JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: A FSH-secreting pituitary adenoma discovered after ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome:
a case report, illustrating pitfalls in the interpretation of serum FSH levels
Version: 1 Date: 02 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
please change the sentence in the abstract
"Therefore, the ovarian masses seemed to be estrogen-producing neoplasms rather than
endogenous OHSS, and surgical resection was scheduled" because this is not exact
you can say: "Initially, since ovarian neoplasms producing estrogen were suspected, surgical
resection was scheduled."
In fact, an FSH-secreting tumor should have been suspected initially..
Publishing delayed diagnostic  can help other teams make the correct diagnosis more quickly
Title: A FSH-secreting pituitary adenoma discovered after ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome:
a case report, illustrating pitfalls in the interpretation of serum FSH levels
Version: 3 Date: 15 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear Author,
Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled “A FSH-secreting pituitary
adenoma discovered after ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: a case report, illustrating pitfalls
in the interpretation of serum FSH levels.”
Comments:
I find it really interesting subject. I have no further comments.
Title: A FSH-secreting pituitary adenoma discovered after ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome:
a case report, illustrating pitfalls in the interpretation of serum FSH levels
Version: 4 Date: 01 Dec 2024
Reviewer:  Manal Nasih Ahmed Hamdan
Reviewer's report:
1. This is a rare case of a non-therapeutic cause of hyperstimulated ovary
The abstract and the background were informative but need grammar correction.
2. The case presentation was written simply there was no detailed history of the patient's signs
and symptoms she presented her examination details, and vital signs.
3.S. FSH result mentioned in two occasions as elevated and sometimes as it is normal please
put the exact result and comment on it .
4. explain in more detail the management plan and how you follow the patient till you decided
the final diagnosis and management
Title: Comparative Effectiveness of Vitrification and Slow Freezing after Heterotopic
Transplantation of Human Ovarian Tissues
Version: 1 Date: 28 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
Many thanks for submitting your interesting paper.
In this manuscript, Zeng et al. investigated the “Effectiveness of Vitrification and Slow Freezing
after Heterotopic Transplantation of Human Ovarian Tissues”, and the study is interesting.
It may add important information to the field of human fertility preservation. However, the
text needs a thorough native English speaker review, before publication. I pointed out several
remarks below, but not all. So, I consider it essential to review before re-submission.
- In the abstract:
They described two methods; Vitrification and Slow Freezing, in the method section, but in the
results, they described 3 groups. Please correct in the method section.
Except for CD31 expression, the other results were better in the vitrification group. Why did the
author use the “slightly better results”? from all the results, it can be concluded that vitrification
is better!
- I didn’t find the keywords.
- In the Materials and Methods section:
1. please bring more details regarding the patients. Why did they undergo the surgery? If they
were fertility preservation candidate? if they were suffering from cancer? What was the diagnosis
(in brief)?
2. Note the age of the mice.
3. Cite related figures at the end of each method
4. Include group design in the Collection and treatment of tissues.
- In the results section:
5. I can hardly accept that figure 5. d is showing a “secondary follicle”. Is it possible to replace
it with a better (typical) shape?
6. The titer is “Differences of the preantral follicles between the VF1, VF2, and SF group”…
but the text represents normal follicle morphology! From the figure, it's clear that you didn’t
compare the preantral follicle`s morphology (as they are growing follicles)
7. If it is possible the authors refer to this article? “GDF9-beta promotes folliculogenesis
in sheep ovarian transplantation onto the chick embryo chorioallantoic membrane (CAM)
in cryopreservation programs”, which similarly to this article presents a type of
xenotransplantation.
Title: Comparative Effectiveness of Vitrification and Slow Freezing after Heterotopic
Transplantation of Human Ovarian Tissues
Version: 1 Date: 07 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Xiushan Feng
Reviewer's report:
1. The study utilized two distinct vitrification methods (VF1 and VF2) alongside slow
freezing for ovarian tissue cryopreservation. What was the rationale behind selecting these two
vitrification protocols, and what advantages did they demonstrate in previous research?
2. The results indicated that at 6 weeks post-transplantation, the hormone levels in the VF2
group were significantly higher than those in the VF1 and slow freezing (SF) groups. Could you
elaborate on the possible biological mechanisms behind this outcome?
3. The study mentioned the advantages of vitrification over slow freezing in terms of time and
cost efficiency during ovarian tissue cryopreservation. What potential directions for optimizing
vitrification protocols are there for future research?
