Split (1)

train · 20.2k rows

title stringlengths 32 37	abstract stringclasses 1 value	full_text stringlengths 107 20.1k	review stringlengths 107 20.1k	source stringclasses 1 value	review_src stringlengths 37 41	criteria_count dict	dimension_scores dict	overall_score float64 0 7	conversations listlengths 2 2	year int64 2k 2.03k
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03566-4	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: The Causal Impact of Genetically Predicted Inflammatory Bowel Disease on Extraintestinal Manifestations: A Mendelian Randomization Study Version: 3 Date: 19 Sep 2024 Reviewer: Panagiotis Tsibouris Reviewer's report: The document is much improved in the revised edition Evaluation of reverse causality should be also evaluated Those data should appear in the abstract Study population should be descibed in the abstract	Title: The Causal Impact of Genetically Predicted Inflammatory Bowel Disease on Extraintestinal Manifestations: A Mendelian Randomization Study Version: 3 Date: 19 Sep 2024 Reviewer: Panagiotis Tsibouris Reviewer's report: The document is much improved in the revised edition Evaluation of reverse causality should be also evaluated Those data should appear in the abstract Study population should be descibed in the abstract	BMC	12876_2024_3566_ReviewerReport_V3_R5.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 1, "total": 1 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 1 }	3	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: The Causal Impact of Genetically Predicted Inflammatory Bowel Disease on\nExtraintestinal Manifestations: A Mendelian Randomization Study\nVersion: 3 Date: 19 Sep 2024\nReviewer: Panagiotis Tsibouris\nReviewer's report:\nThe document is much improved in the revised edition Evaluation of reverse causality should\nbe also evaluated Those data should appear in the abstract Study population should be descibed\nin the abstract", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03566-4	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: The Causal Impact of Genetically Predicted Inflammatory Bowel Disease on Extraintestinal Manifestations: A Mendelian Randomization Study Version: 4 Date: 04 Oct 2024 Reviewer: Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr Reviewer's report: The manuscript has been revised and accepted for publication.	Title: The Causal Impact of Genetically Predicted Inflammatory Bowel Disease on Extraintestinal Manifestations: A Mendelian Randomization Study Version: 4 Date: 04 Oct 2024 Reviewer: Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr Reviewer's report: The manuscript has been revised and accepted for publication.	BMC	12876_2024_3566_ReviewerReport_V4_R4.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0, "total": 1 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0 }	2	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: The Causal Impact of Genetically Predicted Inflammatory Bowel Disease on\nExtraintestinal Manifestations: A Mendelian Randomization Study\nVersion: 4 Date: 04 Oct 2024\nReviewer: Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr\nReviewer's report:\nThe manuscript has been revised and accepted for publication.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03566-4	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: The Causal Impact of Genetically Predicted Inflammatory Bowel Disease on Extraintestinal Manifestations: A Mendelian Randomization Study Version: 4 Date: 04 Oct 2024 Reviewer: Panagiotis Tsibouris Reviewer's report: Abstract Aim should be rephrase using causal relationship and not impact Authors should mention that they evaluated IBD as a whole and UC or CD as separate entities In methods section the part that remained unchanged is difficult to follow If I am not not wrong authors used GWAS data to identify common SNPs between IBD and EIMs aiming to identify causal relationship between the two entities using Mendelian randomisation A short conclusion should be introduced at the expence of background Methods Authors should define in which way they have adapted GWAS data or made any selection in the population Otherwise the document is much improved and after a final linguistic adjustment it would be ready for publication	Title: The Causal Impact of Genetically Predicted Inflammatory Bowel Disease on Extraintestinal Manifestations: A Mendelian Randomization Study Version: 4 Date: 04 Oct 2024 Reviewer: Panagiotis Tsibouris Reviewer's report: Abstract Aim should be rephrase using causal relationship and not impact Authors should mention that they evaluated IBD as a whole and UC or CD as separate entities In methods section the part that remained unchanged is difficult to follow If I am not not wrong authors used GWAS data to identify common SNPs between IBD and EIMs aiming to identify causal relationship between the two entities using Mendelian randomisation A short conclusion should be introduced at the expence of background Methods Authors should define in which way they have adapted GWAS data or made any selection in the population Otherwise the document is much improved and after a final linguistic adjustment it would be ready for publication	BMC	12876_2024_3566_ReviewerReport_V4_R5.pdf	{ "criticism": 1, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 1, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 1, "total": 1 }	{ "criticism": 1, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 1, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 1 }	4	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: The Causal Impact of Genetically Predicted Inflammatory Bowel Disease on\nExtraintestinal Manifestations: A Mendelian Randomization Study\nVersion: 4 Date: 04 Oct 2024\nReviewer: Panagiotis Tsibouris\nReviewer's report:\nAbstract Aim should be rephrase using causal relationship and not impact Authors should\nmention that they evaluated IBD as a whole and UC or CD as separate entities In methods\nsection the part that remained unchanged is difficult to follow If I am not not wrong authors\nused GWAS data to identify common SNPs between IBD and EIMs aiming to identify causal\nrelationship between the two entities using Mendelian randomisation A short conclusion should\nbe introduced at the expence of background Methods Authors should define in which way they\nhave adapted GWAS data or made any selection in the population Otherwise the document is\nmuch improved and after a final linguistic adjustment it would be ready for publication", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03566-4	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: The Causal Impact of Genetically Predicted Inflammatory Bowel Disease on Extraintestinal Manifestations: A Mendelian Randomization Study Version: 4 Date: 13 Oct 2024 Reviewer's report: This paper has used sophisticated statistical methodology to address the contribution of genetic factors tors known to be associated with inflammatory bowel disease to assess their influence on the development of extra-intestinal clinical manifestations already suspected of being associated with inflammatory bowel disease from n numerous other studies. They describe the use of Mendelian randomisation as an alternative to randomised controlled clinical trials to assess the impact of various SNPs associated with IBD on the development of extra- intestinal manifestations, concluding that genes involved in IBD also contribute significantly to uveitis, erythema nodosum and sclerosis cholangitis. They also claim to demonstrate that genes associated with IBD do not appear to influence the development of scleritis/episcleritis. This type of meta-analysis has the potential to develop great power to detect such genetic effects but is heavily dependent on the genetic homogeneity of the study groups. By their own admission this analysis is heavily weighted of 5th presence of Finnish data sets among the "European" samples. In the remaining non-Finnish samples there is also considerable heterogeneity. To label the sample sets as European is disingenuous. There is very considerable genetic variation within Europe. In the case of the Finnish population there is substantial evidence of a population bottle neck reflecting the migration. of this population from southern Europe (roughly where Hungary is now) about 1,000 years ago. Even in the British Isles one would be suspicious about using a control sample from the south of UK to compare with a disease sample from the north of the country since there are well described gradients. thus although the results in relation to uveitis, sclerosis cholesterol;angitis and erythema nodosum are unsurprising I do not feel that the sample populations are necessarily homogeneous enough to justify definite conclusions to be drawn about the lack of association with scleritis. Only by altering the selection of the sample groups to include more genetically homogeneous populations can this deficiency be overcome. Sine the authors have drawn on published data perhaps it would be worth trying to draw on other published data including only those results from populations that exhibit more homogeneity.	Title: The Causal Impact of Genetically Predicted Inflammatory Bowel Disease on Extraintestinal Manifestations: A Mendelian Randomization Study Version: 4 Date: 13 Oct 2024 Reviewer's report: This paper has used sophisticated statistical methodology to address the contribution of genetic factors tors known to be associated with inflammatory bowel disease to assess their influence on the development of extra-intestinal clinical manifestations already suspected of being associated with inflammatory bowel disease from n numerous other studies. They describe the use of Mendelian randomisation as an alternative to randomised controlled clinical trials to assess the impact of various SNPs associated with IBD on the development of extra- intestinal manifestations, concluding that genes involved in IBD also contribute significantly to uveitis, erythema nodosum and sclerosis cholangitis. They also claim to demonstrate that genes associated with IBD do not appear to influence the development of scleritis/episcleritis. This type of meta-analysis has the potential to develop great power to detect such genetic effects but is heavily dependent on the genetic homogeneity of the study groups. By their own admission this analysis is heavily weighted of 5th presence of Finnish data sets among the "European" samples. In the remaining non-Finnish samples there is also considerable heterogeneity. To label the sample sets as European is disingenuous. There is very considerable genetic variation within Europe. In the case of the Finnish population there is substantial evidence of a population bottle neck reflecting the migration. of this population from southern Europe (roughly where Hungary is now) about 1,000 years ago. Even in the British Isles one would be suspicious about using a control sample from the south of UK to compare with a disease sample from the north of the country since there are well described gradients. thus although the results in relation to uveitis, sclerosis cholesterol;angitis and erythema nodosum are unsurprising I do not feel that the sample populations are necessarily homogeneous enough to justify definite conclusions to be drawn about the lack of association with scleritis. Only by altering the selection of the sample groups to include more genetically homogeneous populations can this deficiency be overcome. Sine the authors have drawn on published data perhaps it would be worth trying to draw on other published data including only those results from populations that exhibit more homogeneity.	BMC	12876_2024_3566_ReviewerReport_V4_R1.pdf	{ "criticism": 3, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 2, "materials_and_methods": 11, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 1, "results_and_discussion": 2, "suggestion_and_solution": 1, "total": 14 }	{ "criticism": 0.21428571428571427, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0.14285714285714285, "materials_and_methods": 0.7857142857142857, "praise": 0.07142857142857142, "presentation_and_reporting": 0.07142857142857142, "results_and_discussion": 0.14285714285714285, "suggestion_and_solution": 0.07142857142857142 }	1.5	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: The Causal Impact of Genetically Predicted Inflammatory Bowel Disease on\nExtraintestinal Manifestations: A Mendelian Randomization Study\nVersion: 4 Date: 13 Oct 2024\nReviewer's report:\nThis paper has used sophisticated statistical methodology to address the contribution of genetic\nfactors tors known to be associated with inflammatory bowel disease to assess their influence\non the development of extra-intestinal clinical manifestations already suspected of being\nassociated with inflammatory bowel disease from n numerous other studies. They describe\nthe use of Mendelian randomisation as an alternative to randomised controlled clinical trials\nto assess the impact of various SNPs associated with IBD on the development of extra-\nintestinal manifestations, concluding that genes involved in IBD also contribute significantly to\nuveitis, erythema nodosum and sclerosis cholangitis. They also claim to demonstrate that genes\nassociated with IBD do not appear to influence the development of scleritis/episcleritis. This\ntype of meta-analysis has the potential to develop great power to detect such genetic effects but\nis heavily dependent on the genetic homogeneity of the study groups. By their own admission\nthis analysis is heavily weighted of 5th presence of Finnish data sets among the \"European\"\nsamples. In the remaining non-Finnish samples there is also considerable heterogeneity. To label\nthe sample sets as European is disingenuous. There is very considerable genetic variation within\nEurope. In the case of the Finnish population there is substantial evidence of a population bottle\nneck reflecting the migration. of this population from southern Europe (roughly where Hungary\nis now) about 1,000 years ago. Even in the British Isles one would be suspicious about using a\ncontrol sample from the south of UK to compare with a disease sample from the north of the\ncountry since there are well described gradients. thus although the results in relation to uveitis,\nsclerosis cholesterol;angitis and erythema nodosum are unsurprising I do not feel that the sample\npopulations are necessarily homogeneous enough to justify definite conclusions to be drawn\nabout the lack of association with scleritis. Only by altering the selection of the sample groups\nto include more genetically homogeneous populations can this deficiency be overcome. Sine\nthe authors have drawn on published data perhaps it would be worth trying to draw on other\npublished data including only those results from populations that exhibit more homogeneity.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03566-4	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: The Causal Impact of Genetically Predicted Inflammatory Bowel Disease on Extraintestinal Manifestations: A Mendelian Randomization Study Version: 5 Date: 01 Nov 2024 Reviewer: Panagiotis Tsibouris Reviewer's report: I think authors have applied all changes requested Thus document is ready for publication I have to congratulate the authors	Title: The Causal Impact of Genetically Predicted Inflammatory Bowel Disease on Extraintestinal Manifestations: A Mendelian Randomization Study Version: 5 Date: 01 Nov 2024 Reviewer: Panagiotis Tsibouris Reviewer's report: I think authors have applied all changes requested Thus document is ready for publication I have to congratulate the authors	BMC	12876_2024_3566_ReviewerReport_V5_R5.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0, "total": 1 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0 }	2	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: The Causal Impact of Genetically Predicted Inflammatory Bowel Disease on\nExtraintestinal Manifestations: A Mendelian Randomization Study\nVersion: 5 Date: 01 Nov 2024\nReviewer: Panagiotis Tsibouris\nReviewer's report:\nI think authors have applied all changes requested Thus document is ready for publication I have\nto congratulate the authors", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03566-4	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: The Causal Impact of Genetically Predicted Inflammatory Bowel Disease on Extraintestinal Manifestations: A Mendelian Randomization Study Version: 5 Date: 10 Nov 2024 Reviewer: Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr Reviewer's report: After reviewing the author's response, I believe the article can be accepted for publication.	Title: The Causal Impact of Genetically Predicted Inflammatory Bowel Disease on Extraintestinal Manifestations: A Mendelian Randomization Study Version: 5 Date: 10 Nov 2024 Reviewer: Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr Reviewer's report: After reviewing the author's response, I believe the article can be accepted for publication.	BMC	12876_2024_3566_ReviewerReport_V5_R4.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0, "total": 1 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0 }	2	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: The Causal Impact of Genetically Predicted Inflammatory Bowel Disease on\nExtraintestinal Manifestations: A Mendelian Randomization Study\nVersion: 5 Date: 10 Nov 2024\nReviewer: Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr\nReviewer's report:\nAfter reviewing the author's response, I believe the article can be accepted for publication.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03723-3	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Explainable machine learning model for predicting acute pancreatitis mortality in the intensive care unit Version: 1 Date: 17 Dec 2024 Reviewer: Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr Reviewer's report: changes are satisfactory, can be accepted for publication.	Title: Explainable machine learning model for predicting acute pancreatitis mortality in the intensive care unit Version: 1 Date: 17 Dec 2024 Reviewer: Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr Reviewer's report: changes are satisfactory, can be accepted for publication.	BMC	12876_2025_3723_ReviewerReport_V1_R1.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 1, "total": 1 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 1 }	3	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Explainable machine learning model for predicting acute pancreatitis mortality in the\nintensive care unit\nVersion: 1 Date: 17 Dec 2024\nReviewer: Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr\nReviewer's report:\nchanges are satisfactory, can be accepted for publication.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03723-3	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Explainable machine learning model for predicting acute pancreatitis mortality in the intensive care unit Version: 1 Date: 24 Dec 2024 Reviewer: Oguz Koc Reviewer's report: The paper is well organized, and it is an interesting research area. I have the following comments: 1-The paper needs further grammar check. 2-The authors must state why sensitivity is set as 100% more clearly. Is it for the elimination of unnecessary patients beforehand for assigning purposes? 3-There are more effective ML algorithms in the literature such as Catboost and LightGBM, they can be added to the study to increase the novelty since there is already a study that has been published in December very similar to this research question. Li, X., Tian, Y., Li, S. et al. Interpretable prediction of 30-day mortality in patients with acute pancreatitis based on machine learning and SHAP. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 24, 328 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-024-02741-7 I do not suggest you add this study to the reference part, but the novelty needs to be increased.	Title: Explainable machine learning model for predicting acute pancreatitis mortality in the intensive care unit Version: 1 Date: 24 Dec 2024 Reviewer: Oguz Koc Reviewer's report: The paper is well organized, and it is an interesting research area. I have the following comments: 1-The paper needs further grammar check. 2-The authors must state why sensitivity is set as 100% more clearly. Is it for the elimination of unnecessary patients beforehand for assigning purposes? 3-There are more effective ML algorithms in the literature such as Catboost and LightGBM, they can be added to the study to increase the novelty since there is already a study that has been published in December very similar to this research question. Li, X., Tian, Y., Li, S. et al. Interpretable prediction of 30-day mortality in patients with acute pancreatitis based on machine learning and SHAP. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 24, 328 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-024-02741-7 I do not suggest you add this study to the reference part, but the novelty needs to be increased.	BMC	12876_2025_3723_ReviewerReport_V1_R2.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 2, "materials_and_methods": 5, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 4, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 4, "total": 9 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0.2222222222222222, "materials_and_methods": 0.5555555555555556, "praise": 0.1111111111111111, "presentation_and_reporting": 0.4444444444444444, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0.4444444444444444 }	1.777778	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Explainable machine learning model for predicting acute pancreatitis mortality in the\nintensive care unit\nVersion: 1 Date: 24 Dec 2024\nReviewer: Oguz Koc\nReviewer's report:\nThe paper is well organized, and it is an interesting research area. I have the following comments:\n1-The paper needs further grammar check.\n2-The authors must state why sensitivity is set as 100% more clearly. Is it for the elimination of\nunnecessary patients beforehand for assigning purposes?\n3-There are more effective ML algorithms in the literature such as Catboost and LightGBM,\nthey can be added to the study to increase the novelty since there is already a study that has been\npublished in December very similar to this research question.\nLi, X., Tian, Y., Li, S. et al. Interpretable prediction of 30-day mortality in patients with acute\npancreatitis based on machine learning and SHAP. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 24, 328 (2024).\nhttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-024-02741-7\nI do not suggest you add this study to the reference part, but the novelty needs to be increased.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03723-3	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Explainable machine learning model for predicting acute pancreatitis mortality in the intensive care unit Version: 1 Date: 26 Dec 2024 Reviewer: Hakan Senturk Reviewer's report: The authors use a ML model to predict prognosis in ICU admitted severe acute pancreatitis cases. However there is no evidence that it adds to existing prognostic evaluations.	Title: Explainable machine learning model for predicting acute pancreatitis mortality in the intensive care unit Version: 1 Date: 26 Dec 2024 Reviewer: Hakan Senturk Reviewer's report: The authors use a ML model to predict prognosis in ICU admitted severe acute pancreatitis cases. However there is no evidence that it adds to existing prognostic evaluations.	BMC	12876_2025_3723_ReviewerReport_V1_R3.pdf	{ "criticism": 1, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 2, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0, "total": 2 }	{ "criticism": 0.5, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0 }	1.5	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Explainable machine learning model for predicting acute pancreatitis mortality in the\nintensive care unit\nVersion: 1 Date: 26 Dec 2024\nReviewer: Hakan Senturk\nReviewer's report:\nThe authors use a ML model to predict prognosis in ICU admitted severe acute pancreatitis\ncases. However there is no evidence that it adds to existing prognostic evaluations.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03723-3	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Explainable machine learning model for predicting acute pancreatitis mortality in the intensive care unit Version: 1 Date: 04 Jan 2025 Reviewer's report: As a reviewer, I could not find how the draft has been revised with no changes-tracking or highlighting.	Title: Explainable machine learning model for predicting acute pancreatitis mortality in the intensive care unit Version: 1 Date: 04 Jan 2025 Reviewer's report: As a reviewer, I could not find how the draft has been revised with no changes-tracking or highlighting.	BMC	12876_2025_3723_ReviewerReport_V1_R5.pdf	{ "criticism": 1, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0, "total": 1 }	{ "criticism": 1, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0 }	2	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Explainable machine learning model for predicting acute pancreatitis mortality in the\nintensive care unit\nVersion: 1 Date: 04 Jan 2025\nReviewer's report:\nAs a reviewer, I could not find how the draft has been revised with no changes-tracking or\nhighlighting.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03723-3	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Explainable machine learning model for predicting acute pancreatitis mortality in the intensive care unit Version: 1 Date: 08 Jan 2025 Reviewer: Andrey Litvin Reviewer's report: Dear authors, Congratulations on a great manuscript.	Title: Explainable machine learning model for predicting acute pancreatitis mortality in the intensive care unit Version: 1 Date: 08 Jan 2025 Reviewer: Andrey Litvin Reviewer's report: Dear authors, Congratulations on a great manuscript.	BMC	12876_2025_3723_ReviewerReport_V1_R4.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0, "total": 1 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0 }	2	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Explainable machine learning model for predicting acute pancreatitis mortality in the\nintensive care unit\nVersion: 1 Date: 08 Jan 2025\nReviewer: Andrey Litvin\nReviewer's report:\nDear authors,\nCongratulations on a great manuscript.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03723-3	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Explainable machine learning model for predicting acute pancreatitis mortality in the intensive care unit Version: 3 Date: 21 Jan 2025 Reviewer: Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr Reviewer's report: Dear Authors, please address the following points below -While the authors mention that they analyzed and selected predictors based on statistical and clinical significance, more information on the specific feature selection process would be helpful. For example, which variables were most significant in predicting mortality, and how were redundant or highly correlated variables handled? This would provide greater insight into the clinical relevance of the chosen features. -The authors mention that the data from the first 24 hours in ICU are used for vital signs and laboratory results, but there could be more discussion on why this specific timeframe was selected. For example, how does the timing of data collection impact the predictive power of the model? -While the inclusion of common comorbidities such as diabetes mellitus, hepatic cirrhosis, and metastatic cancer is relevant, the choice of comorbidities may limit the generalizability of the model. Including additional factors (e.g., chronic kidney disease or obesity) or more granular comorbidity classifications could improve the model’s predictive accuracy. Further explanation of the decision to include specific comorbidities would clarify how they impact the model. -Although the authors mention that the model could identify low-risk patients for less intensive monitoring, the paper could benefit from more discussion on how this ML model could be integrated into real-world clinical practice. For example, would it be integrated with electronic health record (EHR) systems to provide real-time risk assessments? How could clinicians easily use and interpret the model’s predictions in daily practice? -The focus on the ICU setting is appropriate, but some additional thoughts on how the model could be used to inform triage decisions more broadly—such as in emergency departments or during initial patient assessments—would provide further context for its potential impact. -While the XGBoost model is compared against SOFA, APACHE IV, and BISAP, the paper could provide more detail on the results of these comparisons. For example, how do the AUCs of each model compare? Are there any notable differences in performance across patient subgroups (e.g., age, severity of AP)? Additionally, a brief discussion of model calibration (e.g., using Brier scores) would offer more insight into how well the model’s predicted probabilities align with actual outcomes. -The study’s focus on achieving a sensitivity of 100% for death prediction is a valid approach, but it would be helpful to discuss the trade-offs between sensitivity and specificity in greater detail. While high sensitivity is important for identifying high-risk patients, the impact of lower specificity (e.g., false positives) should also be considered, particularly in terms of resource allocation. -Although the use of KNNImputer is an effective method for handling missing data, the authors could provide more justification for this choice. For instance, how does KNNImputer compare to other imputation techniques (e.g., mean imputation or multiple imputation by chained equations) in terms of model performance? -While the model achieves a sensitivity of 100% (very low risk identified as safe for non- ICU monitoring), the specificity of 38% is a limitation. This means that a significant number of low-risk patients are still being classified as needing ICU care, potentially leading to some unnecessary admissions. The authors suggest that adding additional variables or using other ML algorithms could further optimize the model, which is a good point. However, a deeper exploration of how this trade-off between sensitivity and specificity impacts patient care would be valuable. -The study's reliance on achieving high sensitivity could potentially mask some of the trade-offs in real-world applications. For example, could the specificity be improved without significantly decreasing sensitivity? A more detailed discussion of these trade-offs would provide better insight into how the model could be fine-tuned for clinical use. -While the study focuses on ICU admissions, the application of this model in other settings, such as the emergency department or general medical wards, could also be explored. Given that the goal is to identify low-risk patients, this could improve triage decisions at multiple stages of patient care. Exploring these potential uses of the model might help increase its overall impact.	Title: Explainable machine learning model for predicting acute pancreatitis mortality in the intensive care unit Version: 3 Date: 21 Jan 2025 Reviewer: Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr Reviewer's report: Dear Authors, please address the following points below -While the authors mention that they analyzed and selected predictors based on statistical and clinical significance, more information on the specific feature selection process would be helpful. For example, which variables were most significant in predicting mortality, and how were redundant or highly correlated variables handled? This would provide greater insight into the clinical relevance of the chosen features. -The authors mention that the data from the first 24 hours in ICU are used for vital signs and laboratory results, but there could be more discussion on why this specific timeframe was selected. For example, how does the timing of data collection impact the predictive power of the model? -While the inclusion of common comorbidities such as diabetes mellitus, hepatic cirrhosis, and metastatic cancer is relevant, the choice of comorbidities may limit the generalizability of the model. Including additional factors (e.g., chronic kidney disease or obesity) or more granular comorbidity classifications could improve the model’s predictive accuracy. Further explanation of the decision to include specific comorbidities would clarify how they impact the model. -Although the authors mention that the model could identify low-risk patients for less intensive monitoring, the paper could benefit from more discussion on how this ML model could be integrated into real-world clinical practice. For example, would it be integrated with electronic health record (EHR) systems to provide real-time risk assessments? How could clinicians easily use and interpret the model’s predictions in daily practice? -The focus on the ICU setting is appropriate, but some additional thoughts on how the model could be used to inform triage decisions more broadly—such as in emergency departments or during initial patient assessments—would provide further context for its potential impact. -While the XGBoost model is compared against SOFA, APACHE IV, and BISAP, the paper could provide more detail on the results of these comparisons. For example, how do the AUCs of each model compare? Are there any notable differences in performance across patient subgroups (e.g., age, severity of AP)? Additionally, a brief discussion of model calibration (e.g., using Brier scores) would offer more insight into how well the model’s predicted probabilities align with actual outcomes. -The study’s focus on achieving a sensitivity of 100% for death prediction is a valid approach, but it would be helpful to discuss the trade-offs between sensitivity and specificity in greater detail. While high sensitivity is important for identifying high-risk patients, the impact of lower specificity (e.g., false positives) should also be considered, particularly in terms of resource allocation. -Although the use of KNNImputer is an effective method for handling missing data, the authors could provide more justification for this choice. For instance, how does KNNImputer compare to other imputation techniques (e.g., mean imputation or multiple imputation by chained equations) in terms of model performance? -While the model achieves a sensitivity of 100% (very low risk identified as safe for non- ICU monitoring), the specificity of 38% is a limitation. This means that a significant number of low-risk patients are still being classified as needing ICU care, potentially leading to some unnecessary admissions. The authors suggest that adding additional variables or using other ML algorithms could further optimize the model, which is a good point. However, a deeper exploration of how this trade-off between sensitivity and specificity impacts patient care would be valuable. -The study's reliance on achieving high sensitivity could potentially mask some of the trade-offs in real-world applications. For example, could the specificity be improved without significantly decreasing sensitivity? A more detailed discussion of these trade-offs would provide better insight into how the model could be fine-tuned for clinical use. -While the study focuses on ICU admissions, the application of this model in other settings, such as the emergency department or general medical wards, could also be explored. Given that the goal is to identify low-risk patients, this could improve triage decisions at multiple stages of patient care. Exploring these potential uses of the model might help increase its overall impact.	BMC	12876_2025_3723_ReviewerReport_V3_R1.pdf	{ "criticism": 1, "example": 1, "importance_and_relevance": 7, "materials_and_methods": 26, "praise": 3, "presentation_and_reporting": 2, "results_and_discussion": 10, "suggestion_and_solution": 19, "total": 30 }	{ "criticism": 0.03333333333333333, "example": 0.03333333333333333, "importance_and_relevance": 0.23333333333333334, "materials_and_methods": 0.8666666666666667, "praise": 0.1, "presentation_and_reporting": 0.06666666666666667, "results_and_discussion": 0.3333333333333333, "suggestion_and_solution": 0.6333333333333333 }	2.3	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Explainable machine learning model for predicting acute pancreatitis mortality in the\nintensive care unit\nVersion: 3 Date: 21 Jan 2025\nReviewer: Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr\nReviewer's report:\nDear Authors, please address the following points below\n-While the authors mention that they analyzed and selected predictors based on statistical\nand clinical significance, more information on the specific feature selection process would be\nhelpful. For example, which variables were most significant in predicting mortality, and how\nwere redundant or highly correlated variables handled? This would provide greater insight into\nthe clinical relevance of the chosen features.