-forward
questions (eg "what causes vaginal discharge?")  This would have much broader information to
sort through and likely impact accuracy.    I recommend leaving this example out and replacing
with one that is more accurate to what is tested "eg, It can as a reliable and available source to
learn about cancer risk and screening."
7)  p10, L270-273.  There are 2-3 "should" statements strongly recommending how AI should
be used.  Then it's followed with statement "Before providing recommendations,..." which then
feels :too late" as the previous sentences had such strong recommendation language.   If the
previous sentences are not recommendations but more commentary, then this should be changed
or removed.  If they are recommendations, then restated intro to limitations section.
Title: An Assessment of ChatGPT’s Responses to Frequently Asked Questions about Cervical
and Breast Cancer
Version: 0 Date: 08 Jun 2024
Reviewer's report:
Overall, this is a very interesting paper that focuses on a highly relevant intersection between
emerging AI across breast and cervical cancer contexts. It could be extended on especially in
the following areas.
 1) Method - please specify the version of ChatGPT used in the text (GPT-4 in
reference list). Additionally, Open AI notes that chat GPT is unable to integrate data
after the model was trained in 2021 (ChatGPT FAQ: Commonly asked questions about
ChatGPT. OpenAI. https://help.openai.com/en/articles/6783457-chatgpt-faq#:~:text=It%20has
%20limited%20knowledge%20of%20world%20and%20events%20after%202021/). This
limitation and its implications ethically need to be more explicitly addressed. It means any
advances or changes in in breast cancer or cervical cancer diagnostics, assessment or treatment
more broadly may not be captured.  Additionally, more specific reference to the Fleiss kappa
cut offs and interpretation would benefit transparency and replicability.
2) Results - Visualising the information from Table 1 (Results from Wilcoxon’s Signed Ranks
Test of accuracy scores) may make the comparison between clinicians and chat GPT easier to
interpret, as well as their respective error margins. For example, a Violin or Boxplot.
3) Discussion: Clinical applications - Where does chat GPT fit in the clinical sequence? It was
noted that chat GPT can help with early identification, however, its main strengths discussed
were responses to popular culture questions. If clinicians want to use chat GPT, what did you
find were the most helpful ways to phrase questions to support all patients including those with
low literacy? Extension across these points would strengthen this discussion.
All the best with this work!
Title: Examining access to benefits and quality sterilization services among Muslim women in
India
Version: 2 Date: 27 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
The paper is a good attempt to understand the the efficiency with which the national and various
state family planning programmes in India disburse benefits to Indian Muslims. However,
the author is suggested to address the following concerns to make the paper suitable for
consideration for publication.
Background:
The authors are suggested to revisit the text and the references cited against them. For example-
The Pradhan et al 2019 paper reveals about likelihood of any contraceptive use not modern
contraceptive, however in the given text it is cited for use of modern contraceptive method
among Muslims. Again that study did not include unmet need in the regression, but in this
paper is quoted against a sentence “As recently published……Muslim couples are less likely
than Hindu couples (used as reference category in the three studies cited) to use modern
contraceptives despite wanting to limit or delay pregnancies (Pradhan and Dwivedi 2019  [15]”.
Some of the recently published articles on quality of sterilization care in India are missing.
The rationale for this study needs further explanation.
Methodology:
One of the dependent variable (i.e. quality of sterilization care) is subjective in nature. Thus
require discussion on use of this variable, its strength and weakness.
Whether the author checked the multicollinearity before proceeding to regression? If yes, then
please mention the test name and the value of multicollinearity, if have not done then please do.
Author may consider including more independent variables in regression model like mass-media
exposure, region, place of residence etc. to increase the robustness of the results.
Results:
The rationale for giving figures for selected states only in table 1 needs to be mentioned.
Discussion:
Discussion section needs reworking with explaining all the major findings and its relevance
Add a paragraph on strength and limitations of this study
Conclusion:
Conclusion may be reworked to keep it within the purview of the present analysis.
Referencing needs to be properly done according to the journal format
There are a few recently published papers on quality of sterilization care using NFHS data, which
should be reviewed and cited as appropriate