4.  The study discussed the heterotopic transplantation of ovarian tissue. How can the success
of restoring endocrine function and reproductive potential of the transplanted ovarian tissue be
ensured in clinical applications?
5. The study observed time points at 4 and 6 weeks post-transplantation. What are the plans or
predictions for the long-term effects, such as the functional maintenance of the ovarian tissue
and the long-term survival of follicles, after transplantation?
6.How many mice were used in each group by the author, and how many mice died after the
surgery in each group?
Title: Comparative Effectiveness of Vitrification and Slow Freezing after Heterotopic
Transplantation of Human Ovarian Tissues
Version: 2 Date: 11 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor
The article has improved and all reviewer comments have been addressed, except for one
suggestion. Commonly, the number of references is mentioned at the sentence's end. E.g.
Ovarian tissues were processed as described by vonWolff et al.[15] with slight modifications
(group SF)..
Ovarian tissues were processed as described by vonWolff et al. with slight modifications (group
SF) [15].
Title: Implication of the enteric glia in the IBS-like colonic inflammation associated with
endometriosis
Version: 2 Date: 29 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript by Rivera-Arce et al., suggests that endometriosis alters the gut homeostasis
by inducing colon inflammation and increases ileal mast cell infiltration, and therefore, the IBS
that usually is observed as a comorbidity of endometriosis extends beyond the symptomatology.
The article is of great general interest to researchers working on understanding the complex
pathogenesis of endometriosis and its many comorbidities. However, I have some major
concerns that must be addressed for its possible acceptance:
1. The authors should consider to revise the title of the article, to remove “Preliminay study..”
from the title.
2. It is best to start the introduction with ‘endometriosis’ rather than IBS, as the article is mainly
on endometriosis. There is too much information in the first paragraph of ‘Background’ with no
clarity as to why only certain proteins are discussed too much in detail.
3. Background lacks the relevant coverage of literature. The authors could elaborate upon meta-
analysis studies that they briefly mentioned to help understand the basis of hypothesis. Also,
there is not enough literature covered that suggests what symptoms are related in between the
two pathologies.
4. Endometriosis induction must be described in more detail.
5. Line 126-128: How were the colons assessed visually for diarrhea?
6. Results presented under section ‘Endometriosis induces low level colonic inflammation’ in
line 207-212 do not justify the conclusion of low-level inflammation.
7. Figure 2: p values should be shown only up to two decimal places.
8. How do the authors comment upon no observed significant difference in mast cells infiltration
in colon in sham or endometriosis groups? This discussion in Line 285-289 is not clear. What
do the authors mean by stressed and non-stressed animals and how it applies to the current
hypothesis and conclusion that endometriosis increases colonic inflammation. The data only
supports ileal inflammation and this should be highlighted in the discussion.
Title: Implication of the enteric glia in the IBS-like colonic inflammation associated with
endometriosis
Version: 2 Date: 03 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
This paper is interesting and is clearly written. I have provided some minor changes to the
figures in my report to improve the strength of the communication as well as pointed to one
area, regarding the somatic pain measures, that need to be addressed in the discussion prior to
publication.
Title: Changes in spatial bodily pain distribution one year after benign hysterectomy with
emphasis on prevalence and risk factors for de novo and persistent pelvic pain. A prospective
longitudinal multicenter study.
Version: 1 Date: 25 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
Here are my points for concern:
1- Data from 2011-2017 are quite old. What's the reason?
2- An English revision is needed
3- Please discuss central sensitization and its impact on pain perception (https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jmig.2022.10.007)
4- List the centers joining there study
5- Did abdominal way included both laparoscopic and open technique?
6- In the first section of MM provide a brief description of what the study consisted of.
7- Not clear about SPSQ and other questionnaire use: did you use them preoperatively while
they evaluate postoperative symptoms? Please provide clarifications, otherwise this may be a
huge bias. Indeed, this questionnaire have been surely validated for postoperative evaluation of
symptoms but their use for preoperative assessment would be "experimental" in your study.
8-Please discuss how the employment of an early detection of disease might reduce the risk of
improper surgery, leading to pain improvement with avoidance of repeated surgeries, especially
in case od endometriosis (https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13020550)
9- did you think about excluding other disease that might have impacted the spatial distribution
of pain during the study period?
Title: Changes in spatial bodily pain distribution one year after benign hysterectomy with
emphasis on prevalence and risk factors for de novo and persistent pelvic pain. A prospective
longitudinal multicenter study.