\n-The authors mention that the data from the first 24 hours in ICU are used for vital signs\nand laboratory results, but there could be more discussion on why this specific timeframe was\nselected. For example, how does the timing of data collection impact the predictive power of\nthe model?\n-While the inclusion of common comorbidities such as diabetes mellitus, hepatic cirrhosis, and\nmetastatic cancer is relevant, the choice of comorbidities may limit the generalizability of the\nmodel. Including additional factors (e.g., chronic kidney disease or obesity) or more granular\ncomorbidity classifications could improve the model’s predictive accuracy. Further explanation\nof the decision to include specific comorbidities would clarify how they impact the model.\n-Although the authors mention that the model could identify low-risk patients for less intensive\nmonitoring, the paper could benefit from more discussion on how this ML model could be\nintegrated into real-world clinical practice. For example, would it be integrated with electronic\nhealth record (EHR) systems to provide real-time risk assessments? How could clinicians easily\nuse and interpret the model’s predictions in daily practice?\n-The focus on the ICU setting is appropriate, but some additional thoughts on how the model\ncould be used to inform triage decisions more broadly—such as in emergency departments or\nduring initial patient assessments—would provide further context for its potential impact.\n-While the XGBoost model is compared against SOFA, APACHE IV, and BISAP, the paper\ncould provide more detail on the results of these comparisons. For example, how do the AUCs of\neach model compare? Are there any notable differences in performance across patient subgroups\n(e.g., age, severity of AP)? Additionally, a brief discussion of model calibration (e.g., using\nBrier scores) would offer more insight into how well the model’s predicted probabilities align\nwith actual outcomes.\n-The study’s focus on achieving a sensitivity of 100% for death prediction is a valid approach,\nbut it would be helpful to discuss the trade-offs between sensitivity and specificity in greater\ndetail. While high sensitivity is important for identifying high-risk patients, the impact of lower\nspecificity (e.g., false positives) should also be considered, particularly in terms of resource\nallocation.\n-Although the use of KNNImputer is an effective method for handling missing data, the authors\ncould provide more justification for this choice. For instance, how does KNNImputer compare to\nother imputation techniques (e.g., mean imputation or multiple imputation by chained equations)\nin terms of model performance?\n-While the model achieves a sensitivity of 100% (very low risk identified as safe for non-\nICU monitoring), the specificity of 38% is a limitation. This means that a significant number\nof low-risk patients are still being classified as needing ICU care, potentially leading to some\nunnecessary admissions. The authors suggest that adding additional variables or using other\nML algorithms could further optimize the model, which is a good point. However, a deeper\nexploration of how this trade-off between sensitivity and specificity impacts patient care would\nbe valuable.\n-The study's reliance on achieving high sensitivity could potentially mask some of the trade-offs\nin real-world applications. For example, could the specificity be improved without significantly\ndecreasing sensitivity? A more detailed discussion of these trade-offs would provide better\ninsight into how the model could be fine-tuned for clinical use.\n-While the study focuses on ICU admissions, the application of this model in other settings, such\nas the emergency department or general medical wards, could also be explored. Given that the\ngoal is to identify low-risk patients, this could improve triage decisions at multiple stages of\npatient care. Exploring these potential uses of the model might help increase its overall impact.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03723-3	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Explainable machine learning model for predicting acute pancreatitis mortality in the intensive care unit Version: 3 Date: 24 Jan 2025 Reviewer: Andrey Litvin Reviewer's report: Dear authors, Thank you so much for the additions and changes. I agree with everyone. The article can be recommended for publication in BMC Gastroenterology.	Title: Explainable machine learning model for predicting acute pancreatitis mortality in the intensive care unit Version: 3 Date: 24 Jan 2025 Reviewer: Andrey Litvin Reviewer's report: Dear authors, Thank you so much for the additions and changes. I agree with everyone. The article can be recommended for publication in BMC Gastroenterology.	BMC	12876_2025_3723_ReviewerReport_V3_R4.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 1, "total": 3 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 0.3333333333333333, "praise": 0.3333333333333333, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0.3333333333333333 }	1	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Explainable machine learning model for predicting acute pancreatitis mortality in the\nintensive care unit\nVersion: 3 Date: 24 Jan 2025\nReviewer: Andrey Litvin\nReviewer's report:\nDear authors,\nThank you so much for the additions and changes. I agree with everyone. The article can be\nrecommended for publication in BMC Gastroenterology.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03723-3	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Explainable machine learning model for predicting acute pancreatitis mortality in the intensive care unit Version: 3 Date: 27 Jan 2025 Reviewer: Oguz Koc Reviewer's report: The paper's author's response is not satisfactory, and as I commented in the previous, the study lacks novelty.	Title: Explainable machine learning model for predicting acute pancreatitis mortality in the intensive care unit Version: 3 Date: 27 Jan 2025 Reviewer: Oguz Koc Reviewer's report: The paper's author's response is not satisfactory, and as I commented in the previous, the study lacks novelty.	BMC	12876_2025_3723_ReviewerReport_V3_R2.pdf	{ "criticism": 1, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0, "total": 1 }	{ "criticism": 1, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0 }	2	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Explainable machine learning model for predicting acute pancreatitis mortality in the\nintensive care unit\nVersion: 3 Date: 27 Jan 2025\nReviewer: Oguz Koc\nReviewer's report:\nThe paper's author's response is not satisfactory, and as I commented in the previous, the study\nlacks novelty.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03723-3	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Explainable machine learning model for predicting acute pancreatitis mortality in the intensive care unit Version: 3 Date: 28 Jan 2025 Reviewer's report:	Title: Explainable machine learning model for predicting acute pancreatitis mortality in the intensive care unit Version: 3 Date: 28 Jan 2025 Reviewer's report:	BMC	12876_2025_3723_ReviewerReport_V3_R6.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0, "total": 1 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0 }	1	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Explainable machine learning model for predicting acute pancreatitis mortality in the\nintensive care unit\nVersion: 3 Date: 28 Jan 2025\nReviewer's report:", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03723-3	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Explainable machine learning model for predicting acute pancreatitis mortality in the intensive care unit Version: 4 Date: 10 Feb 2025 Reviewer: Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr Reviewer's report: The responses are satisfactory.	Title: Explainable machine learning model for predicting acute pancreatitis mortality in the intensive care unit Version: 4 Date: 10 Feb 2025 Reviewer: Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr Reviewer's report: The responses are satisfactory.	BMC	12876_2025_3723_ReviewerReport_V4_R1.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0, "total": 1 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0 }	2	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Explainable machine learning model for predicting acute pancreatitis mortality in the\nintensive care unit\nVersion: 4 Date: 10 Feb 2025\nReviewer: Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr\nReviewer's report:\nThe responses are satisfactory.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03723-3	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Explainable machine learning model for predicting acute pancreatitis mortality in the intensive care unit Version: 4 Date: 20 Feb 2025 Reviewer's report: The manuscript is clear and well-explained. Although you chose not to include the model calibration, I still consider it a crucial aspect of the analysis. Furthermore, I would suggest emphasizing the distinction between a model's classification, discrimination, and calibration abilities. I found only one minor typo on page 16, line 9: 'Second, the etiology of AP were...' should be corrected to 'was.'	Title: Explainable machine learning model for predicting acute pancreatitis mortality in the intensive care unit Version: 4 Date: 20 Feb 2025 Reviewer's report: The manuscript is clear and well-explained. Although you chose not to include the model calibration, I still consider it a crucial aspect of the analysis. Furthermore, I would suggest emphasizing the distinction between a model's classification, discrimination, and calibration abilities. I found only one minor typo on page 16, line 9: 'Second, the etiology of AP were...' should be corrected to 'was.'	BMC	12876_2025_3723_ReviewerReport_V4_R6.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 1, "importance_and_relevance": 1, "materials_and_methods": 3, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 3, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 2, "total": 4 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0.25, "importance_and_relevance": 0.25, "materials_and_methods": 0.75, "praise": 0.25, "presentation_and_reporting": 0.75, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0.5 }	2.75	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Explainable machine learning model for predicting acute pancreatitis mortality in the\nintensive care unit\nVersion: 4 Date: 20 Feb 2025\nReviewer's report:\nThe manuscript is clear and well-explained. Although you chose not to include the model\ncalibration, I still consider it a crucial aspect of the analysis. Furthermore, I would suggest\nemphasizing the distinction between a model's classification, discrimination, and calibration\nabilities. I found only one minor typo on page 16, line 9: 'Second, the etiology of AP were...'\nshould be corrected to 'was.'", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03726-0	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: The Diagnostic Criteria for Psychosomatic Research-Revised (DCPR-R) in a National China Multicenter Cohort of Patients with Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Overlapping Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Version: 1 Date: 02 Apr 2024 Reviewer: Yurong Tang Reviewer's report: This work included 341 IBS patients of 20 comprehensive tertiary hospitals across China and employed Diagnostic Criteria For Psychosomatic Research-Revised (DCPR-R) for evaluating psychosomatic symptoms. The sample is relatively big and representative for China and DCPR- R is a brand new and robust tool to measure individuals’ psychosomatic state, which is the bright spot of this research. However, some issues need to be addressed as below. 1. If a phrase has been presented as an abbreviation mentioned above, the following same expression can be dictated as the abbreviation#not the detailed phrase. 2. There are some mistakes of singular and plural words as well as some improper English expressions. Please check the whole manuscript carefully and polish the language by native English speaker. 3. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria: Did patients with overlapping GERD symptoms undergo endoscopy to exclude some esophagus or stomach diseases? 4. Detailed results in Result 1 (Table1) and 2 (Table 2) need to be adjusted to some degree. General characteristics should be presented in Result 1 and Comparison of DCPR-R is recommended to put in Result 2, then the results will be more readable. 5. Result 2: IBS subtype distribution and IBS severity score need to be added in Table 2. Are IBS subtype distribution and severity comparable/the same between two groups? As the above factors may affect patients' psychosomatic symptoms and well-being and then make the results inaccurate. 6. Result 3: Before multifactorial logistic regression, single factor related analysis was recommended to find the key factors and then main factors are included in multifactorial logistic regression. That will be more reasonable. Besides, IBS symptoms are key players in mental health, psychosomatic manifestations and quality of life. The effect of IBS symptoms on different questionnaires may be of interest. Different IBS symptoms and severity also need to be involved in multifactorial logistic regression. 7. Result 3: It was shown that "in patients with IBS alone, the WHO-5 well-being index and PSI well-being scores were independent predictors of having at least two of the DCPR-R syndromes; whereas in the overlapping syndromes patients, the PSSS score was an independent predictor." What is the exact meaning or value of this finding? It should be explained/clarified or it is a little bit confusing. 8. The discussion section is redundant. The first four paragraph need to be shortened and the key results should be presented at first. This part should highlight the advantages of the study and put emphasis on the clinical value of this research's findings. 9. This study's results are limited and over simple. Can you divide the patients according to other criteria (e.g. IBS subtypes#IBS course#IBS severity#different gender or age, sleep quality, etc) to carry out some subgroup analyses? I think that will enrich your findings and may help find other useful risk factors for DCPR-R syndromes.	Title: The Diagnostic Criteria for Psychosomatic Research-Revised (DCPR-R) in a National China Multicenter Cohort of Patients with Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Overlapping Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Version: 1 Date: 02 Apr 2024 Reviewer: Yurong Tang Reviewer's report: This work included 341 IBS patients of 20 comprehensive tertiary hospitals across China and employed Diagnostic Criteria For Psychosomatic Research-Revised (DCPR-R) for evaluating psychosomatic symptoms. The sample is relatively big and representative for China and DCPR- R is a brand new and robust tool to measure individuals’ psychosomatic state, which is the bright spot of this research. However, some issues need to be addressed as below. 1. If a phrase has been presented as an abbreviation mentioned above, the following same expression can be dictated as the abbreviation#not the detailed phrase. 2. There are some mistakes of singular and plural words as well as some improper English expressions. Please check the whole manuscript carefully and polish the language by native English speaker. 3. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria: Did patients with overlapping GERD symptoms undergo endoscopy to exclude some esophagus or stomach diseases? 4. Detailed results in Result 1 (Table1) and 2 (Table 2) need to be adjusted to some degree. General characteristics should be presented in Result 1 and Comparison of DCPR-R is recommended to put in Result 2, then the results will be more readable. 5. Result 2: IBS subtype distribution and IBS severity score need to be added in Table 2. Are IBS subtype distribution and severity comparable/the same between two groups? As the above factors may affect patients' psychosomatic symptoms and well-being and then make the results inaccurate. 6. Result 3: Before multifactorial logistic regression, single factor related analysis was recommended to find the key factors and then main factors are included in multifactorial logistic regression. That will be more reasonable. Besides, IBS symptoms are key players in mental health, psychosomatic manifestations and quality of life. The effect of IBS symptoms on different questionnaires may be of interest. Different IBS symptoms and severity also need to be involved in multifactorial logistic regression. 7. Result 3: It was shown that "in patients with IBS alone, the WHO-5 well-being index and PSI well-being scores were independent predictors of having at least two of the DCPR-R syndromes; whereas in the overlapping syndromes patients, the PSSS score was an independent predictor." What is the exact meaning or value of this finding? It should be explained/clarified or it is a little bit confusing. 8. The discussion section is redundant. The first four paragraph need to be shortened and the key results should be presented at first. This part should highlight the advantages of the study and put emphasis on the clinical value of this research's findings. 9. This study's results are limited and over simple. Can you divide the patients according to other criteria (e.g. IBS subtypes#IBS course#IBS severity#different gender or age, sleep quality, etc) to carry out some subgroup analyses? I think that will enrich your findings and may help find other useful risk factors for DCPR-R syndromes.	BMC	12876_2025_3726_ReviewerReport_V1_R1.pdf	{ "criticism": 4, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 4, "materials_and_methods": 12, "praise": 2, "presentation_and_reporting": 9, "results_and_discussion": 11, "suggestion_and_solution": 14, "total": 36 }	{ "criticism": 0.1111111111111111, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0.1111111111111111, "materials_and_methods": 0.3333333333333333, "praise": 0.05555555555555555, "presentation_and_reporting": 0.25, "results_and_discussion": 0.3055555555555556, "suggestion_and_solution": 0.3888888888888889 }	1.555556	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: The Diagnostic Criteria for Psychosomatic Research-Revised (DCPR-R) in a National\nChina Multicenter Cohort of Patients with Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Overlapping\nGastroesophageal Reflux Disease\nVersion: 1 Date: 02 Apr 2024\nReviewer: Yurong Tang\nReviewer's report:\nThis work included 341 IBS patients of 20 comprehensive tertiary hospitals across China and\nemployed Diagnostic Criteria For Psychosomatic Research-Revised (DCPR-R) for evaluating\npsychosomatic symptoms. The sample is relatively big and representative for China and DCPR-\nR is a brand new and robust tool to measure individuals’ psychosomatic state, which is the bright\nspot of this research. However, some issues need to be addressed as below.\n1. If a phrase has been presented as an abbreviation mentioned above, the following same\nexpression can be dictated as the abbreviation#not the detailed phrase.\n2. There are some mistakes of singular and plural words as well as some improper English\nexpressions. Please check the whole manuscript carefully and polish the language by native\nEnglish speaker.\n3. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria: Did patients with overlapping GERD symptoms undergo\nendoscopy to exclude some esophagus or stomach diseases?\n4. Detailed results in Result 1 (Table1) and 2 (Table 2) need to be adjusted to some degree.\nGeneral characteristics should be presented in Result 1 and Comparison of DCPR-R is\nrecommended to put in Result 2, then the results will be more readable.\n5. Result 2: IBS subtype distribution and IBS severity score need to be added in Table 2. Are\nIBS subtype distribution and severity comparable/the same between two groups? As the above\nfactors may affect patients' psychosomatic symptoms and well-being and then make the results\ninaccurate.\n6. Result 3: Before multifactorial logistic regression, single factor related analysis was\nrecommended to find the key factors and then main factors are included in multifactorial\nlogistic regression. That will be more reasonable. Besides, IBS symptoms are key players in\nmental health, psychosomatic manifestations and quality of life. The effect of IBS symptoms on\ndifferent questionnaires may be of interest. Different IBS symptoms and severity also need to\nbe involved in multifactorial logistic regression.\n7. Result 3: It was shown that \"in patients with IBS alone, the WHO-5 well-being index and PSI\nwell-being scores were independent predictors of having at least two of the DCPR-R syndromes;\nwhereas in the overlapping syndromes patients, the PSSS score was an independent predictor.\"\nWhat is the exact meaning or value of this finding? It should be explained/clarified or it is a\nlittle bit confusing.\n8. The discussion section is redundant. The first four paragraph need to be shortened and the\nkey results should be presented at first. This part should highlight the advantages of the study\nand put emphasis on the clinical value of this research's findings.\n9. This study's results are limited and over simple. Can you divide the patients according to other\ncriteria (e.g. IBS subtypes#IBS course#IBS severity#different gender or age, sleep quality, etc)\nto carry out some subgroup analyses? I think that will enrich your findings and may help find\nother useful risk factors for DCPR-R syndromes.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03726-0	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: The Diagnostic Criteria for Psychosomatic Research-Revised (DCPR-R) in a National China Multicenter Cohort of Patients with Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Overlapping Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Version: 1 Date: 06 Oct 2024 Reviewer's report: To the authors, I have reviewed the article, but there are some aspects that need to be revised. In my opinion you should rephrase “simple IBS” (just IBS?). Please revise the manuscript, in order to be more accurate: Abstract, Results: “higher proportion of psychological disorders” “overlapping syndrome” (later in the article “overlapping syndromes”) Part of results are inserted in MATERIALS AND METHODS. In Discussion you inserted abbreviations that were already inserted (Introduction) and used throughout the manuscript. The paper should be reviewed/ edited by a professional proficiency in English in order to increase also the comprehensibility. Formatting should also be performed.	Title: The Diagnostic Criteria for Psychosomatic Research-Revised (DCPR-R) in a National China Multicenter Cohort of Patients with Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Overlapping Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Version: 1 Date: 06 Oct 2024 Reviewer's report: To the authors, I have reviewed the article, but there are some aspects that need to be revised. In my opinion you should rephrase “simple IBS” (just IBS?). Please revise the manuscript, in order to be more accurate: Abstract, Results: “higher proportion of psychological disorders” “overlapping syndrome” (later in the article “overlapping syndromes”) Part of results are inserted in MATERIALS AND METHODS. In Discussion you inserted abbreviations that were already inserted (Introduction) and used throughout the manuscript. The paper should be reviewed/ edited by a professional proficiency in English in order to increase also the comprehensibility. Formatting should also be performed.	BMC	12876_2025_3726_ReviewerReport_V1_R5.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 2, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 4, "results_and_discussion": 2, "suggestion_and_solution": 6, "total": 6 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 0.3333333333333333, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 0.6666666666666666, "results_and_discussion": 0.3333333333333333, "suggestion_and_solution": 1 }	2.333333	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: The Diagnostic Criteria for Psychosomatic Research-Revised (DCPR-R) in a National\nChina Multicenter Cohort of Patients with Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Overlapping\nGastroesophageal Reflux Disease\nVersion: 1 Date: 06 Oct 2024\nReviewer's report:\nTo the authors,\nI have reviewed the article, but there are some aspects that need to be revised.\nIn my opinion you should rephrase “simple IBS” (just IBS?). Please revise the manuscript, in\norder to be more accurate:\nAbstract, Results: “higher proportion of psychological disorders”\n“overlapping syndrome” (later in the article “overlapping syndromes”)\nPart of results are inserted in MATERIALS AND METHODS.\nIn Discussion you inserted abbreviations that were already inserted (Introduction) and used\nthroughout the manuscript.\nThe paper should be reviewed/ edited by a professional proficiency in English in order to increase\nalso the comprehensibility. Formatting should also be performed.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03726-0	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: The Diagnostic Criteria for Psychosomatic Research-Revised (DCPR-R) in a National China Multicenter Cohort of Patients with Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Overlapping Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Version: 1 Date: 20 Oct 2024 Reviewer: Ma#gorzata Anna Basi#ska Reviewer's report: -	Title: The Diagnostic Criteria for Psychosomatic Research-Revised (DCPR-R) in a National China Multicenter Cohort of Patients with Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Overlapping Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Version: 1 Date: 20 Oct 2024 Reviewer: Ma#gorzata Anna Basi#ska Reviewer's report: -	BMC	12876_2025_3726_ReviewerReport_V1_R6.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0, "total": 1 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0 }	1	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: The Diagnostic Criteria for Psychosomatic Research-Revised (DCPR-R) in a National\nChina Multicenter Cohort of Patients with Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Overlapping\nGastroesophageal Reflux Disease\nVersion: 1 Date: 20 Oct 2024\nReviewer: Ma#gorzata Anna Basi#ska\nReviewer's report:\n-", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03726-0	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: The Diagnostic Criteria for Psychosomatic Research-Revised (DCPR-R) in a National China Multicenter Cohort of Patients with Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Overlapping Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Version: 2 Date: 10 Nov 2024 Reviewer: Ma#gorzata Anna Basi#ska Reviewer's report: The corrections have been made and the tables are now legible.	Title: The Diagnostic Criteria for Psychosomatic Research-Revised (DCPR-R) in a National China Multicenter Cohort of Patients with Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Overlapping Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Version: 2 Date: 10 Nov 2024 Reviewer: Ma#gorzata Anna Basi#ska Reviewer's report: The corrections have been made and the tables are now legible.	BMC	12876_2025_3726_ReviewerReport_V2_R6.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0, "total": 1 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0 }	1	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: The Diagnostic Criteria for Psychosomatic Research-Revised (DCPR-R) in a National\nChina Multicenter Cohort of Patients with Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Overlapping\nGastroesophageal Reflux Disease\nVersion: 2 Date: 10 Nov 2024\nReviewer: Ma#gorzata Anna Basi#ska\nReviewer's report:\nThe corrections have been made and the tables are now legible.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03726-0	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: The Diagnostic Criteria for Psychosomatic Research-Revised (DCPR-R) in a National China Multicenter Cohort of Patients with Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Overlapping Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Version: 2 Date: 20 Jan 2025 Reviewer's report: This study analyzed the prevalence of DCPR-R psychosomatic syndrome in patients with IBS alone and IBS+GERD from 20 hospitals, as well as the correlation between DCPR-R and some other commonly used psychological assessment tools in clinical practice. Since I'm not an expert in the psychiatric/psychological field, from the perspective of a doctor who studies functional gastrointestinal disorders, I would like to make a few suggestions/ questions: 1.The hospitals in this study include: 9 hospitals in the eastern region, 2 hospitals in the northeast, 5 hospitals in the central region, and 4 hospitals in the western region. Have regional socio-economic and environmental differences been taken into account? Why not nationwide coverage? Why was the number of hospitals uneven across regions? 2.There was a difference in age between patients with IBS and IBS+GERD, and the following results suggested that age was a risk factor for DCRP-R>1 in patients with IBS only. It could be seen that age might be a confounding factor. Some statistical methods can be considered to make no significant difference in baseline information between groups and reduce the interference of confounding factors. 3.Is DCPR-R a widely accepted diagnostic criterion? There was no significant correlation between most of the currently commonly used assessment scales and DCPR-R (multivariate analysis in table 3 and 4), which one should be believed to be authoritative (DCPR-R or other scales)? Why did you choose this diagnostic criterion? 4.You said that this study explored the utility of DCPR-R in distinguishing psychosomatic symptoms in functional gastrointestinal disorders with comorbid syndromes. Were other functional disease phenotypes used to validate the suitability of the diagnostic tool (DCPR-R)?	Title: The Diagnostic Criteria for Psychosomatic Research-Revised (DCPR-R) in a National China Multicenter Cohort of Patients with Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Overlapping Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Version: 2 Date: 20 Jan 2025 Reviewer's report: This study analyzed the prevalence of DCPR-R psychosomatic syndrome in patients with IBS alone and IBS+GERD from 20 hospitals, as well as the correlation between DCPR-R and some other commonly used psychological assessment tools in clinical practice. Since I'm not an expert in the psychiatric/psychological field, from the perspective of a doctor who studies functional gastrointestinal disorders, I would like to make a few suggestions/ questions: 1.The hospitals in this study include: 9 hospitals in the eastern region, 2 hospitals in the northeast, 5 hospitals in the central region, and 4 hospitals in the western region. Have regional socio-economic and environmental differences been taken into account? Why not nationwide coverage? Why was the number of hospitals uneven across regions? 2.There was a difference in age between patients with IBS and IBS+GERD, and the following results suggested that age was a risk factor for DCRP-R>1 in patients with IBS only. It could be seen that age might be a confounding factor. Some statistical methods can be considered to make no significant difference in baseline information between groups and reduce the interference of confounding factors. 3.Is DCPR-R a widely accepted diagnostic criterion? There was no significant correlation between most of the currently commonly used assessment scales and DCPR-R (multivariate analysis in table 3 and 4), which one should be believed to be authoritative (DCPR-R or other scales)? Why did you choose this diagnostic criterion? 4.You said that this study explored the utility of DCPR-R in distinguishing psychosomatic symptoms in functional gastrointestinal disorders with comorbid syndromes. Were other functional disease phenotypes used to validate the suitability of the diagnostic tool (DCPR-R)?	BMC	12876_2025_3726_ReviewerReport_V2_R7.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 1, "materials_and_methods": 9, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 3, "suggestion_and_solution": 3, "total": 13 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0.07692307692307693, "materials_and_methods": 0.6923076923076923, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0.23076923076923078, "suggestion_and_solution": 0.23076923076923078 }	1.230769	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: The Diagnostic Criteria for Psychosomatic Research-Revised (DCPR-R) in a National\nChina Multicenter Cohort of Patients with Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Overlapping\nGastroesophageal Reflux Disease\nVersion: 2 Date: 20 Jan 2025\nReviewer's report:\nThis study analyzed the prevalence of DCPR-R psychosomatic syndrome in patients with IBS\nalone and IBS+GERD from 20 hospitals, as well as the correlation between DCPR-R and some\nother commonly used psychological assessment tools in clinical practice.\nSince I'm not an expert in the psychiatric/psychological field, from the perspective of a doctor\nwho studies functional gastrointestinal disorders, I would like to make a few suggestions/\nquestions:\n1.The hospitals in this study include: 9 hospitals in the eastern region, 2 hospitals in the\nnortheast, 5 hospitals in the central region, and 4 hospitals in the western region. Have regional\nsocio-economic and environmental differences been taken into account? Why not nationwide\ncoverage? Why was the number of hospitals uneven across regions?\n2.There was a difference in age between patients with IBS and IBS+GERD, and the following\nresults suggested that age was a risk factor for DCRP-R>1 in patients with IBS only. It could be\nseen that age might be a confounding factor. Some statistical methods can be considered to make\nno significant difference in baseline information between groups and reduce the interference of\nconfounding factors.\n3.Is DCPR-R a widely accepted diagnostic criterion? There was no significant correlation\nbetween most of the currently commonly used assessment scales and DCPR-R (multivariate\nanalysis in table 3 and 4), which one should be believed to be authoritative (DCPR-R or other\nscales)? Why did you choose this diagnostic criterion?\n4.You said that this study explored the utility of DCPR-R in distinguishing psychosomatic\nsymptoms in functional gastrointestinal disorders with comorbid syndromes. Were other\nfunctional disease phenotypes used to validate the suitability of the diagnostic tool (DCPR-R)?", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03699-0	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Prevalence of oral manifestations in coeliac disease and associated factors Version: 0 Date: 15 Oct 2024 Reviewer's report: The aim of this study was to investigate different oral manifestations in 873 adult celiac disease (CD). compared to 563 non CD controls, and individual factors predisposing to these manifestations . Enrolled patients and controls were interviewed and structured questionnaires were used to assess the severity of gastrointestinal symptoms and quality of life. Oral manifestations included dental enamel defects, recurrent aphthous ulceration and glossodynia. Potential individual factors associated with oral manifestations were investigated using logistic regression analysis. After data analysis, they found that: dental enamel defects were significantly more common in CD patients than in non-CD controls (27% vs. 4%, p<0.001). Prior to the CD diagnosis, 56% of the patients had experienced aphthous stomatitis (RAS) and GFD brought relief to 69% of them. While on GFD, CD patients had higher prevalence of RAS than controls (17% vs. 13%, p=0.040), but this significance disappeared after adjusting for gender. Glossodynia on GFD was more prevalent in the CD cohort than in the controls (14% vs 6%, p <0.001). Oral manifestations at diagnosis and on GFD were associated with the presence of abdominal symptoms at the time of CD diagnosis, long diagnostic delay and female gender. At the time of the study, patients with oral symptoms had more severe gastrointestinal symptoms and poorer quality of life than those without these symptoms. The authors concluded that oral manifestations were more prevalent, at diagnosis and on GFD, in patients with CD than in the controls, and they were associated with long diagnostic delay, abdominal symptoms, female gender and impaired quality of life. GFD is beneficial in relieving recurrent aphthous ulcerations. The study is of interest, however some issues should be addressed. -overall, 56% of the CD patients reported having had RAS prior to the CD diagnosis, vs no controls having RAS. How the authors could explain that in the comparison under GFD, CD patients had higher prevalence (17%) of RAS than controls (13% vs no patients at the time of enrollment). could this difference in the prevalente of RAS in controls due to interviewed and structured questionnaires limits? -previous studies on digestive mucosal damages in CD patients suggested a link between clinical manifestations/symtoms and severity of duodenal mucosal severity degree. In this regard, a pathogenetic hypothesis explaining RAS occurrence in CD patients might be linked to immune.medianted mucosal damage since it has been previously demonstrated that a significant rate of CD patients with severe mucosal damage (villous atrophy) develop serum anti-actin IgA antibodies, as previously demonstrated (Clin Exp Immunol. 2004;137(2):386-92. doi: 10.1111/ j.1365-2249.2004.02541.x.). Could the Authors describe whether CD patients with RAS had a more severe intestinal mucosal damage? If confirmed this association, it would be of interest to investigate whether CD patients with anti-actin antibodies have a higher prevalence of RAS and other oral manifestations. -Glossodynia: the authors found that psychiatric disorders were more prevalent among patients with glossodynia. Could the authors describe any mucosal/local inflammatory change observed (if any)? -patients with persistent RAS under GFD: it could be a clue for a suboptimal GFD compliance? Have this CD patients group other CD-related symptoms? -As reported in table 2, taking into account factors associated with dental enamel defects and RAS at diagnosis in CD patients, there were 43 asymptomatic patients. How they were diagnosed? previous report describe in CD "apparently" asymtpoamtic patients othe digestive CD-related manifestations, in particular hypertransaminasemia of unknown origin that may characterize CD patients who do not complain any gastrointestinal symptom and resolve after GFD as previously described (Dig Liver Dis. 2001;33(5):420-5. doi: 10.1016/ s1590-8658(01)80014-1. ).	Title: Prevalence of oral manifestations in coeliac disease and associated factors Version: 0 Date: 15 Oct 2024 Reviewer's report: The aim of this study was to investigate different oral manifestations in 873 adult celiac disease (CD). compared to 563 non CD controls, and individual factors predisposing to these manifestations . Enrolled patients and controls were interviewed and structured questionnaires were used to assess the severity of gastrointestinal symptoms and quality of life. Oral manifestations included dental enamel defects, recurrent aphthous ulceration and glossodynia. Potential individual factors associated with oral manifestations were investigated using logistic regression analysis. After data analysis, they found that: dental enamel defects were significantly more common in CD patients than in non-CD controls (27% vs. 4%, p<0.001). Prior to the CD diagnosis, 56% of the patients had experienced aphthous stomatitis (RAS) and GFD brought relief to 69% of them. While on GFD, CD patients had higher prevalence of RAS than controls (17% vs. 13%, p=0.040), but this significance disappeared after adjusting for gender. Glossodynia on GFD was more prevalent in the CD cohort than in the controls (14% vs 6%, p <0.001). Oral manifestations at diagnosis and on GFD were associated with the presence of abdominal symptoms at the time of CD diagnosis, long diagnostic delay and female gender. At the time of the study, patients with oral symptoms had more severe gastrointestinal symptoms and poorer quality of life than those without these symptoms. The authors concluded that oral manifestations were more prevalent, at diagnosis and on GFD, in patients with CD than in the controls, and they were associated with long diagnostic delay, abdominal symptoms, female gender and impaired quality of life. GFD is beneficial in relieving recurrent aphthous ulcerations. The study is of interest, however some issues should be addressed. -overall, 56% of the CD patients reported having had RAS prior to the CD diagnosis, vs no controls having RAS. How the authors could explain that in the comparison under GFD, CD patients had higher prevalence (17%) of RAS than controls (13% vs no patients at the time of enrollment). could this difference in the prevalente of RAS in controls due to interviewed and structured questionnaires limits? -previous studies on digestive mucosal damages in CD patients suggested a link between clinical manifestations/symtoms and severity of duodenal mucosal severity degree. In this regard, a pathogenetic hypothesis explaining RAS occurrence in CD patients might be linked to immune.medianted mucosal damage since it has been previously demonstrated that a significant rate of CD patients with severe mucosal damage (villous atrophy) develop serum anti-actin IgA antibodies, as previously demonstrated (Clin Exp Immunol. 2004;137(2):386-92. doi: 10.1111/ j.1365-2249.2004.02541.x.). Could the Authors describe whether CD patients with RAS had a more severe intestinal mucosal damage? If confirmed this association, it would be of interest to investigate whether CD patients with anti-actin antibodies have a higher prevalence of RAS and other oral manifestations. -Glossodynia: the authors found that psychiatric disorders were more prevalent among patients with glossodynia. Could the authors describe any mucosal/local inflammatory change observed (if any)? -patients with persistent RAS under GFD: it could be a clue for a suboptimal GFD compliance? Have this CD patients group other CD-related symptoms? -As reported in table 2, taking into account factors associated with dental enamel defects and RAS at diagnosis in CD patients, there were 43 asymptomatic patients. How they were diagnosed? previous report describe in CD "apparently" asymtpoamtic patients othe digestive CD-related manifestations, in particular hypertransaminasemia of unknown origin that may characterize CD patients who do not complain any gastrointestinal symptom and resolve after GFD as previously described (Dig Liver Dis. 2001;33(5):420-5. doi: 10.1016/ s1590-8658(01)80014-1. ).	BMC	12876_2025_3699_ReviewerReport_V0_R3.pdf	{ "criticism": 1, "example": 1, "importance_and_relevance": 2, "materials_and_methods": 16, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 1, "suggestion_and_solution": 2, "total": 31 }	{ "criticism": 0.03225806451612903, "example": 0.03225806451612903, "importance_and_relevance": 0.06451612903225806, "materials_and_methods": 0.5161290322580645, "praise": 0.03225806451612903, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0.03225806451612903, "suggestion_and_solution": 0.06451612903225806 }	0.774194	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Prevalence of oral manifestations in coeliac disease and associated factors\nVersion: 0 Date: 15 Oct 2024\nReviewer's report:\nThe aim of this study was to investigate different oral manifestations in 873 adult celiac\ndisease (CD). compared to 563 non CD controls, and individual factors predisposing to these\nmanifestations . Enrolled patients and controls were interviewed and structured questionnaires\nwere used to assess the severity of gastrointestinal symptoms and quality of life. Oral\nmanifestations included dental enamel defects, recurrent aphthous ulceration and glossodynia.\nPotential individual factors associated with oral manifestations were investigated using logistic\nregression analysis. After data analysis, they found that: dental enamel defects were significantly\nmore common in CD patients than in non-CD controls (27% vs. 4%, p<0.001). Prior to the\nCD diagnosis, 56% of the patients had experienced aphthous stomatitis (RAS) and GFD\nbrought relief to 69% of them. While on GFD, CD patients had higher prevalence of RAS than\ncontrols (17% vs. 13%, p=0.040), but this significance disappeared after adjusting for gender.\nGlossodynia on GFD was more prevalent in the CD cohort than in the controls (14% vs 6%,\np <0.001). Oral manifestations at diagnosis and on GFD were associated with the presence of\nabdominal symptoms at the time of CD diagnosis, long diagnostic delay and female gender. At\nthe time of the study, patients with oral symptoms had more severe gastrointestinal symptoms\nand poorer quality of life than those without these symptoms. The authors concluded that oral\nmanifestations were more prevalent, at diagnosis and on GFD, in patients with CD than in the\ncontrols, and they were associated with long diagnostic delay, abdominal symptoms, female\ngender and impaired quality of life. GFD is beneficial in relieving recurrent aphthous ulcerations.\nThe study is of interest, however some issues should be addressed.\n-overall, 56% of the CD patients reported having had RAS prior to the CD diagnosis, vs no\ncontrols having RAS. How the authors could explain that in the comparison under GFD, CD\npatients had higher prevalence (17%) of RAS than controls (13% vs no patients at the time of\nenrollment). could this difference in the prevalente of RAS in controls due to interviewed and\nstructured questionnaires limits?\n-previous studies on digestive mucosal damages in CD patients suggested a link between\nclinical manifestations/symtoms and severity of duodenal mucosal severity degree. In this\nregard, a pathogenetic hypothesis explaining RAS occurrence in CD patients might be linked to\nimmune.medianted mucosal damage since it has been previously demonstrated that a significant\nrate of CD patients with severe mucosal damage (villous atrophy) develop serum anti-actin IgA\nantibodies, as previously demonstrated (Clin Exp Immunol. 2004;137(2):386-92. doi: 10.1111/\nj.1365-2249.2004.02541.x.). Could the Authors describe whether CD patients with RAS had a\nmore severe intestinal mucosal damage? If confirmed this association, it would be of interest\nto investigate whether CD patients with anti-actin antibodies have a higher prevalence of RAS\nand other oral manifestations.\n-Glossodynia: the authors found that psychiatric disorders were more prevalent among patients\nwith glossodynia. Could the authors describe any mucosal/local inflammatory change observed\n(if any)?\n-patients with persistent RAS under GFD: it could be a clue for a suboptimal GFD compliance?\nHave this CD patients group other CD-related symptoms?\n-As reported in table 2, taking into account factors associated with dental enamel defects\nand RAS at diagnosis in CD patients, there were 43 asymptomatic patients. How they\nwere diagnosed? previous report describe in CD \"apparently\" asymtpoamtic patients othe\ndigestive CD-related manifestations, in particular hypertransaminasemia of unknown origin\nthat may characterize CD patients who do not complain any gastrointestinal symptom and\nresolve after GFD as previously described (Dig Liver Dis. 2001;33(5):420-5. doi: 10.1016/\ns1590-8658(01)80014-1. ).", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03699-0	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Prevalence of oral manifestations in coeliac disease and associated factors Version: 0 Date: 19 Nov 2024 Reviewer's report: Oral manifestations such as dental enamel defects, aphthous ulceration and glossodynia were analyzed in a large cohort of celiac disease patients compared with controls considering potential individual factors. Dental enamel defects resulted significantly more prevalent in CD patients than in controls (27% and 4%, respectively). GFD brought relief to 69% of CD patients experiencing those manifestations prior to the CD diagnosis. Interestingly and less reported in previous studies, glossodynia on GFD was more prevalent in the CD cohort than in the controls (14% and 6%, respectively). The authors found also that oral manifestations were associated with abdominal symptoms at CD diagnosis, longer diagnostic delay and gender (female). Comments: -previous studies on oral manifestations raised the the potential causative role of nutritional deficiency of iron and vitamins. Could the authors report data on vitamin B12, iron and folate serum levels of CD patients? -Other literature studies have suggested a correlation between malabsorption and digestive symptoms with degree of intestinal lesion (Marsh score) and or an immuno-mediated pathogenesis revealed by the correlation between anti-tTG IgA serum titers as well as other IgA autoantibodies. Could authors provide such a analysis and discuss this pathogenetic hypothesis? -It is not clear to this referee how the compliance to GFD was assessed (if assessed). A suboptimal compliance could explain, at least in part, the occurrence of oral manifestation after starting GFD. In this regard, an important information worth mentioning, is the association between anti-tTG IgA serum titers at diagnosis and after GFD initiation. Moreover, the authors stated that "Family members of the enrolled patients were also recruited and screened for coeliac disease using serum endomysial and tissue transglutaminase antibodies tests as a part of the original study in 2006–2010". It would be of major rllevance to describe the assay used at that time since the specificity of first-generation anti-tTG IgA assays based on guinea pig transglutimanse is lower than following assays based on recombinant human tTG as previously demonstrated (The role of antitissue transglutaminase assay for the diagnosis and monitoring of coeliac disease: a French-Italian multicentre study. J Clin Pathol. 2003 May;56(5):389-93. doi: 10.1136/jcp.56.5.389. ). This important point should be clarified and discussed when a comparison with previous literature studies are added..	Title: Prevalence of oral manifestations in coeliac disease and associated factors Version: 0 Date: 19 Nov 2024 Reviewer's report: Oral manifestations such as dental enamel defects, aphthous ulceration and glossodynia were analyzed in a large cohort of celiac disease patients compared with controls considering potential individual factors. Dental enamel defects resulted significantly more prevalent in CD patients than in controls (27% and 4%, respectively). GFD brought relief to 69% of CD patients experiencing those manifestations prior to the CD diagnosis. Interestingly and less reported in previous studies, glossodynia on GFD was more prevalent in the CD cohort than in the controls (14% and 6%, respectively). The authors found also that oral manifestations were associated with abdominal symptoms at CD diagnosis, longer diagnostic delay and gender (female). Comments: -previous studies on oral manifestations raised the the potential causative role of nutritional deficiency of iron and vitamins. Could the authors report data on vitamin B12, iron and folate serum levels of CD patients? -Other literature studies have suggested a correlation between malabsorption and digestive symptoms with degree of intestinal lesion (Marsh score) and or an immuno-mediated pathogenesis revealed by the correlation between anti-tTG IgA serum titers as well as other IgA autoantibodies. Could authors provide such a analysis and discuss this pathogenetic hypothesis? -It is not clear to this referee how the compliance to GFD was assessed (if assessed). A suboptimal compliance could explain, at least in part, the occurrence of oral manifestation after starting GFD. In this regard, an important information worth mentioning, is the association between anti-tTG IgA serum titers at diagnosis and after GFD initiation. Moreover, the authors stated that "Family members of the enrolled patients were also recruited and screened for coeliac disease using serum endomysial and tissue transglutaminase antibodies tests as a part of the original study in 2006–2010". It would be of major rllevance to describe the assay used at that time since the specificity of first-generation anti-tTG IgA assays based on guinea pig transglutimanse is lower than following assays based on recombinant human tTG as previously demonstrated (The role of antitissue transglutaminase assay for the diagnosis and monitoring of coeliac disease: a French-Italian multicentre study. J Clin Pathol. 2003 May;56(5):389-93. doi: 10.1136/jcp.56.5.389. ). This important point should be clarified and discussed when a comparison with previous literature studies are added..	BMC	12876_2025_3699_ReviewerReport_V0_R2.pdf	{ "criticism": 1, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 1, "materials_and_methods": 9, "praise": 2, "presentation_and_reporting": 2, "results_and_discussion": 1, "suggestion_and_solution": 4, "total": 18 }	{ "criticism": 0.05555555555555555, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0.05555555555555555, "materials_and_methods": 0.5, "praise": 0.1111111111111111, "presentation_and_reporting": 0.1111111111111111, "results_and_discussion": 0.05555555555555555, "suggestion_and_solution": 0.2222222222222222 }	1.111111	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Prevalence of oral manifestations in coeliac disease and associated factors\nVersion: 0 Date: 19 Nov 2024\nReviewer's report:\nOral manifestations such as dental enamel defects, aphthous ulceration and glossodynia were\nanalyzed in a large cohort of celiac disease patients compared with controls considering potential\nindividual factors. Dental enamel defects resulted significantly more prevalent in CD patients\nthan in controls (27% and 4%, respectively). GFD brought relief to 69% of CD patients\nexperiencing those manifestations prior to the CD diagnosis. Interestingly and less reported in\nprevious studies, glossodynia on GFD was more prevalent in the CD cohort than in the controls\n(14% and 6%, respectively).\nThe authors found also that oral manifestations were associated with abdominal symptoms at\nCD diagnosis, longer diagnostic delay and gender (female).\nComments:\n-previous studies on oral manifestations raised the the potential causative role of nutritional\ndeficiency of iron and vitamins. Could the authors report data on vitamin B12, iron and folate\nserum levels of CD patients?\n-Other literature studies have suggested a correlation between malabsorption and digestive\nsymptoms with degree of intestinal lesion (Marsh score) and or an immuno-mediated\npathogenesis revealed by the correlation between anti-tTG IgA serum titers as well as other IgA\nautoantibodies. Could authors provide such a analysis and discuss this pathogenetic hypothesis?\n-It is not clear to this referee how the compliance to GFD was assessed (if assessed). A\nsuboptimal compliance could explain, at least in part, the occurrence of oral manifestation after\nstarting GFD. In this regard, an important information worth mentioning, is the association\nbetween anti-tTG IgA serum titers at diagnosis and after GFD initiation. Moreover, the authors\nstated that \"Family members of the enrolled patients were also recruited and screened for coeliac\ndisease using serum endomysial and tissue transglutaminase antibodies tests as a part of the\noriginal study in 2006–2010\". It would be of major rllevance to describe the assay used at\nthat time since the specificity of first-generation anti-tTG IgA assays based on guinea pig\ntransglutimanse is lower than following assays based on recombinant human tTG as previously\ndemonstrated (The role of antitissue transglutaminase assay for the diagnosis and monitoring\nof coeliac disease: a French-Italian multicentre study. J Clin Pathol. 2003 May;56(5):389-93.\ndoi: 10.1136/jcp.56.5.389. ). This important point should be clarified and discussed when a\ncomparison with previous literature studies are added..", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03699-0	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Prevalence of oral manifestations in coeliac disease and associated factors Version: 1 Date: 21 Dec 2024 Reviewer's report: The revised manuscript is now improved as suggested.	Title: Prevalence of oral manifestations in coeliac disease and associated factors Version: 1 Date: 21 Dec 2024 Reviewer's report: The revised manuscript is now improved as suggested.	BMC	12876_2025_3699_ReviewerReport_V1_R2.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 0, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 1, "total": 1 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 0, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 1 }	1	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Prevalence of oral manifestations in coeliac disease and associated factors\nVersion: 1 Date: 21 Dec 2024\nReviewer's report:\nThe revised manuscript is now improved as suggested.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03699-0	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Prevalence of oral manifestations in coeliac disease and associated factors Version: 1 Date: 19 Jan 2025 Reviewer's report: The revised manuscript provided the requested informations and changes.	Title: Prevalence of oral manifestations in coeliac disease and associated factors Version: 1 Date: 19 Jan 2025 Reviewer's report: The revised manuscript provided the requested informations and changes.	BMC	12876_2025_3699_ReviewerReport_V1_R3.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 0, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 1, "total": 1 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 0, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 1 }	1	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Prevalence of oral manifestations in coeliac disease and associated factors\nVersion: 1 Date: 19 Jan 2025\nReviewer's report:\nThe revised manuscript provided the requested informations and changes.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03648-x	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Preoperative Optimization Strategy Management Model Applied in Gallbladder Surgery Version: 2 Date: 01 Dec 2024 Reviewer: Mohamed H. Zidan Reviewer's report: Dear Authors, Re: Preoperative Optimization Strategy Management Model Applied in Gallbladder Surgery I have reviewed your manuscript with interest, particularly due to its innovative approach. I commend the authors for their creative conceptualization and application of this strategy. However, I would like to raise several points for your consideration that warrant correction, and I prefer to structure my feedback according to the content organization. Firstly, the abstract is extensive and could benefit from conciseness without sacrificing coherence. Lengthy abstracts can reflect a poor command of the English language and may deter readers. Secondly, the background section lacks clarity regarding the study’s objective and methodology. I found it necessary to invest time in discerning the specific type of article presented. I recommend incorporating a succinct paragraph that clearly defines the aim and methodology. Furthermore, the inclusion of a literature search within the methodology section appears to create confusion. Given that this is an original research article, the mention of a literature search may mislead readers into interpreting the manuscript as a review article. It is advisable to incorporate findings from the literature search in the discussion section, with appropriate references, as well-regarded authors typically conduct literature reviews to enhance their discussions without explicitly stating their literature search. Additionally, the use of bullet points detracts from the overall reading experience. I suggest rephrasing the inclusion and exclusion criteria, as well as points presented throughout the article, into cohesive paragraphs to enhance clarity and coherence. The methodology section is excessively lengthy and, while descriptive, may obscure the primary objective of your research. It is important to present the methodology clearly and concisely to ensure that readers grasp the essential elements without unnecessary complexity. Moreover, I have identified a significant limitation pertaining to the unequal distribution of subjects in both groups. While this is not uncommon in research, I recommend employing propensity score matching to bolster the validity of your findings, along with appropriate sample size measurements. Finally, it is critical to address the surgical outcomes related to the preoperative optimization strategy. The manuscript currently lacks data on surgical outcomes, including instances of bleeding and bile duct injuries. Providing this information is essential to evaluate whether pre- admission factors may impose limitations on patient assessment. I look forward to reviewing your revised manuscript. Sincerely, MZ	Title: Preoperative Optimization Strategy Management Model Applied in Gallbladder Surgery Version: 2 Date: 01 Dec 2024 Reviewer: Mohamed H. Zidan Reviewer's report: Dear Authors, Re: Preoperative Optimization Strategy Management Model Applied in Gallbladder Surgery I have reviewed your manuscript with interest, particularly due to its innovative approach. I commend the authors for their creative conceptualization and application of this strategy. However, I would like to raise several points for your consideration that warrant correction, and I prefer to structure my feedback according to the content organization. Firstly, the abstract is extensive and could benefit from conciseness without sacrificing coherence. Lengthy abstracts can reflect a poor command of the English language and may deter readers. Secondly, the background section lacks clarity regarding the study’s objective and methodology. I found it necessary to invest time in discerning the specific type of article presented. I recommend incorporating a succinct paragraph that clearly defines the aim and methodology. Furthermore, the inclusion of a literature search within the methodology section appears to create confusion. Given that this is an original research article, the mention of a literature search may mislead readers into interpreting the manuscript as a review article. It is advisable to incorporate findings from the literature search in the discussion section, with appropriate references, as well-regarded authors typically conduct literature reviews to enhance their discussions without explicitly stating their literature search. Additionally, the use of bullet points detracts from the overall reading experience. I suggest rephrasing the inclusion and exclusion criteria, as well as points presented throughout the article, into cohesive paragraphs to enhance clarity and coherence. The methodology section is excessively lengthy and, while descriptive, may obscure the primary objective of your research. It is important to present the methodology clearly and concisely to ensure that readers grasp the essential elements without unnecessary complexity. Moreover, I have identified a significant limitation pertaining to the unequal distribution of subjects in both groups. While this is not uncommon in research, I recommend employing propensity score matching to bolster the validity of your findings, along with appropriate sample size measurements. Finally, it is critical to address the surgical outcomes related to the preoperative optimization strategy. The manuscript currently lacks data on surgical outcomes, including instances of bleeding and bile duct injuries. Providing this information is essential to evaluate whether pre- admission factors may impose limitations on patient assessment. I look forward to reviewing your revised manuscript. Sincerely, MZ	BMC	12876_2025_3648_ReviewerReport_V2_R2.pdf	{ "criticism": 5, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 2, "materials_and_methods": 13, "praise": 5, "presentation_and_reporting": 8, "results_and_discussion": 2, "suggestion_and_solution": 7, "total": 22 }	{ "criticism": 0.22727272727272727, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0.09090909090909091, "materials_and_methods": 0.5909090909090909, "praise": 0.22727272727272727, "presentation_and_reporting": 0.36363636363636365, "results_and_discussion": 0.09090909090909091, "suggestion_and_solution": 0.3181818181818182 }	1.909091	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Preoperative Optimization Strategy Management Model Applied in Gallbladder Surgery\nVersion: 2 Date: 01 Dec 2024\nReviewer: Mohamed H. Zidan\nReviewer's report:\nDear Authors,\nRe: Preoperative Optimization Strategy Management Model Applied in Gallbladder Surgery\nI have reviewed your manuscript with interest, particularly due to its innovative approach.\nI commend the authors for their creative conceptualization and application of this strategy.\nHowever, I would like to raise several points for your consideration that warrant correction, and\nI prefer to structure my feedback according to the content organization.\nFirstly, the abstract is extensive and could benefit from conciseness without sacrificing\ncoherence. Lengthy abstracts can reflect a poor command of the English language and may deter\nreaders.\nSecondly, the background section lacks clarity regarding the study’s objective and methodology.\nI found it necessary to invest time in discerning the specific type of article presented. I\nrecommend incorporating a succinct paragraph that clearly defines the aim and methodology.\nFurthermore, the inclusion of a literature search within the methodology section appears to create\nconfusion. Given that this is an original research article, the mention of a literature search may\nmislead readers into interpreting the manuscript as a review article. It is advisable to incorporate\nfindings from the literature search in the discussion section, with appropriate references, as\nwell-regarded authors typically conduct literature reviews to enhance their discussions without\nexplicitly stating their literature search.\nAdditionally, the use of bullet points detracts from the overall reading experience. I suggest\nrephrasing the inclusion and exclusion criteria, as well as points presented throughout the article,\ninto cohesive paragraphs to enhance clarity and coherence.\nThe methodology section is excessively lengthy and, while descriptive, may obscure the primary\nobjective of your research. It is important to present the methodology clearly and concisely to\nensure that readers grasp the essential elements without unnecessary complexity.\nMoreover, I have identified a significant limitation pertaining to the unequal distribution of\nsubjects in both groups. While this is not uncommon in research, I recommend employing\npropensity score matching to bolster the validity of your findings, along with appropriate sample\nsize measurements.\nFinally, it is critical to address the surgical outcomes related to the preoperative optimization\nstrategy. The manuscript currently lacks data on surgical outcomes, including instances of\nbleeding and bile duct injuries. Providing this information is essential to evaluate whether pre-\nadmission factors may impose limitations on patient assessment.\nI look forward to reviewing your revised manuscript.\nSincerely,\nMZ", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03648-x	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Preoperative Optimization Strategy Management Model Applied in Gallbladder Surgery Version: 2 Date: 03 Dec 2024 Reviewer: Bora Barut Reviewer's report: I think this study will contribute to the scientific literature.	Title: Preoperative Optimization Strategy Management Model Applied in Gallbladder Surgery Version: 2 Date: 03 Dec 2024 Reviewer: Bora Barut Reviewer's report: I think this study will contribute to the scientific literature.	BMC	12876_2025_3648_ReviewerReport_V2_R4.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 1, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0, "total": 1 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 1, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0 }	2	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Preoperative Optimization Strategy Management Model Applied in Gallbladder Surgery\nVersion: 2 Date: 03 Dec 2024\nReviewer: Bora Barut\nReviewer's report:\nI think this study will contribute to the scientific literature.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03648-x	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Preoperative Optimization Strategy Management Model Applied in Gallbladder Surgery Version: 2 Date: 06 Dec 2024 Reviewer's report: - Interesting concept and viewpoint, well structure study and analysis - Interchangeability of regular and general admission terms may seem to confuse readers, better to be uniform throughout the manuscript - How do you explain the higher age population in the general hospitalization group which seems to significantly affect length of stay and postoperative recovery time - Better definition of when these surgeries were performed - elective cases or emergency cases since cholecystectomy done during same admission to acute cholecystitis will have higher length of stay and costs. - Explanation to significant difference among preoperative preparation time with and without underlying diseases at pre-hospitalization since no difference is noted in median and range values. - A table depicting the <65 years and >65 years in the general/regular admission group will also be interesting to look at. - An extrapolated thought and topic for further research will be the influence of distance to care being significant factor affecting both groups with people from farther distances prefer being admitted rather than going the pre-hospitalization route. Similar to effect of area deprivation index (ADI) on outcomes of care in US.	Title: Preoperative Optimization Strategy Management Model Applied in Gallbladder Surgery Version: 2 Date: 06 Dec 2024 Reviewer's report: - Interesting concept and viewpoint, well structure study and analysis - Interchangeability of regular and general admission terms may seem to confuse readers, better to be uniform throughout the manuscript - How do you explain the higher age population in the general hospitalization group which seems to significantly affect length of stay and postoperative recovery time - Better definition of when these surgeries were performed - elective cases or emergency cases since cholecystectomy done during same admission to acute cholecystitis will have higher length of stay and costs. - Explanation to significant difference among preoperative preparation time with and without underlying diseases at pre-hospitalization since no difference is noted in median and range values. - A table depicting the <65 years and >65 years in the general/regular admission group will also be interesting to look at. - An extrapolated thought and topic for further research will be the influence of distance to care being significant factor affecting both groups with people from farther distances prefer being admitted rather than going the pre-hospitalization route. Similar to effect of area deprivation index (ADI) on outcomes of care in US.	BMC	12876_2025_3648_ReviewerReport_V2_R1.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 2, "materials_and_methods": 4, "praise": 2, "presentation_and_reporting": 2, "results_and_discussion": 1, "suggestion_and_solution": 2, "total": 5 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0.4, "materials_and_methods": 0.8, "praise": 0.4, "presentation_and_reporting": 0.4, "results_and_discussion": 0.2, "suggestion_and_solution": 0.4 }	2.6	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Preoperative Optimization Strategy Management Model Applied in Gallbladder Surgery\nVersion: 2 Date: 06 Dec 2024\nReviewer's report:\n- Interesting concept and viewpoint, well structure study and analysis\n- Interchangeability of regular and general admission terms may seem to confuse readers, better\nto be uniform throughout the manuscript\n- How do you explain the higher age population in the general hospitalization group which seems\nto significantly affect length of stay and postoperative recovery time\n- Better definition of when these surgeries were performed - elective cases or emergency cases\nsince cholecystectomy done during same admission to acute cholecystitis will have higher length\nof stay and costs.