Version: 1 Date: 02 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
I congratulate with the authors for the well conducted longitudinal study and well written paper.
Despite good overall merit, I would to know if it possible to have more details on pathologies
requiring hysterectomy, especially in fertile-age patients. Endometriosis is the most frequent
chronic pelvic pain condition in this subgroup of patients and it is associated to nociplastic pain.
It would be usefull for the readers to include also these aspects in the Discussion section in order
to give more clinical and scientific insights. Please add relevant data on this topic (eg doi doi:
10.1016/j.jmig.2022.10.007, 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.0780)
Title: The Pandemic within a Pandemic: Mental health and Wellbeing of racially Minoritised
women experiencing domestic abuse during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK
Version: 0 Date: 08 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
Thank you for the invitation to review this manuscript.
I consider this is an important contribution to the research and scholarly publications on the area
of domestic abuse in Minoritised women during the Covid 19 pandemic.
The manuscript was well presented with all sections clearly titled.  There are a few punctuation
errors and I consider the manuscript to benefit from proof reading.
I consider the reference on line 59 (Anderton) would benefit from being moved to the end of
the quotation with an attached page number.
I am also wondering if a date can be attributed to line 57 reference (UN Women).
I agree with the authors' point in the limitations section that qualitative methods would have
strengthened the reporting of some of the quantitative findings and wonder if this may be an
indication for future research - and to mention this as it may be that this will more clearly identify
women's voices.
Apologies if this review is brief, but I could not identify anything further which requires
consideration from my own perspective.
With kind regards
Title: The Pandemic within a Pandemic: Mental health and Wellbeing of racially Minoritised
women experiencing domestic abuse during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK
Version: 0 Date: 04 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (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 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 - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The study is well written. It provides a thorough overview of the
problem and how the study contributes to the literature, provides a clear description of methods
and results and puts forth a reasonable and interpretation grounded in the literature. The study
could provide some additional details in their sampling methods and recruitment strategy. The
manuscript, while well written and thorough, is quite long. The discussion could use some
additional implications for policy and social practice. The tables are clear, but the figure is
confusing. These are minor issues. The study is well conducted and described.
I do not have much to offer in terms of revisions. It is too long, probably - but very well written.
As I mentioned, a bit more information could be provided about how people were recruited and
sampled and the relationship of this study with the larger study from which it is a part. The
limitations could also include limitations associated with the sampling strategy.  The discussion
was largely sound, but could have had a bit more on policy and practice recommendations.
Again, these are minor issues. It appears to be a well conducted study with sound methodology.
Title: The Pandemic within a Pandemic: Mental health and Wellbeing of racially Minoritised
women experiencing domestic abuse during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK
Version: 1 Date: 07 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?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have responded adequately to my suggestions for
revisions and they have outlined their changes in a detailed response letter. Specifically, they
have clarified their sampling strategy and they have added practice and policy implications in
the discussion and throughout the article. They have also clarified the figure. It seems that they
have also reduced the length of the manuscript. I have no further changes or suggestions for
this article.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
There are no additional revisions at this time. The authors have adequately addressed my
concerns.
Title: Marital rights: analyzing the lived experiences of Iranian women living with retired
spouses.The Qualitative Research
Version: 1 Date: 17 Mar 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors
1. Please set keywords base on MESH Database
2. In Figure 1,2 & 3 guide, identify what each shape represents (category, code, etc.)
3. The conclusion needs to be rewritten. In the conclusion , we do not mention the purpose or
other studies. Rather, we express a general result of the findings of the article.
Title: Marital rights: analyzing the lived experiences of Iranian women living with retired
spouses.The Qualitative Research
Version: 3 Date: 10 Jun 2024
Reviewer's report:
The qualitative research method is appropriate and correctly implemented.
The measurement tools used in the study, such as interviews and semistructured questions, are
appropriate for the research method.It would have been beneficial to include details on how the
tools were developed and tested.
The data analysis is done using the Colaizzi method, which is a suitable approach for
phenomenological research.
The findings are correctly interpreted and discussed in the context of the research background.
he study discusses the implications of the findings for policy and practice and highlights the
importance of considering the experiences of Iranian women living with retired spouses.
The study is innovative and important in terms of the topic and findings.