\n- Explanation to significant difference among preoperative preparation time with and without\nunderlying diseases at pre-hospitalization since no difference is noted in median and range\nvalues.\n- A table depicting the <65 years and >65 years in the general/regular admission group will also\nbe interesting to look at.\n- An extrapolated thought and topic for further research will be the influence of distance to care\nbeing significant factor affecting both groups with people from farther distances prefer being\nadmitted rather than going the pre-hospitalization route. Similar to effect of area deprivation\nindex (ADI) on outcomes of care in US.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03648-x	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Preoperative Optimization Strategy Management Model Applied in Gallbladder Surgery Version: 2 Date: 07 Dec 2024 Reviewer's report: Accepted	Title: Preoperative Optimization Strategy Management Model Applied in Gallbladder Surgery Version: 2 Date: 07 Dec 2024 Reviewer's report: Accepted	BMC	12876_2025_3648_ReviewerReport_V2_R7.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0, "total": 1 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0 }	1	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Preoperative Optimization Strategy Management Model Applied in Gallbladder Surgery\nVersion: 2 Date: 07 Dec 2024\nReviewer's report:\nAccepted", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03648-x	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Preoperative Optimization Strategy Management Model Applied in Gallbladder Surgery Version: 2 Date: 09 Dec 2024 Reviewer: Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr Reviewer's report: Dear Authors, please address the following points below -The background addresses challenges in developing countries, such as doctor-patient communication, process management, and informatization. However, these challenges are not fully elaborated upon. It would be beneficial to expand on these issues and explain how the model addresses them, particularly in healthcare settings that may lack the same resources or infrastructure found in developed countries. -While the pre-admission management model is introduced, the specific components and processes involved in the "optimized" model are not thoroughly explained. For instance, how are virtual beds managed, and what specific tools (such as IT systems and communication platforms) are used to coordinate this process? Providing further details on how the virtual and physical components interact would help readers comprehend the practical aspects of implementation. -Although the inclusion and exclusion criteria are presented, additional information on the cluster sampling methodology would be helpful. For example, how were the two patient groups (ordinary inpatients and pre-inpatients) selected? Were they matched based on key demographic and clinical factors such as age, comorbidities, and type of surgery? Matching is essential to ensure that any observed differences in outcomes are due to the pre-admission process rather than confounding variables. -While the statistical methods utilized are appropriate, it would be useful to mention how confounding variables were controlled for in the analysis. For example, if there were significant age differences between the groups, did the analysis account for this when comparing outcomes? A more detailed explanation of the methods used to control for potential confounders would strengthen the study’s conclusions. -Although age and underlying conditions are cited as factors affecting hospitalization outcomes, the study does not provide an in-depth analysis of other potential confounders, such as socioeconomic status, hospital-specific factors (e.g., bed capacity), or surgical complications. A more robust multivariate analysis that includes these factors could yield a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of the pre-admission management model. -What specific strategies were implemented to support elderly patients in this process, and how might these strategies be optimized? Moreover, what specific reasons led to the decision of 26 patients to opt out, and how can the model be improved to accommodate those who face challenges with technology or communication?	Title: Preoperative Optimization Strategy Management Model Applied in Gallbladder Surgery Version: 2 Date: 09 Dec 2024 Reviewer: Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr Reviewer's report: Dear Authors, please address the following points below -The background addresses challenges in developing countries, such as doctor-patient communication, process management, and informatization. However, these challenges are not fully elaborated upon. It would be beneficial to expand on these issues and explain how the model addresses them, particularly in healthcare settings that may lack the same resources or infrastructure found in developed countries. -While the pre-admission management model is introduced, the specific components and processes involved in the "optimized" model are not thoroughly explained. For instance, how are virtual beds managed, and what specific tools (such as IT systems and communication platforms) are used to coordinate this process? Providing further details on how the virtual and physical components interact would help readers comprehend the practical aspects of implementation. -Although the inclusion and exclusion criteria are presented, additional information on the cluster sampling methodology would be helpful. For example, how were the two patient groups (ordinary inpatients and pre-inpatients) selected? Were they matched based on key demographic and clinical factors such as age, comorbidities, and type of surgery? Matching is essential to ensure that any observed differences in outcomes are due to the pre-admission process rather than confounding variables. -While the statistical methods utilized are appropriate, it would be useful to mention how confounding variables were controlled for in the analysis. For example, if there were significant age differences between the groups, did the analysis account for this when comparing outcomes? A more detailed explanation of the methods used to control for potential confounders would strengthen the study’s conclusions. -Although age and underlying conditions are cited as factors affecting hospitalization outcomes, the study does not provide an in-depth analysis of other potential confounders, such as socioeconomic status, hospital-specific factors (e.g., bed capacity), or surgical complications. A more robust multivariate analysis that includes these factors could yield a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of the pre-admission management model. -What specific strategies were implemented to support elderly patients in this process, and how might these strategies be optimized? Moreover, what specific reasons led to the decision of 26 patients to opt out, and how can the model be improved to accommodate those who face challenges with technology or communication?	BMC	12876_2025_3648_ReviewerReport_V2_R8.pdf	{ "criticism": 3, "example": 1, "importance_and_relevance": 3, "materials_and_methods": 16, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 4, "results_and_discussion": 4, "suggestion_and_solution": 8, "total": 17 }	{ "criticism": 0.17647058823529413, "example": 0.058823529411764705, "importance_and_relevance": 0.17647058823529413, "materials_and_methods": 0.9411764705882353, "praise": 0.058823529411764705, "presentation_and_reporting": 0.23529411764705882, "results_and_discussion": 0.23529411764705882, "suggestion_and_solution": 0.47058823529411764 }	2.352941	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Preoperative Optimization Strategy Management Model Applied in Gallbladder Surgery\nVersion: 2 Date: 09 Dec 2024\nReviewer: Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr\nReviewer's report:\nDear Authors, please address the following points below\n-The background addresses challenges in developing countries, such as doctor-patient\ncommunication, process management, and informatization. However, these challenges are not\nfully elaborated upon. It would be beneficial to expand on these issues and explain how the\nmodel addresses them, particularly in healthcare settings that may lack the same resources or\ninfrastructure found in developed countries.\n-While the pre-admission management model is introduced, the specific components and\nprocesses involved in the \"optimized\" model are not thoroughly explained. For instance, how are\nvirtual beds managed, and what specific tools (such as IT systems and communication platforms)\nare used to coordinate this process? Providing further details on how the virtual and physical\ncomponents interact would help readers comprehend the practical aspects of implementation.\n-Although the inclusion and exclusion criteria are presented, additional information on the\ncluster sampling methodology would be helpful. For example, how were the two patient groups\n(ordinary inpatients and pre-inpatients) selected? Were they matched based on key demographic\nand clinical factors such as age, comorbidities, and type of surgery? Matching is essential to\nensure that any observed differences in outcomes are due to the pre-admission process rather\nthan confounding variables.\n-While the statistical methods utilized are appropriate, it would be useful to mention how\nconfounding variables were controlled for in the analysis. For example, if there were significant\nage differences between the groups, did the analysis account for this when comparing outcomes?\nA more detailed explanation of the methods used to control for potential confounders would\nstrengthen the study’s conclusions.\n-Although age and underlying conditions are cited as factors affecting hospitalization outcomes,\nthe study does not provide an in-depth analysis of other potential confounders, such as\nsocioeconomic status, hospital-specific factors (e.g., bed capacity), or surgical complications. A\nmore robust multivariate analysis that includes these factors could yield a more comprehensive\nunderstanding of the impact of the pre-admission management model.\n-What specific strategies were implemented to support elderly patients in this process, and how\nmight these strategies be optimized? Moreover, what specific reasons led to the decision of\n26 patients to opt out, and how can the model be improved to accommodate those who face\nchallenges with technology or communication?", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03648-x	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Preoperative Optimization Strategy Management Model Applied in Gallbladder Surgery Version: 5 Date: 27 Dec 2024 Reviewer: Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr Reviewer's report: Changes are done, accepted for publication	Title: Preoperative Optimization Strategy Management Model Applied in Gallbladder Surgery Version: 5 Date: 27 Dec 2024 Reviewer: Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr Reviewer's report: Changes are done, accepted for publication	BMC	12876_2025_3648_ReviewerReport_V5_R8.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0, "total": 1 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0 }	1	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Preoperative Optimization Strategy Management Model Applied in Gallbladder Surgery\nVersion: 5 Date: 27 Dec 2024\nReviewer: Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr\nReviewer's report:\nChanges are done, accepted for publication", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03648-x	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Preoperative Optimization Strategy Management Model Applied in Gallbladder Surgery Version: 5 Date: 01 Jan 2025 Reviewer: Mohamed H. Zidan Reviewer's report: Dear Authors, Re: Preoperative Optimization Strategy Management Model Applied in Gallbladder Surgery I have reviewed your manuscript, supplementary data, and responses to previous reviews. Your work addresses an important issue in optimizing hospital resource utilization and improving surgical outcomes for gallbladder surgery patients through a preoperative optimization strategy management model. This study offers significant insights, but there are areas for further refinement and clarification to strengthen the findings and enhance the manuscript’s impact. The inclusion and comparison of patients undergoing pre-hospitalization with those admitted through regular procedures is a compelling feature. The results, as detailed in the tables, reveal significant differences in outcomes. For instance, Table 1 shows a statistically significant reduction in length of stay and costs for pre-hospitalization patients compared to general hospitalization. Binary logistic regression analysis (Table 2) effectively highlights factors influencing these outcomes, controlling for confounding variables such as age and underlying conditions. Further subgroup analyses, such as those in Tables 3 to 7, provide a nuanced understanding of the benefits across different demographic groups. Your responses to previous reviewer comments reflect careful consideration and demonstrate a genuine effort to address methodological and presentation concerns. Notably, the revision of the methodology section to enhance clarity and conciseness is commendable. The addition of regression analyses strengthens the study by addressing potential biases arising from confounding factors. However, the unequal distribution of participants between groups remains a significant limitation. While you acknowledge this and provide justification, future studies should aim for better balance, potentially through propensity score matching or alternative methods. Thus, it is essential to state it clearly as a recommendation for future studies. Additionally, the absence of detailed surgical outcomes, such as rates of complications (e.g., bleeding or bile duct injuries), limits the assessment of pre-admission management's impact on surgical safety. It is essential to broaden your discussion and methodology highlighting the importance of these clarifications for future studies to adopt your method. Citing : 1- doi.org/10.1186/s12893-023-02301-2 2- doi: 10.1186/s13017-021-00369-w. In terms of presentation, certain sections, particularly the results, could be streamlined for better readability. While the statistical analyses are comprehensive, some findings could be summarized more effectively to maintain reader engagement without compromising depth. Additionally, the abstract, while concise after revision, still lacks sufficient emphasis on the study's broader implications. The study’s limitations, as discussed, are relevant but should include a more detailed exploration of socioeconomic factors and other potential confounders. Overall, your manuscript presents valuable data and insights into optimizing hospital management for gallbladder surgery. Future studies should aim to expand the patient population, include long-term outcomes, and explore the feasibility of applying this model to other surgical procedures and healthcare systems. Warm regards,	Title: Preoperative Optimization Strategy Management Model Applied in Gallbladder Surgery Version: 5 Date: 01 Jan 2025 Reviewer: Mohamed H. Zidan Reviewer's report: Dear Authors, Re: Preoperative Optimization Strategy Management Model Applied in Gallbladder Surgery I have reviewed your manuscript, supplementary data, and responses to previous reviews. Your work addresses an important issue in optimizing hospital resource utilization and improving surgical outcomes for gallbladder surgery patients through a preoperative optimization strategy management model. This study offers significant insights, but there are areas for further refinement and clarification to strengthen the findings and enhance the manuscript’s impact. The inclusion and comparison of patients undergoing pre-hospitalization with those admitted through regular procedures is a compelling feature. The results, as detailed in the tables, reveal significant differences in outcomes. For instance, Table 1 shows a statistically significant reduction in length of stay and costs for pre-hospitalization patients compared to general hospitalization. Binary logistic regression analysis (Table 2) effectively highlights factors influencing these outcomes, controlling for confounding variables such as age and underlying conditions. Further subgroup analyses, such as those in Tables 3 to 7, provide a nuanced understanding of the benefits across different demographic groups. Your responses to previous reviewer comments reflect careful consideration and demonstrate a genuine effort to address methodological and presentation concerns. Notably, the revision of the methodology section to enhance clarity and conciseness is commendable. The addition of regression analyses strengthens the study by addressing potential biases arising from confounding factors. However, the unequal distribution of participants between groups remains a significant limitation. While you acknowledge this and provide justification, future studies should aim for better balance, potentially through propensity score matching or alternative methods. Thus, it is essential to state it clearly as a recommendation for future studies. Additionally, the absence of detailed surgical outcomes, such as rates of complications (e.g., bleeding or bile duct injuries), limits the assessment of pre-admission management's impact on surgical safety. It is essential to broaden your discussion and methodology highlighting the importance of these clarifications for future studies to adopt your method. Citing : 1- doi.org/10.1186/s12893-023-02301-2 2- doi: 10.1186/s13017-021-00369-w. In terms of presentation, certain sections, particularly the results, could be streamlined for better readability. While the statistical analyses are comprehensive, some findings could be summarized more effectively to maintain reader engagement without compromising depth. Additionally, the abstract, while concise after revision, still lacks sufficient emphasis on the study's broader implications. The study’s limitations, as discussed, are relevant but should include a more detailed exploration of socioeconomic factors and other potential confounders. Overall, your manuscript presents valuable data and insights into optimizing hospital management for gallbladder surgery. Future studies should aim to expand the patient population, include long-term outcomes, and explore the feasibility of applying this model to other surgical procedures and healthcare systems. Warm regards,	BMC	12876_2025_3648_ReviewerReport_V5_R2.pdf	{ "criticism": 2, "example": 2, "importance_and_relevance": 9, "materials_and_methods": 14, "praise": 10, "presentation_and_reporting": 3, "results_and_discussion": 8, "suggestion_and_solution": 8, "total": 24 }	{ "criticism": 0.08333333333333333, "example": 0.08333333333333333, "importance_and_relevance": 0.375, "materials_and_methods": 0.5833333333333334, "praise": 0.4166666666666667, "presentation_and_reporting": 0.125, "results_and_discussion": 0.3333333333333333, "suggestion_and_solution": 0.3333333333333333 }	2.333333	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Preoperative Optimization Strategy Management Model Applied in Gallbladder Surgery\nVersion: 5 Date: 01 Jan 2025\nReviewer: Mohamed H. Zidan\nReviewer's report:\nDear Authors,\nRe: Preoperative Optimization Strategy Management Model Applied in Gallbladder Surgery\nI have reviewed your manuscript, supplementary data, and responses to previous reviews. Your\nwork addresses an important issue in optimizing hospital resource utilization and improving\nsurgical outcomes for gallbladder surgery patients through a preoperative optimization strategy\nmanagement model. This study offers significant insights, but there are areas for further\nrefinement and clarification to strengthen the findings and enhance the manuscript’s impact.\nThe inclusion and comparison of patients undergoing pre-hospitalization with those admitted\nthrough regular procedures is a compelling feature. The results, as detailed in the tables, reveal\nsignificant differences in outcomes. For instance, Table 1 shows a statistically significant\nreduction in length of stay and costs for pre-hospitalization patients compared to general\nhospitalization. Binary logistic regression analysis (Table 2) effectively highlights factors\ninfluencing these outcomes, controlling for confounding variables such as age and underlying\nconditions. Further subgroup analyses, such as those in Tables 3 to 7, provide a nuanced\nunderstanding of the benefits across different demographic groups.\nYour responses to previous reviewer comments reflect careful consideration and demonstrate\na genuine effort to address methodological and presentation concerns. Notably, the revision\nof the methodology section to enhance clarity and conciseness is commendable. The addition\nof regression analyses strengthens the study by addressing potential biases arising from\nconfounding factors.\nHowever, the unequal distribution of participants between groups remains a significant\nlimitation. While you acknowledge this and provide justification, future studies should aim for\nbetter balance, potentially through propensity score matching or alternative methods. Thus, it is\nessential to state it clearly as a recommendation for future studies. Additionally, the absence of\ndetailed surgical outcomes, such as rates of complications (e.g., bleeding or bile duct injuries),\nlimits the assessment of pre-admission management's impact on surgical safety. It is essential\nto broaden your discussion and methodology highlighting the importance of these clarifications\nfor future studies to adopt your method. Citing : 1- doi.org/10.1186/s12893-023-02301-2\n2- doi: 10.1186/s13017-021-00369-w.\nIn terms of presentation, certain sections, particularly the results, could be streamlined for\nbetter readability. While the statistical analyses are comprehensive, some findings could be\nsummarized more effectively to maintain reader engagement without compromising depth.\nAdditionally, the abstract, while concise after revision, still lacks sufficient emphasis on the\nstudy's broader implications.\nThe study’s limitations, as discussed, are relevant but should include a more detailed exploration\nof socioeconomic factors and other potential confounders.\nOverall, your manuscript presents valuable data and insights into optimizing hospital\nmanagement for gallbladder surgery. Future studies should aim to expand the patient population,\ninclude long-term outcomes, and explore the feasibility of applying this model to other surgical\nprocedures and healthcare systems.\nWarm regards,", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03648-x	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Preoperative Optimization Strategy Management Model Applied in Gallbladder Surgery Version: 5 Date: 01 Jan 2025 Reviewer: Bora Barut Reviewer's report: It is so good article	Title: Preoperative Optimization Strategy Management Model Applied in Gallbladder Surgery Version: 5 Date: 01 Jan 2025 Reviewer: Bora Barut Reviewer's report: It is so good article	BMC	12876_2025_3648_ReviewerReport_V5_R4.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0, "total": 1 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0 }	2	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Preoperative Optimization Strategy Management Model Applied in Gallbladder Surgery\nVersion: 5 Date: 01 Jan 2025\nReviewer: Bora Barut\nReviewer's report:\nIt is so good article", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03648-x	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Preoperative Optimization Strategy Management Model Applied in Gallbladder Surgery Version: 7 Date: 08 Jan 2025 Reviewer: Mohamed H. Zidan Reviewer's report: Dear Authors, All my concerns have been answered. Thank you for your revision and your replies	Title: Preoperative Optimization Strategy Management Model Applied in Gallbladder Surgery Version: 7 Date: 08 Jan 2025 Reviewer: Mohamed H. Zidan Reviewer's report: Dear Authors, All my concerns have been answered. Thank you for your revision and your replies	BMC	12876_2025_3648_ReviewerReport_V7_R2.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0, "total": 2 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 0.5, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0 }	0.5	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Preoperative Optimization Strategy Management Model Applied in Gallbladder Surgery\nVersion: 7 Date: 08 Jan 2025\nReviewer: Mohamed H. Zidan\nReviewer's report:\nDear Authors,\nAll my concerns have been answered. Thank you for your revision and your replies", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03712-6	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Persistence of Anemia in patients with Celiac Disease despite a Gluten Free Diet: A retrospective study Version: 4 Date: 24 Oct 2024 Reviewer: Juha Taavela Reviewer's report: Here are my comments regarding the manuscript by Valvano et al. entitled "Persistence of Anemia in Celiac Disease patients despite a Gluten Free Diet: A retrospective study " The paper presents a clear question and has nice findings overall. Somw I have some comments: 1. you present that celiac disease serology was done but I do not find what the values where in follow-up? 2. Some of the references are not good, suggestions: prevalence numbers are somewhere between 1.6 to 2.4 and you have nice new data from Italy and other large european studies, use these: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1590865822008714 and https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/apt.17803 In large population analyses the anemia, iron and folate are correlated to the activity parameters and should be mentioned, comment according to your findings the following: https:// www.cghjournal.org/article/S1542-3565(12)01156-1/fulltext anemia in pediatric celiac disease: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1097/MPG.0000000000001221 anemia persists in adults: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joim.13548 3. Figures are poorly explained and not self-explananatory, please elaborate and remove unnecessary abbrevations. X and y axles are not explained.	Title: Persistence of Anemia in patients with Celiac Disease despite a Gluten Free Diet: A retrospective study Version: 4 Date: 24 Oct 2024 Reviewer: Juha Taavela Reviewer's report: Here are my comments regarding the manuscript by Valvano et al. entitled "Persistence of Anemia in Celiac Disease patients despite a Gluten Free Diet: A retrospective study " The paper presents a clear question and has nice findings overall. Somw I have some comments: 1. you present that celiac disease serology was done but I do not find what the values where in follow-up? 2. Some of the references are not good, suggestions: prevalence numbers are somewhere between 1.6 to 2.4 and you have nice new data from Italy and other large european studies, use these: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1590865822008714 and https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/apt.17803 In large population analyses the anemia, iron and folate are correlated to the activity parameters and should be mentioned, comment according to your findings the following: https:// www.cghjournal.org/article/S1542-3565(12)01156-1/fulltext anemia in pediatric celiac disease: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1097/MPG.0000000000001221 anemia persists in adults: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joim.13548 3. Figures are poorly explained and not self-explananatory, please elaborate and remove unnecessary abbrevations. X and y axles are not explained.	BMC	12876_2025_3712_ReviewerReport_V4_R2.pdf	{ "criticism": 4, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 1, "materials_and_methods": 2, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 3, "results_and_discussion": 1, "suggestion_and_solution": 2, "total": 7 }	{ "criticism": 0.5714285714285714, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0.14285714285714285, "materials_and_methods": 0.2857142857142857, "praise": 0.14285714285714285, "presentation_and_reporting": 0.42857142857142855, "results_and_discussion": 0.14285714285714285, "suggestion_and_solution": 0.2857142857142857 }	2	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Persistence of Anemia in patients with Celiac Disease despite a Gluten Free Diet: A\nretrospective study\nVersion: 4 Date: 24 Oct 2024\nReviewer: Juha Taavela\nReviewer's report:\nHere are my comments regarding the manuscript by Valvano et al. entitled \"Persistence of\nAnemia in Celiac Disease patients despite a Gluten Free Diet: A retrospective study \"\nThe paper presents a clear question and has nice findings overall. Somw I have some comments:\n1. you present that celiac disease serology was done but I do not find what the values where\nin follow-up?\n2. Some of the references are not good, suggestions:\nprevalence numbers are somewhere between 1.6 to 2.4 and you have nice new data from Italy\nand other large european studies, use these:\nhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1590865822008714\nand\nhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/apt.17803\nIn large population analyses the anemia, iron and folate are correlated to the activity\nparameters and should be mentioned, comment according to your findings the following: https://\nwww.cghjournal.org/article/S1542-3565(12)01156-1/fulltext\nanemia in pediatric celiac disease:\nhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1097/MPG.0000000000001221\nanemia persists in adults:\nhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joim.13548\n3. Figures are poorly explained and not self-explananatory, please elaborate and remove\nunnecessary abbrevations. X and y axles are not explained.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03712-6	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Persistence of Anemia in patients with Celiac Disease despite a Gluten Free Diet: A retrospective study Version: 4 Date: 26 Oct 2024 Reviewer's report: Dear Editor, I should first thank for inviting me as potential reviewer to read and comment on paper entitled ‘’Persistence of Anemia in Celiac Disease patients despite a Gluten Free Diet: A retrospective study’’. In the current study, the authors aimed to evaluate the prevalence of anemia in both adult and pediatric CD patients at the diagnosis and during a long period of GFD. The main title accurately reflects the major topic and content of the study. The abstract summarizes and reflects the work described in the manuscript. Also, the abstract presents the significant points related to the background, objectives, materials and methods, results and conclusions. The materials and methods sufficiently described for the results and conclusions that are presented in the preceding sections. The study type and design were defined in the section of the materials and methods. Inclusion and exclusion criteria are well defined. Figures and tables are sufficient and well-organized. Ethics Committee approval was received. So, the section materials and methods is adequate. The statistical methods used are appropriate. The section of the discussion is well organized. The conclusions are drawn appropriately supported by the literature. The manuscript adequately describes the background, present status and significance of the study. The manuscript interprets the findings adequately and appropriately, highlighting the key points clearly. I think that it will contribute to the literature. I have some minor criticisms. - The manuscript appropriately cites the important and authoritative references but does not cite the recent published articles in the Introduction part of the manuscript. If the recent published article about celiac disease for example ‘’ Celiac disease in children: A review of the literature. World J Clin Pediatr. 2021 Jul 9;10(4):53-71’’ and ‘’Clinical evaluation of children with celiac disease: a single-center experience. Arch Clin Gastroenterol 2020; 6: 26-30’’ and ‘’ The frequency of celiac disease in children with chronic constipation. Kuwait Med J 2021; 53: 383-387’’ are cited, the manuscript would be better. - Also, the authors do not cite the recent published articles in the Discussion part of the manuscript at the following sentence. If the recent published article about celiac disease and anemia for example ‘’ ‘’Clinical evaluation of children with celiac disease: a single-center experience. Arch Clin Gastroenterol 2020; 6: 26-30’’ are cited, the manuscript would be better. At that manuscript, the prevalence of anemia was found 19.8% ‘’Among the latter, anemia is the most common, and its prevalence is reported from 12% to 69% in patients with a new CD diagnosis[32,33]’’	Title: Persistence of Anemia in patients with Celiac Disease despite a Gluten Free Diet: A retrospective study Version: 4 Date: 26 Oct 2024 Reviewer's report: Dear Editor, I should first thank for inviting me as potential reviewer to read and comment on paper entitled ‘’Persistence of Anemia in Celiac Disease patients despite a Gluten Free Diet: A retrospective study’’. In the current study, the authors aimed to evaluate the prevalence of anemia in both adult and pediatric CD patients at the diagnosis and during a long period of GFD. The main title accurately reflects the major topic and content of the study. The abstract summarizes and reflects the work described in the manuscript. Also, the abstract presents the significant points related to the background, objectives, materials and methods, results and conclusions. The materials and methods sufficiently described for the results and conclusions that are presented in the preceding sections. The study type and design were defined in the section of the materials and methods. Inclusion and exclusion criteria are well defined. Figures and tables are sufficient and well-organized. Ethics Committee approval was received. So, the section materials and methods is adequate. The statistical methods used are appropriate. The section of the discussion is well organized. The conclusions are drawn appropriately supported by the literature. The manuscript adequately describes the background, present status and significance of the study. The manuscript interprets the findings adequately and appropriately, highlighting the key points clearly. I think that it will contribute to the literature. I have some minor criticisms. - The manuscript appropriately cites the important and authoritative references but does not cite the recent published articles in the Introduction part of the manuscript. If the recent published article about celiac disease for example ‘’ Celiac disease in children: A review of the literature. World J Clin Pediatr. 2021 Jul 9;10(4):53-71’’ and ‘’Clinical evaluation of children with celiac disease: a single-center experience. Arch Clin Gastroenterol 2020; 6: 26-30’’ and ‘’ The frequency of celiac disease in children with chronic constipation. Kuwait Med J 2021; 53: 383-387’’ are cited, the manuscript would be better. - Also, the authors do not cite the recent published articles in the Discussion part of the manuscript at the following sentence. If the recent published article about celiac disease and anemia for example ‘’ ‘’Clinical evaluation of children with celiac disease: a single-center experience. Arch Clin Gastroenterol 2020; 6: 26-30’’ are cited, the manuscript would be better. At that manuscript, the prevalence of anemia was found 19.8% ‘’Among the latter, anemia is the most common, and its prevalence is reported from 12% to 69% in patients with a new CD diagnosis[32,33]’’	BMC	12876_2025_3712_ReviewerReport_V4_R3.pdf	{ "criticism": 3, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 1, "materials_and_methods": 10, "praise": 11, "presentation_and_reporting": 5, "results_and_discussion": 5, "suggestion_and_solution": 4, "total": 28 }	{ "criticism": 0.10714285714285714, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0.03571428571428571, "materials_and_methods": 0.35714285714285715, "praise": 0.39285714285714285, "presentation_and_reporting": 0.17857142857142858, "results_and_discussion": 0.17857142857142858, "suggestion_and_solution": 0.14285714285714285 }	1.392857	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Persistence of Anemia in patients with Celiac Disease despite a Gluten Free Diet: A\nretrospective study\nVersion: 4 Date: 26 Oct 2024\nReviewer's report:\nDear Editor,\nI should first thank for inviting me as potential reviewer to read and comment on paper entitled\n‘’Persistence of Anemia in Celiac Disease patients despite a Gluten Free Diet: A retrospective\nstudy’’.\nIn the current study, the authors aimed to evaluate the prevalence of anemia in both adult and\npediatric CD patients at the diagnosis and during a long period of GFD.\nThe main title accurately reflects the major topic and content of the study.\nThe abstract summarizes and reflects the work described in the manuscript. Also, the abstract\npresents the significant points related to the background, objectives, materials and methods,\nresults and conclusions.\nThe materials and methods sufficiently described for the results and conclusions that are\npresented in the preceding sections. The study type and design were defined in the section of\nthe materials and methods. Inclusion and exclusion criteria are well defined. Figures and tables\nare sufficient and well-organized. Ethics Committee approval was received. So, the section\nmaterials and methods is adequate.\nThe statistical methods used are appropriate.\nThe section of the discussion is well organized. The conclusions are drawn appropriately\nsupported by the literature. The manuscript adequately describes the background, present\nstatus and significance of the study. The manuscript interprets the findings adequately and\nappropriately, highlighting the key points clearly.\nI think that it will contribute to the literature. I have some minor criticisms.\n- The manuscript appropriately cites the important and authoritative references but does not cite\nthe recent published articles in the Introduction part of the manuscript. If the recent published\narticle about celiac disease for example ‘’ Celiac disease in children: A review of the literature.\nWorld J Clin Pediatr. 2021 Jul 9;10(4):53-71’’ and ‘’Clinical evaluation of children with\nceliac disease: a single-center experience. Arch Clin Gastroenterol 2020; 6: 26-30’’ and ‘’ The\nfrequency of celiac disease in children with chronic constipation. Kuwait Med J 2021; 53:\n383-387’’ are cited, the manuscript would be better.\n- Also, the authors do not cite the recent published articles in the Discussion part of the\nmanuscript at the following sentence. If the recent published article about celiac disease and\nanemia for example ‘’ ‘’Clinical evaluation of children with celiac disease: a single-center\nexperience. Arch Clin Gastroenterol 2020; 6: 26-30’’ are cited, the manuscript would be better.\nAt that manuscript, the prevalence of anemia was found 19.8%\n‘’Among the latter, anemia is the most common, and its prevalence is reported from 12% to 69%\nin patients with a new CD diagnosis[32,33]’’", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03712-6	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Persistence of Anemia in patients with Celiac Disease despite a Gluten Free Diet: A retrospective study Version: 4 Date: 05 Nov 2024 Reviewer's report: Dear Authors, Thank you very much for submitting your work, and giving me the opportunity to review the manuscript Persistence of Anemia in Celiac Disease patients despite a Gluten Free Diet: A retrospective study. The information provided in the manuscript is interesting and provides information about the persistence of anemia in adults and children with CD after diagnosis and introduction of gluten free diet (GFD). Results of the study show that anemia can still be present in important proportion of adult patients even after a decade of GFD. This finding is contrasting existing literature that shows consistent improvement in anemia after the introduction of GFD. There are some important issues that need to be explained in more detail or need clarification and need to be addressed by the authors, which could possibly improve the quality of the manuscript. GENERAL COMMENTS Manuscript would benefit substantially in clarity with improved English. Consider using throughout the manuscript (including the title): patients with Celiac Disease (Anemia), Adults with Celiac Disease (Anemia), Children with Celiac Disease (Anemia) and not adult celiac patients, pediatric celiac patients… or anemic adults or anemic children or anemic pediatric patients SPECIFIC COMMENTS Comments are listed as they consecutively appeared within the manuscript. Title Reflects the nature of the study. Consider using “patients with Celiac Disease” Abstract …prevalence of anemia in both adult and pediatric CD patients Consider using …in both adults and children with CD throughout the text. Authors should present a clear data on the prevalence of anemia at diagnosis in studied groups. Perhaps they should also present the data on how many patients had severe anemia if that data is available. At T2 Instead of At T2, authors should use At 8-10 years of GFD… … only a slight reduction Reduction from 24% to 18% is not slight, however it might not be regarded as highly significant. It depends on the statistical method. …anemia persists in 17.8%... It would be very important to note whether anemia persist in the same patients or has it improved in some and worsened in the others. Current statement only looks at the general population of patients with CD. Introduction Is genetic testing always included in diagnostic guidelines for CD in adults? …and histology which usually shows… Consider using term histopathological changes of intestinal mucosa with … instead of histology which usually shows… … and positive anti-endomysial antibodies (EMA), Authors must make sure to stress that increased EMA should be determined in a second/ confirmatory serum sample. In the case of no-biopsy approach HLA DQ should have also been performed. … without endoscopic and histological evaluation It is not endoscopic evaluation, which is not very specific. Endoscopy is performed to obtain biopsy specimens for further histopathological examination of intestinal mucosa, where changes typical of CD are observed: intraepithelial lymphocytosis, crypt hyperplasia and villous atrophy. CD is a global healthcare disease CD is a global healthcare problem. The esteemed prevalence of CD Please check for English throughout the manuscript. It is estimated and not the esteemed prevalence of CD. although CD incidence is increasing in adults [5–7]. although CD incidence is increasing in adults as well [5–7]. Since CD mainly affects the duodenum Is it true that duodenum is affected the most? Traditionally jejunum was considered to be affected primarily, and capsule biopsy allowed for jejunal biopsy, however duodenum is easier to reach with current endoscopes, and as such duodenum was chosen to be the primary site of multiple biopsies. in which pro-inflammatory cytokines take iron outside Improve the English The main treatment for CD The only efficient treatment for CD is strict gluten-free diet. No drug therapy is better than GFD in CD Please be very careful when stating this. The sentence implies that there are some existing therapies that are not superior to GFD but are existing on the market and can be of some benefit. Indeed, there have been several trials on different pharmaceutical therapies, however none has proven to be clinically relevant yet. serological signs, please improve the English. Please rephrase the term serological signs. In some patients with CD on a GFD, IDA can be persistent, these cases Split into two sentences. intense exercise-induced hemolysis in athletes As this is hardly an important cause of anemia in CD, authors might consider omitting its mention. adult and pediatric CD patients in adults and children with CD Methods including all adult CD patients Please provide a timeframe in which adult patients with CD were diagnosed. It is very likely that many that are followed were diagnosed more than two decades ago, some might had been diagnosed as children. standard clinical, serologic, endoscopic, and histological criteria as mentioned in the 2014 British guidelines Are endoscopic features clinically relevant based on the British guidelines? Considering the British guidelines of 2014 were used, please provide clarification whether patients diagnosed before 2014 were not included in the study. were diagnosed with CD according to the 2012 ESPGHAN Same as above. What about the children diagnosed before 2012. Especially since the study was approved by University Ethical Board in 2018. All subjects gave their consent to participate in the current study Authors should be sure that this is a correct statement. Authors are stating that all patients that are followed at their adult or pediatric unit were included. It is highly likely that at least some had not consented with participation. Did the patients (their parents) give their consent at the time of diagnosis or only at the time of follow-up? 8-10 years (T2) of GFS Typo: GFD The following data were collected what about ferritin level. what about histopathology report? Or changes of intestinal mucosa according to Marsh/ Oberhuber classification. total IgA levels Total IgA levels are not a part of CD antibodies and should be reported separately, perhaps prior to CD specific serology. biopsy assessment was carried out as recommended in the reported guidelines[25,29] Please also cite Oberhuber (3) positive tTG IgA class antibodies with titers >10 times the upper limit of normal Please make sure that confirmatory EMA was done in all children who did not undergo duodenal biopsy. Based on the 2012 guidelines all no-biopsy diagnosed children should have also been tested for HLA DQ2/DQ8. In the case of a GFD non-adherence, the patients were excluded. How was a non-adherence assessed in adults and in children? Exclusion criteria Would a (perhaps very rare) need for blood transfusion be considered an exclusion. Outcomes severity of anemia How was the severity of anemia determined? Please present this in the methods. Results The overall mean HGB levels increased Were only mean levels of Hb compared between the groups? It would be very interesting to note how Hb levels had changed longitudinally in individual patients. Among the anemic patients It would be very interesting to know what was the proportion of severely anemic patients in each group and not merely learn about the mean Hb in anemic group. Authors should provide at least one measure of dispersity of the data (SD, 95 CI, range), depending on the normality of distribution. At T2, Instead of the T” please use 8-10 years. slight reduction in the prevalence of anemia was observed Reduction of anemia from 24% to 18% is not slight. It is a 1/3 change!!! In prevalence. Baseline characteristics of untreated anemic and non-anemic CD patients Please rephrase Baseline characteristics of patients with CD prevalence of anemia was higher in the female group Consider providing solid data in the text and indicate whether the differences were not only there by chance (specify statistical significance). more commonly had Iron deficiency Please specify in the methods, how was iron deficiency defined. anemic patients had Marsh 0 or 1 at T1 Improve English In majority of patients with anemia (88%) mucosal changes defined as Marsh o (4/23) or Marsh 1 (13/23) were described. It is very interesting that at baseline Marsh 0 lesions were considered to be compatible with celiac disease. Can authors clarify this Discussion probably due to a more severe clinical presentation at the diagnosis (Table 1). Younger children more often present with malabsorptive CD (perhaps cite Riznik et al. Clinical Presentation in Children With Coeliac Disease in Central Europe. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2021;72(4):546-551. doi: 10.1097/MPG.0000000000003015.), which with their already reduced iron storage and high iron demand makes them more susceptible for IDA. …and CD primarily affects this bowel tract. Improve English for better clarity about 1/5 of adult celiac patients continue to be anemic despite the healing of duodenal mucosa Is this statement supported by the data of the study? Were enough of adult patients re-biopsied to support this? most of anemic patients at T1 had Marsh 0 or 1 Authors should definitely discuss the high proportion of patients with Marsh Type 0 and Type 1 lesions. They should provide the readers about the other parameters that yielded a final diagnosis of CD in these patients. Some anemic patients are refractory to oral iron supplementation There is no data on the iron supplementation in the results. It only can be assumed that some patients were prescribed iron supplementation therapy. However, there is no data on the average duration of such therapy, nor is there any data on the compliance or the need for introduction of i.v. supplementation. Our study had a few important limitations Authors are aware of some of the limitations of the study and are declaring these. Moreover, during the considered observational period, all the patients followed in our unit were forced to have an outpatient visit Can the authors be specific about this enforcing of their patients to visit outpatient clinic? Tables Table 1 Some parameters were not described in the methods nor presented in results or discussed in discussion. These parameters might be omitted. Table 2 Columns 34-6 should preferably read: T0 vs T1; T0 vs T2; T1 vs T2. It would be much more interesting to present the data of individual patients as they were followed longitudinally form diagnosis onward as regards their Hb levels with a cut-off level showing the threshold of anemia. Such a figure could show trends in Hb. Currently a reader is only able to see mean Hb level without any knowledge of how many patients had their anemia improved and how many had it worsened. Table 3. Marsh degrees in anemic adult Celiac Disease patients Improve English for better clarity. Unclear as to what the numbers 44 and 26 refer to in the first row. Only when reading this table, it becomes clear that only 6 patients at T1 and 1 at T2 had lesions described as Marsh greater than 1. This is not clearly presented in the main text. Table 4 This table is perhaps not needed. It is sufficient to present statistics showing that adult age is a single predictor for anemia in this model. Figures Individual patients could be connected to see individual longitudinal trends.	Title: Persistence of Anemia in patients with Celiac Disease despite a Gluten Free Diet: A retrospective study Version: 4 Date: 05 Nov 2024 Reviewer's report: Dear Authors, Thank you very much for submitting your work, and giving me the opportunity to review the manuscript Persistence of Anemia in Celiac Disease patients despite a Gluten Free Diet: A retrospective study. The information provided in the manuscript is interesting and provides information about the persistence of anemia in adults and children with CD after diagnosis and introduction of gluten free diet (GFD). Results of the study show that anemia can still be present in important proportion of adult patients even after a decade of GFD. This finding is contrasting existing literature that shows consistent improvement in anemia after the introduction of GFD. There are some important issues that need to be explained in more detail or need clarification and need to be addressed by the authors, which could possibly improve the quality of the manuscript. GENERAL COMMENTS Manuscript would benefit substantially in clarity with improved English. Consider using throughout the manuscript (including the title): patients with Celiac Disease (Anemia), Adults with Celiac Disease (Anemia), Children with Celiac Disease (Anemia) and not adult celiac patients, pediatric celiac patients… or anemic adults or anemic children or anemic pediatric patients SPECIFIC COMMENTS Comments are listed as they consecutively appeared within the manuscript. Title Reflects the nature of the study. Consider using “patients with Celiac Disease” Abstract …prevalence of anemia in both adult and pediatric CD patients Consider using …in both adults and children with CD throughout the text. Authors should present a clear data on the prevalence of anemia at diagnosis in studied groups. Perhaps they should also present the data on how many patients had severe anemia if that data is available. At T2 Instead of At T2, authors should use At 8-10 years of GFD… … only a slight reduction Reduction from 24% to 18% is not slight, however it might not be regarded as highly significant. It depends on the statistical method. …anemia persists in 17.8%... It would be very important to note whether anemia persist in the same patients or has it improved in some and worsened in the others. Current statement only looks at the general population of patients with CD. Introduction Is genetic testing always included in diagnostic guidelines for CD in adults? …and histology which usually shows… Consider using term histopathological changes of intestinal mucosa with … instead of histology which usually shows… … and positive anti-endomysial antibodies (EMA), Authors must make sure to stress that increased EMA should be determined in a second/ confirmatory serum sample. In the case of no-biopsy approach HLA DQ should have also been performed. … without endoscopic and histological evaluation It is not endoscopic evaluation, which is not very specific. Endoscopy is performed to obtain biopsy specimens for further histopathological examination of intestinal mucosa, where changes typical of CD are observed: intraepithelial lymphocytosis, crypt hyperplasia and villous atrophy. CD is a global healthcare disease CD is a global healthcare problem. The esteemed prevalence of CD Please check for English throughout the manuscript. It is estimated and not the esteemed prevalence of CD. although CD incidence is increasing in adults [5–7]. although CD incidence is increasing in adults as well [5–7]. Since CD mainly affects the duodenum Is it true that duodenum is affected the most? Traditionally jejunum was considered to be affected primarily, and capsule biopsy allowed for jejunal biopsy, however duodenum is easier to reach with current endoscopes, and as such duodenum was chosen to be the primary site of multiple biopsies. in which pro-inflammatory cytokines take iron outside Improve the English The main treatment for CD The only efficient treatment for CD is strict gluten-free diet. No drug therapy is better than GFD in CD Please be very careful when stating this. The sentence implies that there are some existing therapies that are not superior to GFD but are existing on the market and can be of some benefit. Indeed, there have been several trials on different pharmaceutical therapies, however none has proven to be clinically relevant yet. serological signs, please improve the English. Please rephrase the term serological signs. In some patients with CD on a GFD, IDA can be persistent, these cases Split into two sentences. intense exercise-induced hemolysis in athletes As this is hardly an important cause of anemia in CD, authors might consider omitting its mention. adult and pediatric CD patients in adults and children with CD Methods including all adult CD patients Please provide a timeframe in which adult patients with CD were diagnosed. It is very likely that many that are followed were diagnosed more than two decades ago, some might had been diagnosed as children. standard clinical, serologic, endoscopic, and histological criteria as mentioned in the 2014 British guidelines Are endoscopic features clinically relevant based on the British guidelines? Considering the British guidelines of 2014 were used, please provide clarification whether patients diagnosed before 2014 were not included in the study. were diagnosed with CD according to the 2012 ESPGHAN Same as above. What about the children diagnosed before 2012. Especially since the study was approved by University Ethical Board in 2018. All subjects gave their consent to participate in the current study Authors should be sure that this is a correct statement. Authors are stating that all patients that are followed at their adult or pediatric unit were included. It is highly likely that at least some had not consented with participation. Did the patients (their parents) give their consent at the time of diagnosis or only at the time of follow-up? 8-10 years (T2) of GFS Typo: GFD The following data were collected what about ferritin level. what about histopathology report? Or changes of intestinal mucosa according to Marsh/ Oberhuber classification. total IgA levels Total IgA levels are not a part of CD antibodies and should be reported separately, perhaps prior to CD specific serology. biopsy assessment was carried out as recommended in the reported guidelines[25,29] Please also cite Oberhuber (3) positive tTG IgA class antibodies with titers >10 times the upper limit of normal Please make sure that confirmatory EMA was done in all children who did not undergo duodenal biopsy. Based on the 2012 guidelines all no-biopsy diagnosed children should have also been tested for HLA DQ2/DQ8. In the case of a GFD non-adherence, the patients were excluded. How was a non-adherence assessed in adults and in children? Exclusion criteria Would a (perhaps very rare) need for blood transfusion be considered an exclusion. Outcomes severity of anemia How was the severity of anemia determined? Please present this in the methods. Results The overall mean HGB levels increased Were only mean levels of Hb compared between the groups? It would be very interesting to note how Hb levels had changed longitudinally in individual patients. Among the anemic patients It would be very interesting to know what was the proportion of severely anemic patients in each group and not merely learn about the mean Hb in anemic group. Authors should provide at least one measure of dispersity of the data (SD, 95 CI, range), depending on the normality of distribution. At T2, Instead of the T” please use 8-10 years. slight reduction in the prevalence of anemia was observed Reduction of anemia from 24% to 18% is not slight. It is a 1/3 change!!! In prevalence. Baseline characteristics of untreated anemic and non-anemic CD patients Please rephrase Baseline characteristics of patients with CD prevalence of anemia was higher in the female group Consider providing solid data in the text and indicate whether the differences were not only there by chance (specify statistical significance). more commonly had Iron deficiency Please specify in the methods, how was iron deficiency defined. anemic patients had Marsh 0 or 1 at T1 Improve English In majority of patients with anemia (88%) mucosal changes defined as Marsh o (4/23) or Marsh 1 (13/23) were described. It is very interesting that at baseline Marsh 0 lesions were considered to be compatible with celiac disease. Can authors clarify this Discussion probably due to a more severe clinical presentation at the diagnosis (Table 1). Younger children more often present with malabsorptive CD (perhaps cite Riznik et al. Clinical Presentation in Children With Coeliac Disease in Central Europe. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2021;72(4):546-551. doi: 10.1097/MPG.0000000000003015.), which with their already reduced iron storage and high iron demand makes them more susceptible for IDA. …and CD primarily affects this bowel tract. Improve English for better clarity about 1/5 of adult celiac patients continue to be anemic despite the healing of duodenal mucosa Is this statement supported by the data of the study? Were enough of adult patients re-biopsied to support this? most of anemic patients at T1 had Marsh 0 or 1 Authors should definitely discuss the high proportion of patients with Marsh Type 0 and Type 1 lesions. They should provide the readers about the other parameters that yielded a final diagnosis of CD in these patients. Some anemic patients are refractory to oral iron supplementation There is no data on the iron supplementation in the results. It only can be assumed that some patients were prescribed iron supplementation therapy. However, there is no data on the average duration of such therapy, nor is there any data on the compliance or the need for introduction of i.v. supplementation. Our study had a few important limitations Authors are aware of some of the limitations of the study and are declaring these. Moreover, during the considered observational period, all the patients followed in our unit were forced to have an outpatient visit Can the authors be specific about this enforcing of their patients to visit outpatient clinic? Tables Table 1 Some parameters were not described in the methods nor presented in results or discussed in discussion. These parameters might be omitted. Table 2 Columns 34-6 should preferably read: T0 vs T1; T0 vs T2; T1 vs T2. It would be much more interesting to present the data of individual patients as they were followed longitudinally form diagnosis onward as regards their Hb levels with a cut-off level showing the threshold of anemia. Such a figure could show trends in Hb. Currently a reader is only able to see mean Hb level without any knowledge of how many patients had their anemia improved and how many had it worsened. Table 3. Marsh degrees in anemic adult Celiac Disease patients Improve English for better clarity. Unclear as to what the numbers 44 and 26 refer to in the first row. Only when reading this table, it becomes clear that only 6 patients at T1 and 1 at T2 had lesions described as Marsh greater than 1. This is not clearly presented in the main text. Table 4 This table is perhaps not needed. It is sufficient to present statistics showing that adult age is a single predictor for anemia in this model. Figures Individual patients could be connected to see individual longitudinal trends.	BMC	12876_2025_3712_ReviewerReport_V4_R4.pdf	{ "criticism": 7, "example": 3, "importance_and_relevance": 3, "materials_and_methods": 55, "praise": 3, "presentation_and_reporting": 35, "results_and_discussion": 7, "suggestion_and_solution": 38, "total": 101 }	{ "criticism": 0.06930693069306931, "example": 0.0297029702970297, "importance_and_relevance": 0.0297029702970297, "materials_and_methods": 0.5445544554455446, "praise": 0.0297029702970297, "presentation_and_reporting": 0.3465346534653465, "results_and_discussion": 0.06930693069306931, "suggestion_and_solution": 0.37623762376237624 }	1.49505	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Persistence of Anemia in patients with Celiac Disease despite a Gluten Free Diet: A\nretrospective study\nVersion: 4 Date: 05 Nov 2024\nReviewer's report:\nDear Authors,\nThank you very much for submitting your work, and giving me the opportunity to review the\nmanuscript Persistence of Anemia in Celiac Disease patients despite a Gluten Free Diet: A\nretrospective study.\nThe information provided in the manuscript is interesting and provides information about the\npersistence of anemia in adults and children with CD after diagnosis and introduction of gluten\nfree diet (GFD).\nResults of the study show that anemia can still be present in important proportion of adult patients\neven after a decade of GFD. This finding is contrasting existing literature that shows consistent\nimprovement in anemia after the introduction of GFD.\nThere are some important issues that need to be explained in more detail or need clarification and\nneed to be addressed by the authors, which could possibly improve the quality of the manuscript.\nGENERAL COMMENTS\nManuscript would benefit substantially in clarity with improved English.\nConsider using throughout the manuscript (including the title): patients with Celiac Disease\n(Anemia), Adults with Celiac Disease (Anemia), Children with Celiac Disease (Anemia) and not\nadult celiac patients, pediatric celiac patients… or anemic adults or anemic children or anemic\npediatric patients\nSPECIFIC COMMENTS\nComments are listed as they consecutively appeared within the manuscript.\nTitle\nReflects the nature of the study. Consider using “patients with Celiac Disease”\nAbstract\n…prevalence of anemia in both adult and pediatric CD patients\nConsider using …in both adults and children with CD throughout the text.\nAuthors should present a clear data on the prevalence of anemia at diagnosis in studied groups.\nPerhaps they should also present the data on how many patients had severe anemia if that data\nis available.\nAt T2\nInstead of At T2, authors should use At 8-10 years of GFD…\n… only a slight reduction\nReduction from 24% to 18% is not slight, however it might not be regarded as highly significant.\nIt depends on the statistical method.\n…anemia persists in 17.8%...\nIt would be very important to note whether anemia persist in the same patients or has it improved\nin some and worsened in the others. Current statement only looks at the general population of\npatients with CD.\nIntroduction\nIs genetic testing always included in diagnostic guidelines for CD in adults?\n…and histology which usually shows…\nConsider using term histopathological changes of intestinal mucosa with … instead of histology\nwhich usually shows…\n… and positive anti-endomysial antibodies (EMA),\nAuthors must make sure to stress that increased EMA should be determined in a second/\nconfirmatory serum sample.\nIn the case of no-biopsy approach HLA DQ should have also been performed.\n… without endoscopic and histological evaluation\nIt is not endoscopic evaluation, which is not very specific. Endoscopy is performed to obtain\nbiopsy specimens for further histopathological examination of intestinal mucosa, where changes\ntypical of CD are observed: intraepithelial lymphocytosis, crypt hyperplasia and villous atrophy.\nCD is a global healthcare disease\nCD is a global healthcare problem.\nThe esteemed prevalence of CD\nPlease check for English throughout the manuscript.\nIt is estimated and not the esteemed prevalence of CD.\nalthough CD incidence is increasing in adults [5–7].\nalthough CD incidence is increasing in adults as well [5–7].\nSince CD mainly affects the duodenum\nIs it true that duodenum is affected the most? Traditionally jejunum was considered to be affected\nprimarily, and capsule biopsy allowed for jejunal biopsy, however duodenum is easier to reach\nwith current endoscopes, and as such duodenum was chosen to be the primary site of multiple\nbiopsies.\nin which pro-inflammatory cytokines take iron outside\nImprove the English\nThe main treatment for CD\nThe only efficient treatment for CD is strict gluten-free diet.\nNo drug therapy is better than GFD in CD\nPlease be very careful when stating this. The sentence implies that there are some existing\ntherapies that are not superior to GFD but are existing on the market and can be of some benefit.\nIndeed, there have been several trials on different pharmaceutical therapies, however none has\nproven to be clinically relevant yet.\nserological signs,\nplease improve the English.\nPlease rephrase the term serological signs.\nIn some patients with CD on a GFD, IDA can be persistent, these cases\nSplit into two sentences.\nintense exercise-induced hemolysis in athletes\nAs this is hardly an important cause of anemia in CD, authors might consider omitting its\nmention.\nadult and pediatric CD patients\nin adults and children with CD\nMethods\nincluding all adult CD patients\nPlease provide a timeframe in which adult patients with CD were diagnosed. It is very likely\nthat many that are followed were diagnosed more than two decades ago, some might had been\ndiagnosed as children.\nstandard clinical, serologic, endoscopic, and histological criteria as mentioned in the 2014\nBritish guidelines\nAre endoscopic features clinically relevant based on the British guidelines?\nConsidering the British guidelines of 2014 were used, please provide clarification whether\npatients diagnosed before 2014 were not included in the study.\nwere diagnosed with CD according to the 2012 ESPGHAN\nSame as above. What about the children diagnosed before 2012.\nEspecially since the study was approved by University Ethical Board in 2018.\nAll subjects gave their consent to participate in the current study\nAuthors should be sure that this is a correct statement. Authors are stating that all patients that\nare followed at their adult or pediatric unit were included. It is highly likely that at least some\nhad not consented with participation.\nDid the patients (their parents) give their consent at the time of diagnosis or only at the time\nof follow-up?\n8-10 years (T2) of GFS\nTypo: GFD\nThe following data were collected\nwhat about ferritin level.\nwhat about histopathology report? Or changes of intestinal mucosa according to Marsh/\nOberhuber classification.\ntotal IgA levels\nTotal IgA levels are not a part of CD antibodies and should be reported separately, perhaps prior\nto CD specific serology.\nbiopsy assessment was carried out as recommended in the reported guidelines[25,29]\nPlease also cite Oberhuber (3)\npositive tTG IgA class antibodies with titers >10 times the upper limit of normal\nPlease make sure that confirmatory EMA was done in all children who did not undergo duodenal\nbiopsy.\nBased on the 2012 guidelines all no-biopsy diagnosed children should have also been tested for\nHLA DQ2/DQ8.\nIn the case of a GFD non-adherence, the patients were excluded.\nHow was a non-adherence assessed in adults and in children?\nExclusion criteria\nWould a (perhaps very rare) need for blood transfusion be considered an exclusion.\nOutcomes\nseverity of anemia\nHow was the severity of anemia determined? Please present this in the methods.\nResults\nThe overall mean HGB levels increased\nWere only mean levels of Hb compared between the groups?\nIt would be very interesting to note how Hb levels had changed longitudinally in individual\npatients.\nAmong the anemic patients\nIt would be very interesting to know what was the proportion of severely anemic patients in each\ngroup and not merely learn about the mean Hb in anemic group.\nAuthors should provide at least one measure of dispersity of the data (SD, 95 CI, range),\ndepending on the normality of distribution.\nAt T2,\nInstead of the T” please use 8-10 years.\nslight reduction in the prevalence of anemia was observed\nReduction of anemia from 24% to 18% is not slight. It is a 1/3 change!!! In prevalence.\nBaseline characteristics of untreated anemic and non-anemic CD patients\nPlease rephrase\nBaseline characteristics of patients with CD\nprevalence of anemia was higher in the female group\nConsider providing solid data in the text and indicate whether the differences were not only there\nby chance (specify statistical significance).\nmore commonly had Iron deficiency\nPlease specify in the methods, how was iron deficiency defined.\nanemic patients had Marsh 0 or 1 at T1\nImprove English\nIn majority of patients with anemia (88%) mucosal changes defined as Marsh o (4/23) or Marsh\n1 (13/23) were described.\nIt is very interesting that at baseline Marsh 0 lesions were considered to be compatible with\nceliac disease. Can authors clarify this\nDiscussion\nprobably due to a more severe clinical presentation at the diagnosis (Table 1).\nYounger children more often present with malabsorptive CD (perhaps cite Riznik et al. Clinical\nPresentation in Children With Coeliac Disease in Central Europe. J Pediatr Gastroenterol\nNutr. 2021;72(4):546-551. doi: 10.1097/MPG.0000000000003015.), which with their already\nreduced iron storage and high iron demand makes them more susceptible for IDA.\n…and CD primarily affects this bowel tract.\nImprove English for better clarity\nabout 1/5 of adult celiac patients continue to be anemic despite the healing of duodenal mucosa\nIs this statement supported by the data of the study? Were enough of adult patients re-biopsied\nto support this?\nmost of anemic patients at T1 had Marsh 0 or 1\nAuthors should definitely discuss the high proportion of patients with Marsh Type 0 and Type 1\nlesions. They should provide the readers about the other parameters that yielded a final diagnosis\nof CD in these patients.\nSome anemic patients are refractory to oral iron supplementation\nThere is no data on the iron supplementation in the results. It only can be assumed that some\npatients were prescribed iron supplementation therapy. However, there is no data on the average\nduration of such therapy, nor is there any data on the compliance or the need for introduction\nof i.v. supplementation.\nOur study had a few important limitations\nAuthors are aware of some of the limitations of the study and are declaring these.\nMoreover, during the considered observational period, all the patients followed in our unit were\nforced to have an outpatient visit\nCan the authors be specific about this enforcing of their patients to visit outpatient clinic?