Title: Weight-adjusted-waist index: an innovative indicator of breast cancer hazard
Version: 0 Date: 11 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for providing the opportunity to review the manuscript titled "Weight-adjusted-waist
index: an innovative predictor of breast cancer hazard". This is an important area of research
and the study has the potential to make important contributions to breast cancer research and
its relationship with obesity.
However, the authors are recommended to revise this manuscript due to the following reasons
below:
Overall: The authors should consider updating the manuscript using scientific language and take
caution with using words such as 'favorable correlation', turning point for BC incidence' etc.
There were multiple instances throughout the manuscript where the associations (reported using
OR) were interpreted as correlations
Abstract: The methods section needs to be clear and concise. Information provided was
incomplete and which statistical methods used were hard to follow. Authors need to mention all
relevant methods, including which associations were assessed. In the results section, what data
supported the statement that WWW is an 'outstanding predictor'?
Introduction: Authors should consider updating. This needs citations of WWI as a BC predictor
and previous studies that may have used this, along with findings. Cite the gap in research and
what this research may contribute
Methods: Please state if WWI is a standardized measure. Authors need to state the method
for confounder selection, and why subgroup analyses were conducted using certain variables.
Lastly, authors should explain why physical activity was assessed as a confounder when this
was tested as a possible mediator.
Results: Authors should consider updating the result section using proper scientific terms
relevant to the statistical methods used, provide details of each methods used, and exercise
caution in using terms 'link' and 'correlation' for associations. The current result section is hard
to follow
Discussion: Should consider citing prior literature that used WWI and the similarities and
differences in findings.
Title: Weight-adjusted-waist index: an innovative indicator of breast cancer hazard
Version: 1 Date: 25 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thanks for authors’ great effort to modify the manuscript based on all the inputs from journal
editor and reviewers. All my previous comments and suggestions were well addressed and
incorporated in this revision. The authors also appropriately discussed related suggestions which
can’t be modified in current study due to the inherent nature of the dataset. Overall, this revised
version of manuscript is in great shape in writing, rigorous analysis methods, clear summary of
results, reasonable discussion of study strengths, limitations, and future direction.
Title: Association of Dietary preferences with Primary ovarian insufficiency (POI): a Mendelian
randomization-based analysis
Version: 2 Date: 10 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Atar Singh Kushwah
Reviewer's report:
1. The abstract provides a comprehensive overview but can be improved for conciseness and
impact. Specifically, more emphasis on key findings with reduced methodological details would
help better capture reader interest.
2. Figures, such as the circular heatmap and forest plots, are critical but not optimally presented.
Consider enhancing the resolution, labeling clarity, and providing more descriptive legends.
3. The manuscript generally follows a logical structure, sections such as "Results" and
"Discussion" could benefit from clearer subheadings. For eg., separating "Dietary Preferences
Promoting POI" and "Dietary Preferences Inhibiting POI" into distinct sub-subsections within
the results would aid readability.
4. There are minor grammatical issues throughout the manuscript, including sentence structure
inconsistencies. Proofreading for language clarity and conciseness is recommended to improve
overall readability.
5. The criteria for SNP selection and thresholds for statistical significance (e.g., p < 5 × 10##) are
well-defined, but justification for any deviation from standard thresholds should be elaborated.
6.  The sensitivity analyses using MR-Egger, MR-PRESSO, and other methods are well-
executed, but results are not clearly integrated into the main narrative. Consider providing a
summarized table outlining key outcomes from each sensitivity test and their implications on
the robustness of findings.
7. Incorporating or referencing biochemical studies that support these hypotheses would lend
more credibility to the findings.
8. Although Mendelian randomization reduces confounding compared to observational studies,
some lifestyle factors that are not well-captured by genetic instruments (e.g., physical activity,
socio-economic status) may still bias the results. Acknowledging this limitation and suggesting
potential future methodologies (e.g., multi-omics approaches) to address it would strengthen the
discussion.
9. The study provides a novel perspective on the role of dietary factors in POI, with a strong
focus on high-fat dairy and oily fish consumption. However, comparisons to existing literature
on dietary interventions for reproductive health are somewhat limited. Strengthening the novelty
discussion by contextualizing findings with recent advances in nutrition and reproductive
epidemiology will enhance impact.
10. Recommendations for dietary modifications are a valuable takeaway, but it would be helpful
to discuss practical applications (e.g., specific dietary guidelines or public health policies) more
extensively. Additionally, exploring possible adverse consequences or feasibility of dietary
changes in different populations would broaden the practical relevance.