\nTables\nTable 1\nSome parameters were not described in the methods nor presented in results or discussed in\ndiscussion. These parameters might be omitted.\nTable 2\nColumns 34-6 should preferably read: T0 vs T1; T0 vs T2; T1 vs T2.\nIt would be much more interesting to present the data of individual patients as they were followed\nlongitudinally form diagnosis onward as regards their Hb levels with a cut-off level showing the\nthreshold of anemia. Such a figure could show trends in Hb.\nCurrently a reader is only able to see mean Hb level without any knowledge of how many patients\nhad their anemia improved and how many had it worsened.\nTable 3. Marsh degrees in anemic adult Celiac Disease patients\nImprove English for better clarity.\nUnclear as to what the numbers 44 and 26 refer to in the first row.\nOnly when reading this table, it becomes clear that only 6 patients at T1 and 1 at T2 had lesions\ndescribed as Marsh greater than 1. This is not clearly presented in the main text.\nTable 4\nThis table is perhaps not needed. It is sufficient to present statistics showing that adult age is a\nsingle predictor for anemia in this model.\nFigures\nIndividual patients could be connected to see individual longitudinal trends.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03712-6	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Persistence of Anemia in patients with Celiac Disease despite a Gluten Free Diet: A retrospective study Version: 5 Date: 28 Dec 2024 Reviewer: Juha Taavela Reviewer's report: The authors have reviewed and answered my comments appropriately, no further comments.	Title: Persistence of Anemia in patients with Celiac Disease despite a Gluten Free Diet: A retrospective study Version: 5 Date: 28 Dec 2024 Reviewer: Juha Taavela Reviewer's report: The authors have reviewed and answered my comments appropriately, no further comments.	BMC	12876_2025_3712_ReviewerReport_V5_R2.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 0, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0, "total": 1 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 0, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0 }	0	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Persistence of Anemia in patients with Celiac Disease despite a Gluten Free Diet: A\nretrospective study\nVersion: 5 Date: 28 Dec 2024\nReviewer: Juha Taavela\nReviewer's report:\nThe authors have reviewed and answered my comments appropriately, no further comments.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03712-6	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Persistence of Anemia in patients with Celiac Disease despite a Gluten Free Diet: A retrospective study Version: 5 Date: 28 Dec 2024 Reviewer's report: Dear Editor, The authors did appropriate response to the comments. I have only one suggestion for correction to one reference 7. ''Yasin S. Clinical evaluation of children with celiac disease... '' It would be ''Sahin Y. Clinical evaluation of children with celiac disease... '' Best regards,	Title: Persistence of Anemia in patients with Celiac Disease despite a Gluten Free Diet: A retrospective study Version: 5 Date: 28 Dec 2024 Reviewer's report: Dear Editor, The authors did appropriate response to the comments. I have only one suggestion for correction to one reference 7. ''Yasin S. Clinical evaluation of children with celiac disease... '' It would be ''Sahin Y. Clinical evaluation of children with celiac disease... '' Best regards,	BMC	12876_2025_3712_ReviewerReport_V5_R3.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 2, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 1, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 1, "total": 4 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 0.5, "praise": 0.25, "presentation_and_reporting": 0.25, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0.25 }	1.25	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Persistence of Anemia in patients with Celiac Disease despite a Gluten Free Diet: A\nretrospective study\nVersion: 5 Date: 28 Dec 2024\nReviewer's report:\nDear Editor,\nThe authors did appropriate response to the comments. I have only one suggestion for correction\nto one reference 7.\n''Yasin S. Clinical evaluation of children with celiac disease... ''\nIt would be ''Sahin Y. Clinical evaluation of children with celiac disease... ''\nBest regards,", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03724-2	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Comparison of short-term efficacy of laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy with modified side overlap anastomosis and laparoscopic total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y anastomosis Version: 2 Date: 26 Jan 2025 Reviewer's report: This manuscript compared the laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy (LPG) with modified side overlap anastomosis and laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) with Roux-en-Y anastomosis for upper gastric adenocarcinoma. It is an interesting technique that intends to reduce the postoperative GERD after proximal gastrectomy. The comments are listed as follows: 1, Please check the manuscript to avoid some language errors. For example, line 5-6:The clinicopathological data of 262 patients who underwent LPG or LTG for upper gastric adenocarcinoma from January 2016 to December 2022 were collected. missing LTG. Table 3, wrong placement of Digestive tract reconstruction duration (min) and Total surgery duration (min) 2, Though Propensity Score Matching could significantly decrease the bias, the number of the patients included in this study was too small to draw an solid conclusion. And the method of PMS should be further elaborated. 3, The author used GERD scale scores and gastroscopy to evaluate the post-op GERD. Though they are very useful for the diagnosis of GERD, 24h pH test remains the golden standard for GERD diagnosis. BTW, what is the reason for the LAB esophagitis after LTG? What about the PPI usage after surgery? which score system did you use? GerdQ? RDQ? 4, For the nutritional evaluation, Though NRS2002 is good. Anemia, multivitamin supplementation and other items should be added. And it is better to include the score for quality of life evaluation such as SF-36. 5, Though your figures were well drawn. I would suggest to put a video or real surgical screenshot in the manuscript.	Title: Comparison of short-term efficacy of laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy with modified side overlap anastomosis and laparoscopic total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y anastomosis Version: 2 Date: 26 Jan 2025 Reviewer's report: This manuscript compared the laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy (LPG) with modified side overlap anastomosis and laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) with Roux-en-Y anastomosis for upper gastric adenocarcinoma. It is an interesting technique that intends to reduce the postoperative GERD after proximal gastrectomy. The comments are listed as follows: 1, Please check the manuscript to avoid some language errors. For example, line 5-6:The clinicopathological data of 262 patients who underwent LPG or LTG for upper gastric adenocarcinoma from January 2016 to December 2022 were collected. missing LTG. Table 3, wrong placement of Digestive tract reconstruction duration (min) and Total surgery duration (min) 2, Though Propensity Score Matching could significantly decrease the bias, the number of the patients included in this study was too small to draw an solid conclusion. And the method of PMS should be further elaborated. 3, The author used GERD scale scores and gastroscopy to evaluate the post-op GERD. Though they are very useful for the diagnosis of GERD, 24h pH test remains the golden standard for GERD diagnosis. BTW, what is the reason for the LAB esophagitis after LTG? What about the PPI usage after surgery? which score system did you use? GerdQ? RDQ? 4, For the nutritional evaluation, Though NRS2002 is good. Anemia, multivitamin supplementation and other items should be added. And it is better to include the score for quality of life evaluation such as SF-36. 5, Though your figures were well drawn. I would suggest to put a video or real surgical screenshot in the manuscript.	BMC	12876_2025_3724_ReviewerReport_V2_R1.pdf	{ "criticism": 1, "example": 1, "importance_and_relevance": 2, "materials_and_methods": 10, "praise": 4, "presentation_and_reporting": 5, "results_and_discussion": 1, "suggestion_and_solution": 5, "total": 19 }	{ "criticism": 0.05263157894736842, "example": 0.05263157894736842, "importance_and_relevance": 0.10526315789473684, "materials_and_methods": 0.5263157894736842, "praise": 0.21052631578947367, "presentation_and_reporting": 0.2631578947368421, "results_and_discussion": 0.05263157894736842, "suggestion_and_solution": 0.2631578947368421 }	1.526316	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Comparison of short-term efficacy of laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy with modified\nside overlap anastomosis and laparoscopic total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y anastomosis\nVersion: 2 Date: 26 Jan 2025\nReviewer's report:\nThis manuscript compared the laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy (LPG) with modified side\noverlap anastomosis and laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) with Roux-en-Y anastomosis\nfor upper gastric adenocarcinoma. It is an interesting technique that intends to reduce the\npostoperative GERD after proximal gastrectomy. The comments are listed as follows:\n1, Please check the manuscript to avoid some language errors. For example, line 5-6:The\nclinicopathological data of 262 patients who underwent LPG or LTG for upper gastric\nadenocarcinoma from January 2016 to December 2022 were collected. missing LTG. Table 3,\nwrong placement of Digestive tract reconstruction duration (min) and Total surgery duration\n(min)\n2, Though Propensity Score Matching could significantly decrease the bias, the number of the\npatients included in this study was too small to draw an solid conclusion. And the method of\nPMS should be further elaborated.\n3, The author used GERD scale scores and gastroscopy to evaluate the post-op GERD. Though\nthey are very useful for the diagnosis of GERD, 24h pH test remains the golden standard for\nGERD diagnosis. BTW, what is the reason for the LAB esophagitis after LTG? What about the\nPPI usage after surgery? which score system did you use? GerdQ? RDQ?\n4, For the nutritional evaluation, Though NRS2002 is good. Anemia, multivitamin\nsupplementation and other items should be added. And it is better to include the score for quality\nof life evaluation such as SF-36.\n5, Though your figures were well drawn. I would suggest to put a video or real surgical\nscreenshot in the manuscript.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03724-2	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Comparison of short-term efficacy of laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy with modified side overlap anastomosis and laparoscopic total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y anastomosis Version: 2 Date: 26 Jan 2025 Reviewer's report: Thank you for your valuable article, and it is my pleasure to review the manuscript entitled “Comparison of short-term efficacy of laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy with modified side overlap anastomosis and laparoscopic total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y anastomosis”. The authors stated, in this retrospective study, that LPG with a modified side overlap anastomosis is safe, and compared with traditional LTG, its postoperative nutritional status is better. This paper gives us the important information, however it has also a number of weaknesses. Thus, I would provide the following comments and queries. Major comment #1) The authors stated that LPG using the overlap method provides better nutritional status than LTG with RY. I totally agree with this conclusion. However, as the authors described in the surgical method, the LPG with overlap method was performed as a “Laparoscopy-assisted” method in which upper abdominal incision was performed from the xyphoid. Totally laparoscopic TG has been reported to provide better quality of life (STO 22 eating) compared to Laparoscopy-assisted TG. Likewise, the totally laparoscopic PG with overlap method is thought to provide a better eating-related quality of life and possibly provide a better nutritional status than the laparoscopic-assisted PG with overlap method. Cite the literature below and describe related issues in the limitation part of the discussion in addition to the section that described the limitation of the small number of patients operated on with the LPG with overlap method. Reference) Park SH, Suh YS, Kim TH, Choi YH, Choi JH, Kong SH, Park DJ, Lee HJ, Yang HK. Postoperative morbidity and quality of life between totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy and laparoscopy-assisted total gastrectomy: a propensity-score matched analysis. BMC Cancer. 2021 Sep 11;21(1):1016. doi: 10.1186/s12885-021-08744-1. Minor comment #1) The authors should modify some words like as follows. In page 2, line 6: Before revision: The clinicopathological data of 262 patients who underwent LPG for upper gastric adenocarcinoma from January 2016 to December 2022 were collected. Among 262 patients, 20 patients who underwent LPG with a modified side overlap anastomosis were assigned to the side overlap group and the 242 who underwent LTG with Roux-en-Y anastomosis were assigned to the Roux-en-Y group. After revision: The clinicopathological data of 262 patients who underwent surgery for upper gastric adenocarcinoma from January 2016 to December 2022 were collected. Among 262 patients, 20 patients who underwent LPG with a modified side overlap anastomosis were assigned to the side overlap group and the 242 who underwent LTG with Roux-en-Y anastomosis were assigned to the Roux-en-Y group. Minor comment #2) Figure 2 to 6 describes how to make the overlap method. Since, this paper has too many figures, please make Figure 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 to Figure 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e.	Title: Comparison of short-term efficacy of laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy with modified side overlap anastomosis and laparoscopic total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y anastomosis Version: 2 Date: 26 Jan 2025 Reviewer's report: Thank you for your valuable article, and it is my pleasure to review the manuscript entitled “Comparison of short-term efficacy of laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy with modified side overlap anastomosis and laparoscopic total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y anastomosis”. The authors stated, in this retrospective study, that LPG with a modified side overlap anastomosis is safe, and compared with traditional LTG, its postoperative nutritional status is better. This paper gives us the important information, however it has also a number of weaknesses. Thus, I would provide the following comments and queries. Major comment #1) The authors stated that LPG using the overlap method provides better nutritional status than LTG with RY. I totally agree with this conclusion. However, as the authors described in the surgical method, the LPG with overlap method was performed as a “Laparoscopy-assisted” method in which upper abdominal incision was performed from the xyphoid. Totally laparoscopic TG has been reported to provide better quality of life (STO 22 eating) compared to Laparoscopy-assisted TG. Likewise, the totally laparoscopic PG with overlap method is thought to provide a better eating-related quality of life and possibly provide a better nutritional status than the laparoscopic-assisted PG with overlap method. Cite the literature below and describe related issues in the limitation part of the discussion in addition to the section that described the limitation of the small number of patients operated on with the LPG with overlap method. Reference) Park SH, Suh YS, Kim TH, Choi YH, Choi JH, Kong SH, Park DJ, Lee HJ, Yang HK. Postoperative morbidity and quality of life between totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy and laparoscopy-assisted total gastrectomy: a propensity-score matched analysis. BMC Cancer. 2021 Sep 11;21(1):1016. doi: 10.1186/s12885-021-08744-1. Minor comment #1) The authors should modify some words like as follows. In page 2, line 6: Before revision: The clinicopathological data of 262 patients who underwent LPG for upper gastric adenocarcinoma from January 2016 to December 2022 were collected. Among 262 patients, 20 patients who underwent LPG with a modified side overlap anastomosis were assigned to the side overlap group and the 242 who underwent LTG with Roux-en-Y anastomosis were assigned to the Roux-en-Y group. After revision: The clinicopathological data of 262 patients who underwent surgery for upper gastric adenocarcinoma from January 2016 to December 2022 were collected. Among 262 patients, 20 patients who underwent LPG with a modified side overlap anastomosis were assigned to the side overlap group and the 242 who underwent LTG with Roux-en-Y anastomosis were assigned to the Roux-en-Y group. Minor comment #2) Figure 2 to 6 describes how to make the overlap method. Since, this paper has too many figures, please make Figure 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 to Figure 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e.	BMC	12876_2025_3724_ReviewerReport_V2_R2.pdf	{ "criticism": 2, "example": 3, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 11, "praise": 2, "presentation_and_reporting": 4, "results_and_discussion": 2, "suggestion_and_solution": 4, "total": 21 }	{ "criticism": 0.09523809523809523, "example": 0.14285714285714285, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 0.5238095238095238, "praise": 0.09523809523809523, "presentation_and_reporting": 0.19047619047619047, "results_and_discussion": 0.09523809523809523, "suggestion_and_solution": 0.19047619047619047 }	1.333333	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Comparison of short-term efficacy of laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy with modified\nside overlap anastomosis and laparoscopic total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y anastomosis\nVersion: 2 Date: 26 Jan 2025\nReviewer's report:\nThank you for your valuable article, and it is my pleasure to review the manuscript entitled\n“Comparison of short-term efficacy of laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy with modified side\noverlap anastomosis and laparoscopic total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y anastomosis”. The\nauthors stated, in this retrospective study, that LPG with a modified side overlap anastomosis\nis safe, and compared with traditional LTG, its postoperative nutritional status is better. This\npaper gives us the important information, however it has also a number of weaknesses. Thus, I\nwould provide the following comments and queries.\nMajor comment #1) The authors stated that LPG using the overlap method provides better\nnutritional status than LTG with RY. I totally agree with this conclusion. However, as the\nauthors described in the surgical method, the LPG with overlap method was performed as a\n“Laparoscopy-assisted” method in which upper abdominal incision was performed from the\nxyphoid. Totally laparoscopic TG has been reported to provide better quality of life (STO\n22 eating) compared to Laparoscopy-assisted TG. Likewise, the totally laparoscopic PG with\noverlap method is thought to provide a better eating-related quality of life and possibly provide\na better nutritional status than the laparoscopic-assisted PG with overlap method. Cite the\nliterature below and describe related issues in the limitation part of the discussion in addition\nto the section that described the limitation of the small number of patients operated on with the\nLPG with overlap method.\nReference) Park SH, Suh YS, Kim TH, Choi YH, Choi JH, Kong SH, Park DJ, Lee HJ, Yang\nHK. Postoperative morbidity and quality of life between totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy\nand laparoscopy-assisted total gastrectomy: a propensity-score matched analysis. BMC Cancer.\n2021 Sep 11;21(1):1016. doi: 10.1186/s12885-021-08744-1.\nMinor comment #1) The authors should modify some words like as follows.\nIn page 2, line 6:\nBefore revision: The clinicopathological data of 262 patients who underwent LPG for upper\ngastric adenocarcinoma from January 2016 to December 2022 were collected. Among 262\npatients, 20 patients who underwent LPG with a modified side overlap anastomosis were\nassigned to the side overlap group and the 242 who underwent LTG with Roux-en-Y anastomosis\nwere assigned to the Roux-en-Y group.\nAfter revision: The clinicopathological data of 262 patients who underwent surgery for upper\ngastric adenocarcinoma from January 2016 to December 2022 were collected. Among 262\npatients, 20 patients who underwent LPG with a modified side overlap anastomosis were\nassigned to the side overlap group and the 242 who underwent LTG with Roux-en-Y anastomosis\nwere assigned to the Roux-en-Y group.\nMinor comment #2) Figure 2 to 6 describes how to make the overlap method. Since, this paper\nhas too many figures, please make Figure 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 to Figure 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03724-2	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Comparison of short-term efficacy of laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy with modified side overlap anastomosis and laparoscopic total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y anastomosis Version: 3 Date: 09 Feb 2025 Reviewer's report: All comments were well reflected and revised. I decided acceptance on this manuscript.	Title: Comparison of short-term efficacy of laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy with modified side overlap anastomosis and laparoscopic total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y anastomosis Version: 3 Date: 09 Feb 2025 Reviewer's report: All comments were well reflected and revised. I decided acceptance on this manuscript.	BMC	12876_2025_3724_ReviewerReport_V3_R2.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 0, "praise": 2, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0, "total": 2 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 0, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0 }	1	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Comparison of short-term efficacy of laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy with modified\nside overlap anastomosis and laparoscopic total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y anastomosis\nVersion: 3 Date: 09 Feb 2025\nReviewer's report:\nAll comments were well reflected and revised.\nI decided acceptance on this manuscript.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03724-2	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Comparison of short-term efficacy of laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy with modified side overlap anastomosis and laparoscopic total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y anastomosis Version: 3 Date: 10 Feb 2025 Reviewer's report: Thanks for your revision of the manuscript. With exception of language, I have nothing to comment. I suggest you check and correct the English writing before publication. Some language mistakes can still be found in the manuscipt.	Title: Comparison of short-term efficacy of laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy with modified side overlap anastomosis and laparoscopic total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y anastomosis Version: 3 Date: 10 Feb 2025 Reviewer's report: Thanks for your revision of the manuscript. With exception of language, I have nothing to comment. I suggest you check and correct the English writing before publication. Some language mistakes can still be found in the manuscipt.	BMC	12876_2025_3724_ReviewerReport_V3_R1.pdf	{ "criticism": 2, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 0, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 3, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 2, "total": 4 }	{ "criticism": 0.5, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 0, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 0.75, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0.5 }	1.75	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Comparison of short-term efficacy of laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy with modified\nside overlap anastomosis and laparoscopic total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y anastomosis\nVersion: 3 Date: 10 Feb 2025\nReviewer's report:\nThanks for your revision of the manuscript. With exception of language, I have nothing to\ncomment. I suggest you check and correct the English writing before publication. Some language\nmistakes can still be found in the manuscipt.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03705-5	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Unraveling the role of early coeliac disease diagnosis in the risk of developing immune- mediated renal diseases Version: 1 Date: 23 Mar 2024 Reviewer: Kamran Rostami Reviewer's report: This is an interesting study well written, conducted by Francesco De Luca et al that quantify the risk of developing immune-mediated renal diseases (IMRDs) in coeliac patients. I would like to thank the authors as this study would be a great addition to the current literature emphasising the protective and preventive role of gluten free diet. The authors used the data from the Swedish national patient register. The association was assessed retrospectively before or after coeliac disease diagnosis. The study suggest unrecognized CD patients had a higher risk to develop IMRDs and gluten free diet as we know is protective as the risk of IMRDs was reduced post diagnosis. Another interesting finding of this study was increased IMRDs prevalence with age. This finding may suggest that unrecognised CD with long-term gluten exposure is significant risk factors for developing IMRDs and other autoimmune disorders. Alternatively and most likely explanation would be genuine predisposition for autoimmune conditions in CD. It might be difficult to estimate if gluten free diet can be more protective and preventive in those older patients who were promptly diagnosed and treated for CD? I acknowledge this was one of the limitation of the study, but still the authors may discuss briefly some possible explanation for their age related risk stratification like what they mentioned in Background (We also expected to find that longer duration of persistent exposure to gluten increases the risk of developing IMRDs) The current literature suggest the prevalence of Autoimmune Disorders rises with the age in non-coeliac relatives of CD patients as they share similar genetic susceptibility in association with, similar environmental triggering factors. Minor comments Background line 79 page 4 the hypothesis may need to be moved to discussion alongside the rest: We also expected to find that longer duration of persistent exposure to gluten increases the risk of developing IMRDs	Title: Unraveling the role of early coeliac disease diagnosis in the risk of developing immune- mediated renal diseases Version: 1 Date: 23 Mar 2024 Reviewer: Kamran Rostami Reviewer's report: This is an interesting study well written, conducted by Francesco De Luca et al that quantify the risk of developing immune-mediated renal diseases (IMRDs) in coeliac patients. I would like to thank the authors as this study would be a great addition to the current literature emphasising the protective and preventive role of gluten free diet. The authors used the data from the Swedish national patient register. The association was assessed retrospectively before or after coeliac disease diagnosis. The study suggest unrecognized CD patients had a higher risk to develop IMRDs and gluten free diet as we know is protective as the risk of IMRDs was reduced post diagnosis. Another interesting finding of this study was increased IMRDs prevalence with age. This finding may suggest that unrecognised CD with long-term gluten exposure is significant risk factors for developing IMRDs and other autoimmune disorders. Alternatively and most likely explanation would be genuine predisposition for autoimmune conditions in CD. It might be difficult to estimate if gluten free diet can be more protective and preventive in those older patients who were promptly diagnosed and treated for CD? I acknowledge this was one of the limitation of the study, but still the authors may discuss briefly some possible explanation for their age related risk stratification like what they mentioned in Background (We also expected to find that longer duration of persistent exposure to gluten increases the risk of developing IMRDs) The current literature suggest the prevalence of Autoimmune Disorders rises with the age in non-coeliac relatives of CD patients as they share similar genetic susceptibility in association with, similar environmental triggering factors. Minor comments Background line 79 page 4 the hypothesis may need to be moved to discussion alongside the rest: We also expected to find that longer duration of persistent exposure to gluten increases the risk of developing IMRDs	BMC	12876_2025_3705_ReviewerReport_V1_R1.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 1, "importance_and_relevance": 3, "materials_and_methods": 4, "praise": 3, "presentation_and_reporting": 1, "results_and_discussion": 4, "suggestion_and_solution": 3, "total": 11 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0.09090909090909091, "importance_and_relevance": 0.2727272727272727, "materials_and_methods": 0.36363636363636365, "praise": 0.2727272727272727, "presentation_and_reporting": 0.09090909090909091, "results_and_discussion": 0.36363636363636365, "suggestion_and_solution": 0.2727272727272727 }	1.727273	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Unraveling the role of early coeliac disease diagnosis in the risk of developing immune-\nmediated renal diseases\nVersion: 1 Date: 23 Mar 2024\nReviewer: Kamran Rostami\nReviewer's report:\nThis is an interesting study well written, conducted by Francesco De Luca et al that quantify the\nrisk of developing immune-mediated renal diseases (IMRDs) in coeliac patients.\nI would like to thank the authors as this study would be a great addition to the current literature\nemphasising the protective and preventive role of gluten free diet.\nThe authors used the data from the Swedish national patient register. The association\nwas assessed retrospectively before or after coeliac disease diagnosis. The study suggest\nunrecognized CD patients had a higher risk to develop IMRDs and gluten free diet as we\nknow is protective as the risk of IMRDs was reduced post diagnosis. Another interesting\nfinding of this study was increased IMRDs prevalence with age. This finding may suggest\nthat unrecognised CD with long-term gluten exposure is significant risk factors for developing\nIMRDs and other autoimmune disorders. Alternatively and most likely explanation would be\ngenuine predisposition for autoimmune conditions in CD. It might be difficult to estimate\nif gluten free diet can be more protective and preventive in those older patients who were\npromptly diagnosed and treated for CD? I acknowledge this was one of the limitation of the\nstudy, but still the authors may discuss briefly some possible explanation for their age related\nrisk stratification like what they mentioned in Background (We also expected to find that longer\nduration of persistent exposure to gluten increases the risk of developing IMRDs) The current\nliterature suggest the prevalence of Autoimmune Disorders rises with the age in non-coeliac\nrelatives of CD patients as they share similar genetic susceptibility in association with, similar\nenvironmental triggering factors.\nMinor comments\nBackground line 79 page 4 the hypothesis may need to be moved to discussion alongside the\nrest: We also expected to find that longer duration of persistent exposure to gluten increases the\nrisk of developing IMRDs", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03705-5	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Unraveling the role of early coeliac disease diagnosis in the risk of developing immune- mediated renal diseases Version: 1 Date: 04 Jul 2024 Reviewer's report: Reviewer's report: Thank you for this manuscript which described the risk of developing immune-mediated renal diseases (IMRDs) in patients with celiac disease (CD). The study area is interesting, however there seems to be some major concerns I would like to rise. Therefore, I would like to ask the authors to clarify some issues: General - Throughout the manuscript, please include the confidence intervals with HRs. - Please make sure that abbreviations are used throughout the manuscript with the same manner (for instance, the specific word should be written in full with the abbreviation in brackets appearing first time in the text). - I also suggest not to use abbreviations for different IMRDs, making the text more complex to read. - Please consider including the data on specific renal disorders included to the group of IMRDs to the Abstract and/or Material and Methods (not only to Supplementary Table). Further, how did the authors decide this classification of IMRDs including various syndromes and specific diagnoses? Abstract - I would like to know what was the actual numeric risk increase or decrease of having IMRDs in different analysis? Please consider using more accurate descriptions of the risks. - I suggest downregulating some of the conclusions, because even though these results may indicate some lower risk of IMRDs in patients diagnosed with CD in earlier life, many other factors should also be considered. Introduction - Rows 49-50, please highlight that CD can still present at any age. - I would recommend using different term than ´gluten sensitivity´ in CD diagnosis to avoid it to be confused with another entity called ´non-celiac gluten sensitivity´. - Rows 56-75; I suggest that this part is written compactly concentrating on the theme of this article. - I would like to read more about the known association of CD and renal disorders. - Rows 76-77, please include more detailed data on the potential benefits of gluten-free diet (what kind of benefits and in which studied renal disorders)? Material and methods - Could the term “Socialstyrelsen” be changed to “National Board of Health and Welfare”? - Did you consider some potential factors, for instance other comorbidities, when analyzing the data? Results - This section includes some discussion of the results, for instance on the rows 144-145 and 181-185. Please re-consider the location of these sentences. Discussion - The sentence from the row 212 needs to be cited. - Data of compliance with gluten-free diet are lacking. To discuss this weakness more deeply, it would be interesting to show some data from Sweden about the general compliance with a such diet in CD. Further, I think that the discussion of the role of gluten in kidney damage would improve the sections of Introduction or Discussion. - I kindly ask authors to ponder whether there are any other factors potentially affecting the risk of IMRDs with respect to the time of the CD diagnosis. Tables and Figures - Please include the abbreviations to the Tables and Figures. References - Majority of the references are over 20 years old. Please re-consider using some current references.	Title: Unraveling the role of early coeliac disease diagnosis in the risk of developing immune- mediated renal diseases Version: 1 Date: 04 Jul 2024 Reviewer's report: Reviewer's report: Thank you for this manuscript which described the risk of developing immune-mediated renal diseases (IMRDs) in patients with celiac disease (CD). The study area is interesting, however there seems to be some major concerns I would like to rise. Therefore, I would like to ask the authors to clarify some issues: General - Throughout the manuscript, please include the confidence intervals with HRs. - Please make sure that abbreviations are used throughout the manuscript with the same manner (for instance, the specific word should be written in full with the abbreviation in brackets appearing first time in the text). - I also suggest not to use abbreviations for different IMRDs, making the text more complex to read. - Please consider including the data on specific renal disorders included to the group of IMRDs to the Abstract and/or Material and Methods (not only to Supplementary Table). Further, how did the authors decide this classification of IMRDs including various syndromes and specific diagnoses? Abstract - I would like to know what was the actual numeric risk increase or decrease of having IMRDs in different analysis? Please consider using more accurate descriptions of the risks. - I suggest downregulating some of the conclusions, because even though these results may indicate some lower risk of IMRDs in patients diagnosed with CD in earlier life, many other factors should also be considered. Introduction - Rows 49-50, please highlight that CD can still present at any age. - I would recommend using different term than ´gluten sensitivity´ in CD diagnosis to avoid it to be confused with another entity called ´non-celiac gluten sensitivity´. - Rows 56-75; I suggest that this part is written compactly concentrating on the theme of this article. - I would like to read more about the known association of CD and renal disorders. - Rows 76-77, please include more detailed data on the potential benefits of gluten-free diet (what kind of benefits and in which studied renal disorders)? Material and methods - Could the term “Socialstyrelsen” be changed to “National Board of Health and Welfare”? - Did you consider some potential factors, for instance other comorbidities, when analyzing the data? Results - This section includes some discussion of the results, for instance on the rows 144-145 and 181-185. Please re-consider the location of these sentences. Discussion - The sentence from the row 212 needs to be cited. - Data of compliance with gluten-free diet are lacking. To discuss this weakness more deeply, it would be interesting to show some data from Sweden about the general compliance with a such diet in CD. Further, I think that the discussion of the role of gluten in kidney damage would improve the sections of Introduction or Discussion. - I kindly ask authors to ponder whether there are any other factors potentially affecting the risk of IMRDs with respect to the time of the CD diagnosis. Tables and Figures - Please include the abbreviations to the Tables and Figures. References - Majority of the references are over 20 years old. Please re-consider using some current references.	BMC	12876_2025_3705_ReviewerReport_V1_R4.pdf	{ "criticism": 2, "example": 5, "importance_and_relevance": 2, "materials_and_methods": 9, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 16, "results_and_discussion": 5, "suggestion_and_solution": 20, "total": 27 }	{ "criticism": 0.07407407407407407, "example": 0.18518518518518517, "importance_and_relevance": 0.07407407407407407, "materials_and_methods": 0.3333333333333333, "praise": 0.037037037037037035, "presentation_and_reporting": 0.5925925925925926, "results_and_discussion": 0.18518518518518517, "suggestion_and_solution": 0.7407407407407407 }	2.222222	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Unraveling the role of early coeliac disease diagnosis in the risk of developing immune-\nmediated renal diseases\nVersion: 1 Date: 04 Jul 2024\nReviewer's report:\nReviewer's report:\nThank you for this manuscript which described the risk of developing immune-mediated renal\ndiseases (IMRDs) in patients with celiac disease (CD). The study area is interesting, however\nthere seems to be some major concerns I would like to rise. Therefore, I would like to ask the\nauthors to clarify some issues:\nGeneral\n- Throughout the manuscript, please include the confidence intervals with HRs.\n- Please make sure that abbreviations are used throughout the manuscript with the same manner\n(for instance, the specific word should be written in full with the abbreviation in brackets\nappearing first time in the text).\n- I also suggest not to use abbreviations for different IMRDs, making the text more complex\nto read.\n- Please consider including the data on specific renal disorders included to the group of IMRDs\nto the Abstract and/or Material and Methods (not only to Supplementary Table). Further, how\ndid the authors decide this classification of IMRDs including various syndromes and specific\ndiagnoses?\nAbstract\n- I would like to know what was the actual numeric risk increase or decrease of having IMRDs\nin different analysis? Please consider using more accurate descriptions of the risks.\n- I suggest downregulating some of the conclusions, because even though these results may\nindicate some lower risk of IMRDs in patients diagnosed with CD in earlier life, many other\nfactors should also be considered.\nIntroduction\n- Rows 49-50, please highlight that CD can still present at any age.\n- I would recommend using different term than ´gluten sensitivity´ in CD diagnosis to avoid it\nto be confused with another entity called ´non-celiac gluten sensitivity´.\n- Rows 56-75; I suggest that this part is written compactly concentrating on the theme of this\narticle.\n- I would like to read more about the known association of CD and renal disorders.\n- Rows 76-77, please include more detailed data on the potential benefits of gluten-free diet\n(what kind of benefits and in which studied renal disorders)?\nMaterial and methods\n- Could the term “Socialstyrelsen” be changed to “National Board of Health and Welfare”?\n- Did you consider some potential factors, for instance other comorbidities, when analyzing the\ndata?\nResults\n- This section includes some discussion of the results, for instance on the rows 144-145 and\n181-185. Please re-consider the location of these sentences.\nDiscussion\n- The sentence from the row 212 needs to be cited.\n- Data of compliance with gluten-free diet are lacking. To discuss this weakness more deeply, it\nwould be interesting to show some data from Sweden about the general compliance with a such\ndiet in CD. Further, I think that the discussion of the role of gluten in kidney damage would\nimprove the sections of Introduction or Discussion.\n- I kindly ask authors to ponder whether there are any other factors potentially affecting the risk\nof IMRDs with respect to the time of the CD diagnosis.\nTables and Figures\n- Please include the abbreviations to the Tables and Figures.\nReferences\n- Majority of the references are over 20 years old. Please re-consider using some current\nreferences.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03705-5	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Unraveling the role of early coeliac disease diagnosis in the risk of developing immune- mediated renal diseases Version: 2 Date: 28 Sep 2024 Reviewer: Carlo Catassi Reviewer's report: I think that this is an interesting and original piece of work, that has been much improved after the revision performed on the basis of the appropriate comments of referees #1 and #2. I think that the english form of this manuscript still requires some attention and changes.	Title: Unraveling the role of early coeliac disease diagnosis in the risk of developing immune- mediated renal diseases Version: 2 Date: 28 Sep 2024 Reviewer: Carlo Catassi Reviewer's report: I think that this is an interesting and original piece of work, that has been much improved after the revision performed on the basis of the appropriate comments of referees #1 and #2. I think that the english form of this manuscript still requires some attention and changes.	BMC	12876_2025_3705_ReviewerReport_V2_R5.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 1, "materials_and_methods": 0, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 1, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 1, "total": 2 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0.5, "materials_and_methods": 0, "praise": 0.5, "presentation_and_reporting": 0.5, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0.5 }	2	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Unraveling the role of early coeliac disease diagnosis in the risk of developing immune-\nmediated renal diseases\nVersion: 2 Date: 28 Sep 2024\nReviewer: Carlo Catassi\nReviewer's report:\nI think that this is an interesting and original piece of work, that has been much improved after\nthe revision performed on the basis of the appropriate comments of referees #1 and #2. I think\nthat the english form of this manuscript still requires some attention and changes.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03705-5	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Unraveling the role of early coeliac disease diagnosis in the risk of developing immune- mediated renal diseases Version: 2 Date: 06 Oct 2024 Reviewer's report: Reviewer's report: I thank the authors for their answers. The revised manuscript has been modified quite a a lot, and it has also improved. I still have some comments concerning the new version: Whole manuscript: Please re-check the grammar (for instance on rows 50, 66, 73-77). Please use certain words in the same way throughout the text (celiac disease, gluten-free diet etc). Re-check the correct use of abbreviations (for instance on rows 199&208 etc). Abstract: In the section of results; when presenting/comparing the different risks, could you mention also the comparing group (reference individuals)? How the results of this study may increase the incentive for implementation of large-scale screening programs for CD? Introduction: At least the rows 90-97 should be moved to the section of Methods. Table 1: Abbreviations (ICD, IMRD) should be explained. Results: I kindly suggest presenting the results of risks using HRs, probably not CIs. For instance, on the row 153, an increased risk would be over three-fold. Figure 1: I recommend changing the word “ALL_IMRD”. Discussion: In my opinion, no need to refer to tables in the discussion section. Do the authors have any explanations for the finding that the risk was increased for nephrotic syndrome, systemic lupus erythematosus, tubulointerstitial nephritis, and unspecific nephritis and nephropathy following the CD diagnosis? Please consider having a discussion about it in the text.	Title: Unraveling the role of early coeliac disease diagnosis in the risk of developing immune- mediated renal diseases Version: 2 Date: 06 Oct 2024 Reviewer's report: Reviewer's report: I thank the authors for their answers. The revised manuscript has been modified quite a a lot, and it has also improved. I still have some comments concerning the new version: Whole manuscript: Please re-check the grammar (for instance on rows 50, 66, 73-77). Please use certain words in the same way throughout the text (celiac disease, gluten-free diet etc). Re-check the correct use of abbreviations (for instance on rows 199&208 etc). Abstract: In the section of results; when presenting/comparing the different risks, could you mention also the comparing group (reference individuals)? How the results of this study may increase the incentive for implementation of large-scale screening programs for CD? Introduction: At least the rows 90-97 should be moved to the section of Methods. Table 1: Abbreviations (ICD, IMRD) should be explained. Results: I kindly suggest presenting the results of risks using HRs, probably not CIs. For instance, on the row 153, an increased risk would be over three-fold. Figure 1: I recommend changing the word “ALL_IMRD”. Discussion: In my opinion, no need to refer to tables in the discussion section. Do the authors have any explanations for the finding that the risk was increased for nephrotic syndrome, systemic lupus erythematosus, tubulointerstitial nephritis, and unspecific nephritis and nephropathy following the CD diagnosis? Please consider having a discussion about it in the text.	BMC	12876_2025_3705_ReviewerReport_V2_R9.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 5, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 4, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 9, "results_and_discussion": 5, "suggestion_and_solution": 10, "total": 15 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0.3333333333333333, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 0.26666666666666666, "praise": 0.06666666666666667, "presentation_and_reporting": 0.6, "results_and_discussion": 0.3333333333333333, "suggestion_and_solution": 0.6666666666666666 }	2.266667	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Unraveling the role of early coeliac disease diagnosis in the risk of developing immune-\nmediated renal diseases\nVersion: 2 Date: 06 Oct 2024\nReviewer's report:\nReviewer's report:\nI thank the authors for their answers. The revised manuscript has been modified quite a a lot,\nand it has also improved. I still have some comments concerning the new version:\nWhole manuscript:\nPlease re-check the grammar (for instance on rows 50, 66, 73-77).\nPlease use certain words in the same way throughout the text (celiac disease, gluten-free diet etc).\nRe-check the correct use of abbreviations (for instance on rows 199&208 etc).\nAbstract:\nIn the section of results; when presenting/comparing the different risks, could you mention also\nthe comparing group (reference individuals)?\nHow the results of this study may increase the incentive for implementation of large-scale\nscreening programs for CD?\nIntroduction:\nAt least the rows 90-97 should be moved to the section of Methods.\nTable 1:\nAbbreviations (ICD, IMRD) should be explained.\nResults:\nI kindly suggest presenting the results of risks using HRs, probably not CIs. For instance, on the\nrow 153, an increased risk would be over three-fold.\nFigure 1:\nI recommend changing the word “ALL_IMRD”.\nDiscussion:\nIn my opinion, no need to refer to tables in the discussion section.\nDo the authors have any explanations for the finding that the risk was increased for nephrotic\nsyndrome, systemic lupus erythematosus, tubulointerstitial nephritis, and unspecific nephritis\nand nephropathy following the CD diagnosis? Please consider having a discussion about it in\nthe text.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03705-5	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Unraveling the role of early coeliac disease diagnosis in the risk of developing immune- mediated renal diseases Version: 2 Date: 15 Oct 2024 Reviewer's report: Dear Editor, I should first thank for inviting me as potential reviewer to read and comment on paper entitled ‘Unraveling the role of early coeliac disease diagnosis in the risk of developing immune- mediated renal diseases’’. In the current study, the authors aimed to identify any significant variation of the risk of renal autoimmune disorders in the CD population. The main title accurately reflects the major topic and content of the study. The abstract summarizes and reflects the work described in the manuscript. Also, the abstract presents the significant points related to the background, objectives, materials and methods, results and conclusions. The materials and methods sufficiently described for the results and conclusions that are presented in the preceding sections. The study type and design were defined in the section of the materials and methods. Inclusion and exclusion criteria are well defined. Figures and tables are sufficient and well-organized. Ethics Committee approval was received. So, the section materials and methods is adequate. The statistical methods used are appropriate. The section of the discussion is well organized. The conclusions are drawn appropriately supported by the literature. The manuscript adequately describes the background, present status and significance of the study. The manuscript interprets the findings adequately and appropriately, highlighting the key points clearly. I think that it will contribute to the literature. I have some minor criticisms. - The manuscript appropriately cites the important and authoritative references but does not cite the recent published articles in the background section of the manuscript. If the recent published article about celiac disease for example ‘’ Celiac disease in children: A review of the literature. World J Clin Pediatr. 2021 Jul 9;10(4):53-71’’ are cited, the manuscript would be better. - Has there been a comparison in terms of IMRD risk between celiac patients who adhere to the diet and those who do not? If so, should this be stated?	Title: Unraveling the role of early coeliac disease diagnosis in the risk of developing immune- mediated renal diseases Version: 2 Date: 15 Oct 2024 Reviewer's report: Dear Editor, I should first thank for inviting me as potential reviewer to read and comment on paper entitled ‘Unraveling the role of early coeliac disease diagnosis in the risk of developing immune- mediated renal diseases’’. In the current study, the authors aimed to identify any significant variation of the risk of renal autoimmune disorders in the CD population. The main title accurately reflects the major topic and content of the study. The abstract summarizes and reflects the work described in the manuscript. Also, the abstract presents the significant points related to the background, objectives, materials and methods, results and conclusions. The materials and methods sufficiently described for the results and conclusions that are presented in the preceding sections. The study type and design were defined in the section of the materials and methods. Inclusion and exclusion criteria are well defined. Figures and tables are sufficient and well-organized. Ethics Committee approval was received. So, the section materials and methods is adequate. The statistical methods used are appropriate. The section of the discussion is well organized. The conclusions are drawn appropriately supported by the literature. The manuscript adequately describes the background, present status and significance of the study. The manuscript interprets the findings adequately and appropriately, highlighting the key points clearly. I think that it will contribute to the literature. I have some minor criticisms. - The manuscript appropriately cites the important and authoritative references but does not cite the recent published articles in the background section of the manuscript. If the recent published article about celiac disease for example ‘’ Celiac disease in children: A review of the literature. World J Clin Pediatr. 2021 Jul 9;10(4):53-71’’ are cited, the manuscript would be better. - Has there been a comparison in terms of IMRD risk between celiac patients who adhere to the diet and those who do not? If so, should this be stated?	BMC	12876_2025_3705_ReviewerReport_V2_R10.pdf	{ "criticism": 2, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 1, "materials_and_methods": 9, "praise": 11, "presentation_and_reporting": 6, "results_and_discussion": 4, "suggestion_and_solution": 4, "total": 24 }	{ "criticism": 0.08333333333333333, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0.041666666666666664, "materials_and_methods": 0.375, "praise": 0.4583333333333333, "presentation_and_reporting": 0.25, "results_and_discussion": 0.16666666666666666, "suggestion_and_solution": 0.16666666666666666 }	1.541667	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Unraveling the role of early coeliac disease diagnosis in the risk of developing immune-\nmediated renal diseases\nVersion: 2 Date: 15 Oct 2024\nReviewer's report:\nDear Editor,\nI should first thank for inviting me as potential reviewer to read and comment on paper entitled\n‘Unraveling the role of early coeliac disease diagnosis in the risk of developing immune-\nmediated renal diseases’’.\nIn the current study, the authors aimed to identify any significant variation of the risk of renal\nautoimmune disorders in the CD population.\nThe main title accurately reflects the major topic and content of the study.\nThe abstract summarizes and reflects the work described in the manuscript. Also, the abstract\npresents the significant points related to the background, objectives, materials and methods,\nresults and conclusions.\nThe materials and methods sufficiently described for the results and conclusions that are\npresented in the preceding sections. The study type and design were defined in the section of\nthe materials and methods. Inclusion and exclusion criteria are well defined. Figures and tables\nare sufficient and well-organized. Ethics Committee approval was received. So, the section\nmaterials and methods is adequate.\nThe statistical methods used are appropriate.\nThe section of the discussion is well organized. The conclusions are drawn appropriately\nsupported by the literature. The manuscript adequately describes the background, present\nstatus and significance of the study. The manuscript interprets the findings adequately and\nappropriately, highlighting the key points clearly.\nI think that it will contribute to the literature. I have some minor criticisms.\n- The manuscript appropriately cites the important and authoritative references but does not cite\nthe recent published articles in the background section of the manuscript. If the recent published\narticle about celiac disease for example ‘’ Celiac disease in children: A review of the literature.\nWorld J Clin Pediatr. 2021 Jul 9;10(4):53-71’’ are cited, the manuscript would be better.\n- Has there been a comparison in terms of IMRD risk between celiac patients who adhere to the\ndiet and those who do not? If so, should this be stated?", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03705-5	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Unraveling the role of early coeliac disease diagnosis in the risk of developing immune- mediated renal diseases Version: 3 Date: 30 Oct 2024 Reviewer's report: The authors did an apropriate response. It can be accepted to be published.	Title: Unraveling the role of early coeliac disease diagnosis in the risk of developing immune- mediated renal diseases Version: 3 Date: 30 Oct 2024 Reviewer's report: The authors did an apropriate response. It can be accepted to be published.	BMC	12876_2025_3705_ReviewerReport_V3_R10.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 0, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 1, "total": 2 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 0, "praise": 0.5, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0.5 }	1	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Unraveling the role of early coeliac disease diagnosis in the risk of developing immune-\nmediated renal diseases\nVersion: 3 Date: 30 Oct 2024\nReviewer's report:\nThe authors did an apropriate response.\nIt can be accepted to be published.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03705-5	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Unraveling the role of early coeliac disease diagnosis in the risk of developing immune- mediated renal diseases Version: 3 Date: 08 Nov 2024 Reviewer's report: Reviewer's report: The revised manuscript has been improved and the authors have implemented the suggested changes appropriately. I kindly suggest that the authors re-evaluate the grammatical correctness, particularly with regard to the use of abbreviations. I have no further comments regarding the manuscript.	Title: Unraveling the role of early coeliac disease diagnosis in the risk of developing immune- mediated renal diseases Version: 3 Date: 08 Nov 2024 Reviewer's report: Reviewer's report: The revised manuscript has been improved and the authors have implemented the suggested changes appropriately. I kindly suggest that the authors re-evaluate the grammatical correctness, particularly with regard to the use of abbreviations. I have no further comments regarding the manuscript.	BMC	12876_2025_3705_ReviewerReport_V3_R9.pdf	{ "criticism": 1, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 0, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 1, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 1, "total": 3 }	{ "criticism": 0.3333333333333333, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 0, "praise": 0.3333333333333333, "presentation_and_reporting": 0.3333333333333333, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0.3333333333333333 }	1.333333	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Unraveling the role of early coeliac disease diagnosis in the risk of developing immune-\nmediated renal diseases\nVersion: 3 Date: 08 Nov 2024\nReviewer's report:\nReviewer's report:\nThe revised manuscript has been improved and the authors have implemented the suggested\nchanges appropriately. I kindly suggest that the authors re-evaluate the grammatical correctness,\nparticularly with regard to the use of abbreviations. I have no further comments regarding the\nmanuscript.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03705-5	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Unraveling the role of early coeliac disease diagnosis in the risk of developing immune- mediated renal diseases Version: 4 Date: 03 Dec 2024 Reviewer's report: Reviewer’s report: I have no further comments.	Title: Unraveling the role of early coeliac disease diagnosis in the risk of developing immune- mediated renal diseases Version: 4 Date: 03 Dec 2024 Reviewer's report: Reviewer’s report: I have no further comments.	BMC	12876_2025_3705_ReviewerReport_V4_R9.pdf	{ "criticism": 1, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 0, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0, "total": 1 }	{ "criticism": 1, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 0, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0 }	1	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Unraveling the role of early coeliac disease diagnosis in the risk of developing immune-\nmediated renal diseases\nVersion: 4 Date: 03 Dec 2024\nReviewer's report:\nReviewer’s report:\nI have no further comments.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03721-5	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Operation Sequence of Bidirectional Endoscopy with Topical Anesthesia Affected Colonoscopy Performance: A Randomized Controlled Trial Version: 0 Date: 07 Feb 2025 Reviewer: Yu-Tse Chiu Reviewer's report:	Title: Operation Sequence of Bidirectional Endoscopy with Topical Anesthesia Affected Colonoscopy Performance: A Randomized Controlled Trial Version: 0 Date: 07 Feb 2025 Reviewer: Yu-Tse Chiu Reviewer's report:	BMC	12876_2025_3721_ReviewerReport_V0_R1.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0, "total": 1 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0 }	1	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Operation Sequence of Bidirectional Endoscopy with Topical Anesthesia Affected\nColonoscopy Performance: A Randomized Controlled Trial\nVersion: 0 Date: 07 Feb 2025\nReviewer: Yu-Tse Chiu\nReviewer's report:", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03721-5	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Operation Sequence of Bidirectional Endoscopy with Topical Anesthesia Affected Colonoscopy Performance: A Randomized Controlled Trial Version: 0 Date: 07 Feb 2025 Reviewer: Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr Reviewer's report: Dear Authors, please address the following points below -The introduction discusses sedation protocols and their benefits (e.g., EGD-first sequence with sedation), but it would be helpful to emphasize the novelty and specific relevance of topical anesthesia in this study. A clearer distinction between sedation and topical anesthesia would strengthen the rationale for this particular investigation. -The brief mention of colonic spasms and their impact on procedure quality could be expanded. Specifically, it could discuss how this influences procedure time, polyp detection rates, and patient experience—outlining why addressing this issue with optimal sequencing could improve overall outcomes. -The description of the topical anesthesia protocol (dyclonine hydrochloride for EGD and oxybuprocaine hydrochloride for colonoscopy) is clear, but more information could be provided on how these were applied (e.g., the volume of anesthesia used for each procedure, duration before procedure start). This detail would allow for a better understanding of potential variations in anesthesia administration. -While it is stated that all examinations were performed by senior endoscopists with more than 10 years of experience, the potential for variability in technique among different endoscopists is not fully addressed. It would be beneficial to mention whether the operators were trained in a standardized manner for this specific study to reduce bias in the outcomes. -It would be helpful to include more information on how adverse events were handled during the study, particularly given that discomfort and potential complications (such as spasms or incomplete colonoscopy) were identified as key endpoints. Were patients monitored for any delayed adverse events after the procedure? -The definition of significant colonic spasm is clear, but further clarification on how these spasms were visually assessed during the procedure might help. Was there a specific protocol to determine when spasms were considered significant, and were these assessed by multiple operators to avoid bias? -While the study reports the effects of the test sequence on colonic spasms and its correlation with cecal intubation time and patient comfort, further elaboration on how spasms can affect other procedural outcomes would be beneficial. For example, the potential influence on polyp detection rate (PDR) or adenoma miss rate could be explored in more depth, as these factors are critical for evaluating colonoscopy performance. -The authors suggest that the relief effect of warm water on colonic spasms may explain some of the results, but it would be useful to discuss other potential mechanisms behind the reduced incidence of spasms in the colonoscopy-first group. Could it be related to the patient’s positioning or a psychological effect of starting with a colonoscopy? Further elaboration on this would strengthen the interpretation of the results. -Although the authors acknowledge that the study was conducted by experienced endoscopists, there could be a more detailed discussion on how this may impact the generalizability of the findings. The results might differ with less-experienced endoscopists or in different settings, which could be explored in more detail. -Although patient discomfort was assessed using the Modified Gloucester Comfort Scale (MGCS), the discussion could benefit from a deeper dive into how discomfort influenced overall patient experience and whether it could affect patient compliance with future procedures. Additionally, a more robust explanation of why the EGD-first sequence didn't result in greater discomfort could be provided, given that prior studies suggest this might occur.	Title: Operation Sequence of Bidirectional Endoscopy with Topical Anesthesia Affected Colonoscopy Performance: A Randomized Controlled Trial Version: 0 Date: 07 Feb 2025 Reviewer: Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr Reviewer's report: Dear Authors, please address the following points below -The introduction discusses sedation protocols and their benefits (e.g., EGD-first sequence with sedation), but it would be helpful to emphasize the novelty and specific relevance of topical anesthesia in this study. A clearer distinction between sedation and topical anesthesia would strengthen the rationale for this particular investigation. -The brief mention of colonic spasms and their impact on procedure quality could be expanded. Specifically, it could discuss how this influences procedure time, polyp detection rates, and patient experience—outlining why addressing this issue with optimal sequencing could improve overall outcomes. -The description of the topical anesthesia protocol (dyclonine hydrochloride for EGD and oxybuprocaine hydrochloride for colonoscopy) is clear, but more information could be provided on how these were applied (e.g., the volume of anesthesia used for each procedure, duration before procedure start). This detail would allow for a better understanding of potential variations in anesthesia administration. -While it is stated that all examinations were performed by senior endoscopists with more than 10 years of experience, the potential for variability in technique among different endoscopists is not fully addressed. It would be beneficial to mention whether the operators were trained in a standardized manner for this specific study to reduce bias in the outcomes. -It would be helpful to include more information on how adverse events were handled during the study, particularly given that discomfort and potential complications (such as spasms or incomplete colonoscopy) were identified as key endpoints. Were patients monitored for any delayed adverse events after the procedure? -The definition of significant colonic spasm is clear, but further clarification on how these spasms were visually assessed during the procedure might help. Was there a specific protocol to determine when spasms were considered significant, and were these assessed by multiple operators to avoid bias? -While the study reports the effects of the test sequence on colonic spasms and its correlation with cecal intubation time and patient comfort, further elaboration on how spasms can affect other procedural outcomes would be beneficial. For example, the potential influence on polyp detection rate (PDR) or adenoma miss rate could be explored in more depth, as these factors are critical for evaluating colonoscopy performance. -The authors suggest that the relief effect of warm water on colonic spasms may explain some of the results, but it would be useful to discuss other potential mechanisms behind the reduced incidence of spasms in the colonoscopy-first group. Could it be related to the patient’s positioning or a psychological effect of starting with a colonoscopy? Further elaboration on this would strengthen the interpretation of the results. -Although the authors acknowledge that the study was conducted by experienced endoscopists, there could be a more detailed discussion on how this may impact the generalizability of the findings. The results might differ with less-experienced endoscopists or in different settings, which could be explored in more detail. -Although patient discomfort was assessed using the Modified Gloucester Comfort Scale (MGCS), the discussion could benefit from a deeper dive into how discomfort influenced overall patient experience and whether it could affect patient compliance with future procedures. Additionally, a more robust explanation of why the EGD-first sequence didn't result in greater discomfort could be provided, given that prior studies suggest this might occur.	BMC	12876_2025_3721_ReviewerReport_V0_R2.pdf	{ "criticism": 1, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 3, "materials_and_methods": 19, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 6, "results_and_discussion": 10, "suggestion_and_solution": 17, "total": 21 }	{ "criticism": 0.047619047619047616, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0.14285714285714285, "materials_and_methods": 0.9047619047619048, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 0.2857142857142857, "results_and_discussion": 0.47619047619047616, "suggestion_and_solution": 0.8095238095238095 }	2.666667	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Operation Sequence of Bidirectional Endoscopy with Topical Anesthesia Affected\nColonoscopy Performance: A Randomized Controlled Trial\nVersion: 0 Date: 07 Feb 2025\nReviewer: Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr\nReviewer's report:\nDear Authors, please address the following points below\n-The introduction discusses sedation protocols and their benefits (e.g., EGD-first sequence with\nsedation), but it would be helpful to emphasize the novelty and specific relevance of topical\nanesthesia in this study. A clearer distinction between sedation and topical anesthesia would\nstrengthen the rationale for this particular investigation.\n-The brief mention of colonic spasms and their impact on procedure quality could be expanded.\nSpecifically, it could discuss how this influences procedure time, polyp detection rates, and\npatient experience—outlining why addressing this issue with optimal sequencing could improve\noverall outcomes.\n-The description of the topical anesthesia protocol (dyclonine hydrochloride for EGD and\noxybuprocaine hydrochloride for colonoscopy) is clear, but more information could be provided\non how these were applied (e.g., the volume of anesthesia used for each procedure, duration\nbefore procedure start). This detail would allow for a better understanding of potential variations\nin anesthesia administration.\n-While it is stated that all examinations were performed by senior endoscopists with more than\n10 years of experience, the potential for variability in technique among different endoscopists\nis not fully addressed. It would be beneficial to mention whether the operators were trained in a\nstandardized manner for this specific study to reduce bias in the outcomes.\n-It would be helpful to include more information on how adverse events were handled during\nthe study, particularly given that discomfort and potential complications (such as spasms or\nincomplete colonoscopy) were identified as key endpoints. Were patients monitored for any\ndelayed adverse events after the procedure?\n-The definition of significant colonic spasm is clear, but further clarification on how these\nspasms were visually assessed during the procedure might help. Was there a specific protocol\nto determine when spasms were considered significant, and were these assessed by multiple\noperators to avoid bias?\n-While the study reports the effects of the test sequence on colonic spasms and its correlation\nwith cecal intubation time and patient comfort, further elaboration on how spasms can affect\nother procedural outcomes would be beneficial. For example, the potential influence on polyp\ndetection rate (PDR) or adenoma miss rate could be explored in more depth, as these factors are\ncritical for evaluating colonoscopy performance.\n-The authors suggest that the relief effect of warm water on colonic spasms may explain\nsome of the results, but it would be useful to discuss other potential mechanisms behind the\nreduced incidence of spasms in the colonoscopy-first group. Could it be related to the patient’s\npositioning or a psychological effect of starting with a colonoscopy? Further elaboration on this\nwould strengthen the interpretation of the results.\n-Although the authors acknowledge that the study was conducted by experienced endoscopists,\nthere could be a more detailed discussion on how this may impact the generalizability of the\nfindings. The results might differ with less-experienced endoscopists or in different settings,\nwhich could be explored in more detail.\n-Although patient discomfort was assessed using the Modified Gloucester Comfort Scale\n(MGCS), the discussion could benefit from a deeper dive into how discomfort influenced\noverall patient experience and whether it could affect patient compliance with future procedures.\nAdditionally, a more robust explanation of why the EGD-first sequence didn't result in greater\ndiscomfort could be provided, given that prior studies suggest this might occur.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03721-5	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Operation Sequence of Bidirectional Endoscopy with Topical Anesthesia Affected Colonoscopy Performance: A Randomized Controlled Trial Version: 1 Date: 14 Feb 2025 Reviewer: Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr Reviewer's report: The responses are satisfactory.	Title: Operation Sequence of Bidirectional Endoscopy with Topical Anesthesia Affected Colonoscopy Performance: A Randomized Controlled Trial Version: 1 Date: 14 Feb 2025 Reviewer: Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr Reviewer's report: The responses are satisfactory.	BMC	12876_2025_3721_ReviewerReport_V1_R2.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0, "total": 1 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0 }	2	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Operation Sequence of Bidirectional Endoscopy with Topical Anesthesia Affected\nColonoscopy Performance: A Randomized Controlled Trial\nVersion: 1 Date: 14 Feb 2025\nReviewer: Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr\nReviewer's report:\nThe responses are satisfactory.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03721-5	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Operation Sequence of Bidirectional Endoscopy with Topical Anesthesia Affected Colonoscopy Performance: A Randomized Controlled Trial Version: 1 Date: 17 Feb 2025 Reviewer: Yu-Tse Chiu Reviewer's report: The authors have adequately addressed the issues raised in the previous review, resulting in a well-written manuscript. Regarding the validation of the AI system, while it is unfortunate that no large-scale trials currently support its reliability, certification by relevant authorities still provides a certain level of quality assurance. However, although the authors clarified the rationale for the discrepancy between the target sample size and the actual recruitment number in their point-by-point response, this explanation was not included in the manuscript. This omission could potentially confuse readers, particularly since the sample size calculation section immediately precedes the results section. The manuscript would be further improved if the authors included this clarification. Otherwise, I believe no further modifications are necessary.	Title: Operation Sequence of Bidirectional Endoscopy with Topical Anesthesia Affected Colonoscopy Performance: A Randomized Controlled Trial Version: 1 Date: 17 Feb 2025 Reviewer: Yu-Tse Chiu Reviewer's report: The authors have adequately addressed the issues raised in the previous review, resulting in a well-written manuscript. Regarding the validation of the AI system, while it is unfortunate that no large-scale trials currently support its reliability, certification by relevant authorities still provides a certain level of quality assurance. However, although the authors clarified the rationale for the discrepancy between the target sample size and the actual recruitment number in their point-by-point response, this explanation was not included in the manuscript. This omission could potentially confuse readers, particularly since the sample size calculation section immediately precedes the results section. The manuscript would be further improved if the authors included this clarification. Otherwise, I believe no further modifications are necessary.	BMC	12876_2025_3721_ReviewerReport_V1_R1.pdf	{ "criticism": 2, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 4, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 2, "results_and_discussion": 2, "suggestion_and_solution": 2, "total": 6 }	{ "criticism": 0.3333333333333333, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 0.6666666666666666, "praise": 0.16666666666666666, "presentation_and_reporting": 0.3333333333333333, "results_and_discussion": 0.3333333333333333, "suggestion_and_solution": 0.3333333333333333 }	2.166667	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Operation Sequence of Bidirectional Endoscopy with Topical Anesthesia Affected\nColonoscopy Performance: A Randomized Controlled Trial\nVersion: 1 Date: 17 Feb 2025\nReviewer: Yu-Tse Chiu\nReviewer's report:\nThe authors have adequately addressed the issues raised in the previous review, resulting in\na well-written manuscript. Regarding the validation of the AI system, while it is unfortunate\nthat no large-scale trials currently support its reliability, certification by relevant authorities\nstill provides a certain level of quality assurance. However, although the authors clarified the\nrationale for the discrepancy between the target sample size and the actual recruitment number\nin their point-by-point response, this explanation was not included in the manuscript. This\nomission could potentially confuse readers, particularly since the sample size calculation section\nimmediately precedes the results section. The manuscript would be further improved if the\nauthors included this clarification. Otherwise, I believe no further modifications are necessary.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03701-9	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: T1/T2 mapping as a non-invasive method for evaluating liver fibrosis based on correlation of biomarkers: a preclinical study Version: 3 Date: 23 Jan 2025 Reviewer's report: Dear Authors, Thank you to the authors for their contributions in exploring the subject matter. I would like to express my appreciation for the authors interesting project. Overall, the article presents valuable findings. It requires minor revisions to address the concerns before it can be considered for publication. 1. This is a scientific article, and the choice of words is crucial as each word carries significant meaning. Please explain why the phrases “insufficient accuracy” and “urgent need” were used in the first sentence of the abstract. 2. The term “liver-related serum biomarkers” covers a wide range of biomarkers. Focusing only on IL-1, IL-6, and TNF-# to argue that liver-related serum biomarkers have limited accuracy is too narrow and biased. Please consider revising this sentence to reflect a broader perspective. 3. In the “Imaging analysis” section, some sentences require references. For example, the sentence “T1 mapping was conducted using the Messroghli equation” needs a corresponding citation. 4. The Spearman correlation coefficient (#) between HYP content and fibrosis stages is exactly the same as the # between T1 values and HYP content (0.914). I recommend double-checking this finding to confirm the exact similarity. Additionally, please ensure the sentences about the Spearman correlation coefficients between T1 values and fibrosis stages are consistent and unify the redolent sentences. 5. In the legend of Figure 5, please clarify that the P-values shown in the figure represent the differences between T1 and T2. Also, direct readers to Table 3 for the corresponding p-values of each AUROC. 6. As shown in Table 3, the highest AUROC for T1 mapping corresponds to discriminating between F0-2 and F3-4, which is the key distinction in diagnosing advanced liver fibrosis. Please highlight this finding more prominently and discuss its significance in the text. 7. In additional file, Table S1, n in 13*n (number of echoes) for TE in T2 mapping and its range should be clearly defined by the authors to ensure reproducibility, transparency, and accurate interpretation of the results. States that the echo times were chosen to optimize sampling of the T2 decay curve. Providing a detailed explanation of how the echo times were calculated and justified will strengthen the methodology. 8. Again, in Additional File, Table S1, please clarify why the number of slices for T1 and T2 mapping differs. Additionally, could you explain how the exact position of the single T1 slice was chosen during the MRI scans?	Title: T1/T2 mapping as a non-invasive method for evaluating liver fibrosis based on correlation of biomarkers: a preclinical study Version: 3 Date: 23 Jan 2025 Reviewer's report: Dear Authors, Thank you to the authors for their contributions in exploring the subject matter. I would like to express my appreciation for the authors interesting project. Overall, the article presents valuable findings. It requires minor revisions to address the concerns before it can be considered for publication. 1. This is a scientific article, and the choice of words is crucial as each word carries significant meaning. Please explain why the phrases “insufficient accuracy” and “urgent need” were used in the first sentence of the abstract. 2. The term “liver-related serum biomarkers” covers a wide range of biomarkers. Focusing only on IL-1, IL-6, and TNF-# to argue that liver-related serum biomarkers have limited accuracy is too narrow and biased. Please consider revising this sentence to reflect a broader perspective. 3. In the “Imaging analysis” section, some sentences require references. For example, the sentence “T1 mapping was conducted using the Messroghli equation” needs a corresponding citation. 4. The Spearman correlation coefficient (#) between HYP content and fibrosis stages is exactly the same as the # between T1 values and HYP content (0.914). I recommend double-checking this finding to confirm the exact similarity. Additionally, please ensure the sentences about the Spearman correlation coefficients between T1 values and fibrosis stages are consistent and unify the redolent sentences. 5. In the legend of Figure 5, please clarify that the P-values shown in the figure represent the differences between T1 and T2. Also, direct readers to Table 3 for the corresponding p-values of each AUROC. 6. As shown in Table 3, the highest AUROC for T1 mapping corresponds to discriminating between F0-2 and F3-4, which is the key distinction in diagnosing advanced liver fibrosis. Please highlight this finding more prominently and discuss its significance in the text. 7. In additional file, Table S1, n in 13*n (number of echoes) for TE in T2 mapping and its range should be clearly defined by the authors to ensure reproducibility, transparency, and accurate interpretation of the results. States that the echo times were chosen to optimize sampling of the T2 decay curve. Providing a detailed explanation of how the echo times were calculated and justified will strengthen the methodology. 8. Again, in Additional File, Table S1, please clarify why the number of slices for T1 and T2 mapping differs. Additionally, could you explain how the exact position of the single T1 slice was chosen during the MRI scans?	BMC	12876_2025_3701_ReviewerReport_V3_R1.pdf	{ "criticism": 1, "example": 7, "importance_and_relevance": 3, "materials_and_methods": 11, "praise": 2, "presentation_and_reporting": 11, "results_and_discussion": 6, "suggestion_and_solution": 15, "total": 31 }	{ "criticism": 0.03225806451612903, "example": 0.22580645161290322, "importance_and_relevance": 0.0967741935483871, "materials_and_methods": 0.3548387096774194, "praise": 0.06451612903225806, "presentation_and_reporting": 0.3548387096774194, "results_and_discussion": 0.1935483870967742, "suggestion_and_solution": 0.4838709677419355 }	1.806452	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: T1/T2 mapping as a non-invasive method for evaluating liver fibrosis based on\ncorrelation of biomarkers: a preclinical study\nVersion: 3 Date: 23 Jan 2025\nReviewer's report:\nDear Authors,\nThank you to the authors for their contributions in exploring the subject matter. I would like to\nexpress my appreciation for the authors interesting project.\nOverall, the article presents valuable findings. It requires minor revisions to address the concerns\nbefore it can be considered for publication.\n1. This is a scientific article, and the choice of words is crucial as each word carries significant\nmeaning. Please explain why the phrases “insufficient accuracy” and “urgent need” were used\nin the first sentence of the abstract.\n2. The term “liver-related serum biomarkers” covers a wide range of biomarkers. Focusing only\non IL-1, IL-6, and TNF-# to argue that liver-related serum biomarkers have limited accuracy is\ntoo narrow and biased. Please consider revising this sentence to reflect a broader perspective.\n3. In the “Imaging analysis” section, some sentences require references. For example, the\nsentence “T1 mapping was conducted using the Messroghli equation” needs a corresponding\ncitation.\n4. The Spearman correlation coefficient (#) between HYP content and fibrosis stages is exactly\nthe same as the # between T1 values and HYP content (0.914). I recommend double-checking\nthis finding to confirm the exact similarity. Additionally, please ensure the sentences about the\nSpearman correlation coefficients between T1 values and fibrosis stages are consistent and unify\nthe redolent sentences.\n5. In the legend of Figure 5, please clarify that the P-values shown in the figure represent the\ndifferences between T1 and T2. Also, direct readers to Table 3 for the corresponding p-values\nof each AUROC.\n6. As shown in Table 3, the highest AUROC for T1 mapping corresponds to discriminating\nbetween F0-2 and F3-4, which is the key distinction in diagnosing advanced liver fibrosis. Please\nhighlight this finding more prominently and discuss its significance in the text.\n7. In additional file, Table S1, n in 13*n (number of echoes) for TE in T2 mapping and its range\nshould be clearly defined by the authors to ensure reproducibility, transparency, and accurate\ninterpretation of the results. States that the echo times were chosen to optimize sampling of the\nT2 decay curve. Providing a detailed explanation of how the echo times were calculated and\njustified will strengthen the methodology.\n8. Again, in Additional File, Table S1, please clarify why the number of slices for T1 and T2\nmapping differs. Additionally, could you explain how the exact position of the single T1 slice\nwas chosen during the MRI scans?", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03701-9	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: T1/T2 mapping as a non-invasive method for evaluating liver fibrosis based on correlation of biomarkers: a preclinical study Version: 3 Date: 25 Jan 2025 Reviewer: Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr Reviewer's report: Dear Authors, please address the following points below -While the use of T1 and T2 mapping sequences is explained, the actual MRI pulse sequence parameters are only mentioned briefly in a supplementary file. For the sake of clarity and reproducibility, it would be beneficial to include a summary of the key sequence parameters (e.g., repetition time (TR), echo time (TE), inversion times, etc.) directly in the main text. -The description of the T1 mapping technique using the Messroghli equation and the nonlinear fitting algorithm is good, but providing a few more specifics on the fitting process and how this is handled in terms of potential errors or confounding factors could be helpful for the technical audience. -While the use of CCl4-induced fibrosis is well-established, there could be a brief mention of the limitations of this model. For example, how closely does CCl4-induced fibrosis mimic human liver fibrosis in terms of inflammation patterns, fibrosis distribution, or progression speed? Acknowledging these potential limitations would provide nuance and transparency, especially if these results are to be translated into clinical settings. -The model's relevance to human liver fibrosis in varying stages (e.g., early vs. advanced fibrosis) could be expanded upon. Does this model replicate the early stages of fibrosis as seen in humans, or is it skewed more toward later-stage disease? -While the use of HYP content for quantifying collagen deposition is appropriate, it might be helpful to briefly justify why this specific biomarker was selected over other potential markers of fibrosis. For instance, could other markers (e.g., collagen type I, TIMP-1) provide complementary information or would they complicate the analysis? A brief mention of this would give more insight into the rationale behind biomarker selection. -The inflammatory cytokines (IL-1, IL-6, TNF-#) are important, but the link between these biomarkers and fibrosis progression could be explored further. Are there particular stages of fibrosis where these markers are expected to peak, and how does this influence the interpretation of the MRI data? -While the animal protocols are clear, there could be additional details on how the mice were randomized into groups, especially in terms of the timing of MRI scans and histopathological analysis. How were the three-time points selected, and was there a rationale behind choosing the 2-week interval? The methodology should ideally provide a clear rationale for all experimental timelines. -Discuss the lack of significant difference (P > 0.05) in more detail, considering potential factors such as sample size, disease stage, or model limitations that may have contributed to the result. A more in-depth explanation would enhance the reader's understanding of this point. -Expand the discussion on the limitations of the CCl4 model and its relevance to human liver fibrosis. Address the potential biases introduced by this model and consider discussing how findings may differ in other models of liver disease. -Provide more detailed mechanistic insights into how T1/T2 values correlate with HYP content and inflammatory markers. For example, what specific features of the inflammatory response influence T2 values, and how might these change across fibrosis stages?	Title: T1/T2 mapping as a non-invasive method for evaluating liver fibrosis based on correlation of biomarkers: a preclinical study Version: 3 Date: 25 Jan 2025 Reviewer: Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr Reviewer's report: Dear Authors, please address the following points below -While the use of T1 and T2 mapping sequences is explained, the actual MRI pulse sequence parameters are only mentioned briefly in a supplementary file. For the sake of clarity and reproducibility, it would be beneficial to include a summary of the key sequence parameters (e.g., repetition time (TR), echo time (TE), inversion times, etc.) directly in the main text. -The description of the T1 mapping technique using the Messroghli equation and the nonlinear fitting algorithm is good, but providing a few more specifics on the fitting process and how this is handled in terms of potential errors or confounding factors could be helpful for the technical audience. -While the use of CCl4-induced fibrosis is well-established, there could be a brief mention of the limitations of this model. For example, how closely does CCl4-induced fibrosis mimic human liver fibrosis in terms of inflammation patterns, fibrosis distribution, or progression speed? Acknowledging these potential limitations would provide nuance and transparency, especially if these results are to be translated into clinical settings. -The model's relevance to human liver fibrosis in varying stages (e.g., early vs. advanced fibrosis) could be expanded upon. Does this model replicate the early stages of fibrosis as seen in humans, or is it skewed more toward later-stage disease? -While the use of HYP content for quantifying collagen deposition is appropriate, it might be helpful to briefly justify why this specific biomarker was selected over other potential markers of fibrosis. For instance, could other markers (e.g., collagen type I, TIMP-1) provide complementary information or would they complicate the analysis? A brief mention of this would give more insight into the rationale behind biomarker selection. -The inflammatory cytokines (IL-1, IL-6, TNF-#) are important, but the link between these biomarkers and fibrosis progression could be explored further. Are there particular stages of fibrosis where these markers are expected to peak, and how does this influence the interpretation of the MRI data? -While the animal protocols are clear, there could be additional details on how the mice were randomized into groups, especially in terms of the timing of MRI scans and histopathological analysis. How were the three-time points selected, and was there a rationale behind choosing the 2-week interval? The methodology should ideally provide a clear rationale for all experimental timelines. -Discuss the lack of significant difference (P > 0.05) in more detail, considering potential factors such as sample size, disease stage, or model limitations that may have contributed to the result. A more in-depth explanation would enhance the reader's understanding of this point. -Expand the discussion on the limitations of the CCl4 model and its relevance to human liver fibrosis. Address the potential biases introduced by this model and consider discussing how findings may differ in other models of liver disease. -Provide more detailed mechanistic insights into how T1/T2 values correlate with HYP content and inflammatory markers. For example, what specific features of the inflammatory response influence T2 values, and how might these change across fibrosis stages?	BMC	12876_2025_3701_ReviewerReport_V3_R2.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 1, "importance_and_relevance": 3, "materials_and_methods": 19, "praise": 2, "presentation_and_reporting": 7, "results_and_discussion": 5, "suggestion_and_solution": 15, "total": 23 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0.043478260869565216, "importance_and_relevance": 0.13043478260869565, "materials_and_methods": 0.8260869565217391, "praise": 0.08695652173913043, "presentation_and_reporting": 0.30434782608695654, "results_and_discussion": 0.21739130434782608, "suggestion_and_solution": 0.6521739130434783 }	2.26087	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: T1/T2 mapping as a non-invasive method for evaluating liver fibrosis based on\ncorrelation of biomarkers: a preclinical study\nVersion: 3 Date: 25 Jan 2025\nReviewer: Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr\nReviewer's report:\nDear Authors, please address the following points below\n-While the use of T1 and T2 mapping sequences is explained, the actual MRI pulse sequence\nparameters are only mentioned briefly in a supplementary file. For the sake of clarity and\nreproducibility, it would be beneficial to include a summary of the key sequence parameters\n(e.g., repetition time (TR), echo time (TE), inversion times, etc.) directly in the main text.\n-The description of the T1 mapping technique using the Messroghli equation and the nonlinear\nfitting algorithm is good, but providing a few more specifics on the fitting process and how this\nis handled in terms of potential errors or confounding factors could be helpful for the technical\naudience.\n-While the use of CCl4-induced fibrosis is well-established, there could be a brief mention of the\nlimitations of this model. For example, how closely does CCl4-induced fibrosis mimic human\nliver fibrosis in terms of inflammation patterns, fibrosis distribution, or progression speed?\nAcknowledging these potential limitations would provide nuance and transparency, especially\nif these results are to be translated into clinical settings.\n-The model's relevance to human liver fibrosis in varying stages (e.g., early vs. advanced\nfibrosis) could be expanded upon. Does this model replicate the early stages of fibrosis as seen\nin humans, or is it skewed more toward later-stage disease?\n-While the use of HYP content for quantifying collagen deposition is appropriate, it might\nbe helpful to briefly justify why this specific biomarker was selected over other potential\nmarkers of fibrosis. For instance, could other markers (e.g., collagen type I, TIMP-1) provide\ncomplementary information or would they complicate the analysis? A brief mention of this\nwould give more insight into the rationale behind biomarker selection.\n-The inflammatory cytokines (IL-1, IL-6, TNF-#) are important, but the link between these\nbiomarkers and fibrosis progression could be explored further. Are there particular stages of\nfibrosis where these markers are expected to peak, and how does this influence the interpretation\nof the MRI data?\n-While the animal protocols are clear, there could be additional details on how the mice were\nrandomized into groups, especially in terms of the timing of MRI scans and histopathological\nanalysis. How were the three-time points selected, and was there a rationale behind choosing the\n2-week interval? The methodology should ideally provide a clear rationale for all experimental\ntimelines.\n-Discuss the lack of significant difference (P > 0.05) in more detail, considering potential factors\nsuch as sample size, disease stage, or model limitations that may have contributed to the result.\nA more in-depth explanation would enhance the reader's understanding of this point.\n-Expand the discussion on the limitations of the CCl4 model and its relevance to human liver\nfibrosis. Address the potential biases introduced by this model and consider discussing how\nfindings may differ in other models of liver disease.\n-Provide more detailed mechanistic insights into how T1/T2 values correlate with HYP content\nand inflammatory markers. For example, what specific features of the inflammatory response\ninfluence T2 values, and how might these change across fibrosis stages?", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03701-9	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: T1/T2 mapping as a non-invasive method for evaluating liver fibrosis based on correlation of biomarkers: a preclinical study Version: 4 Date: 14 Feb 2025 Reviewer: Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr Reviewer's report: The responses are satisfactory.	Title: T1/T2 mapping as a non-invasive method for evaluating liver fibrosis based on correlation of biomarkers: a preclinical study Version: 4 Date: 14 Feb 2025 Reviewer: Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr Reviewer's report: The responses are satisfactory.	BMC	12876_2025_3701_ReviewerReport_V4_R2.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0, "total": 1 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0 }	2	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: T1/T2 mapping as a non-invasive method for evaluating liver fibrosis based on\ncorrelation of biomarkers: a preclinical study\nVersion: 4 Date: 14 Feb 2025\nReviewer: Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr\nReviewer's report:\nThe responses are satisfactory.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03701-9	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: T1/T2 mapping as a non-invasive method for evaluating liver fibrosis based on correlation of biomarkers: a preclinical study Version: 4 Date: 17 Feb 2025 Reviewer's report: Dear Authors, Thank you for addressing the comments so thoroughly in your revised manuscript. The changes and clarifications you have made have improved your work. I am pleased to inform you that I have no further comments. Reviewer	Title: T1/T2 mapping as a non-invasive method for evaluating liver fibrosis based on correlation of biomarkers: a preclinical study Version: 4 Date: 17 Feb 2025 Reviewer's report: Dear Authors, Thank you for addressing the comments so thoroughly in your revised manuscript. The changes and clarifications you have made have improved your work. I am pleased to inform you that I have no further comments. Reviewer	BMC	12876_2025_3701_ReviewerReport_V4_R1.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0, "total": 4 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 0.25, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0 }	0.25	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: T1/T2 mapping as a non-invasive method for evaluating liver fibrosis based on\ncorrelation of biomarkers: a preclinical study\nVersion: 4 Date: 17 Feb 2025\nReviewer's report:\nDear Authors,\nThank you for addressing the comments so thoroughly in your revised manuscript. The changes\nand clarifications you have made have improved your work. I am pleased to inform you that I\nhave no further comments.\nReviewer", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03531-1	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Epidemiology and clinical characteristics of colorectal cancer and advanced adenoma: a single center experience in Jordan Version: 1 Date: 10 Mar 2024 Reviewer's report: The topic is important and the study looks well conducted and well written.	Title: Epidemiology and clinical characteristics of colorectal cancer and advanced adenoma: a single center experience in Jordan Version: 1 Date: 10 Mar 2024 Reviewer's report: The topic is important and the study looks well conducted and well written.	BMC	12876_2024_3531_ReviewerReport_V1_R1.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 1, "materials_and_methods": 0, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 1, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0, "total": 1 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 1, "materials_and_methods": 0, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 1, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0 }	3	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Epidemiology and clinical characteristics of colorectal cancer and advanced adenoma: a\nsingle center experience in Jordan\nVersion: 1 Date: 10 Mar 2024\nReviewer's report:\nThe topic is important and the study looks well conducted and well written.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03531-1	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Epidemiology and clinical characteristics of colorectal cancer and advanced adenoma: a single center experience in Jordan Version: 1 Date: 09 Apr 2024 Reviewer's report:	Title: Epidemiology and clinical characteristics of colorectal cancer and advanced adenoma: a single center experience in Jordan Version: 1 Date: 09 Apr 2024 Reviewer's report:	BMC	12876_2024_3531_ReviewerReport_V1_R2.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 0, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0, "total": 1 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 0, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0 }	0	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Epidemiology and clinical characteristics of colorectal cancer and advanced adenoma: a\nsingle center experience in Jordan\nVersion: 1 Date: 09 Apr 2024\nReviewer's report:", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03531-1	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Epidemiology and clinical characteristics of colorectal cancer and advanced adenoma: a single center experience in Jordan Version: 1 Date: 26 Apr 2024 Reviewer's report: Thanks for presenting this manuscript work to BMC Gastroentrology. The manuscript is a reasonable presentation of Colorectal prevalence in a Middle East country. 1- Abstract Comments: There is no mention of the results of association analysis of factors and polyps. 2- Results : There is a need to organize presenting the results under several subheadings .I would need the author to comment about the design of the study whether using a control arm with patients who had a complete colonoscopy and matched to the cohort , this well improve the robustness of the study .	Title: Epidemiology and clinical characteristics of colorectal cancer and advanced adenoma: a single center experience in Jordan Version: 1 Date: 26 Apr 2024 Reviewer's report: Thanks for presenting this manuscript work to BMC Gastroentrology. The manuscript is a reasonable presentation of Colorectal prevalence in a Middle East country. 1- Abstract Comments: There is no mention of the results of association analysis of factors and polyps. 2- Results : There is a need to organize presenting the results under several subheadings .I would need the author to comment about the design of the study whether using a control arm with patients who had a complete colonoscopy and matched to the cohort , this well improve the robustness of the study .	BMC	12876_2024_3531_ReviewerReport_V1_R3.pdf	{ "criticism": 1, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 2, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 2, "results_and_discussion": 2, "suggestion_and_solution": 1, "total": 4 }	{ "criticism": 0.25, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 0.5, "praise": 0.25, "presentation_and_reporting": 0.5, "results_and_discussion": 0.5, "suggestion_and_solution": 0.25 }	2.25	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Epidemiology and clinical characteristics of colorectal cancer and advanced adenoma: a\nsingle center experience in Jordan\nVersion: 1 Date: 26 Apr 2024\nReviewer's report:\nThanks for presenting this manuscript work to BMC Gastroentrology.\nThe manuscript is a reasonable presentation of Colorectal prevalence in a Middle East country.\n1- Abstract Comments: There is no mention of the results of association analysis of factors and\npolyps.\n2- Results : There is a need to organize presenting the results under several subheadings .I would\nneed the author to comment about the design of the study whether using a control arm with\npatients who had a complete colonoscopy and matched to the cohort , this well improve the\nrobustness of the study .", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03531-1	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Epidemiology and clinical characteristics of colorectal cancer and advanced adenoma: a single center experience in Jordan Version: 3 Date: 24 Jul 2024 Reviewer's report: The manuscript was improved a lot after the comments of the colleagues from the first review round. The are lot of limitations of the study, which was mentioned, however the study is important in the context of Jordan. Here are several minor points showed be addressed: 1. Mean BMI of 46 seems to be Unlogical, can't be most of the patients with severe obesity in the cohort. Please recheck it. Maybe you have few outsiders in the cohort that make this high number. 2. In table 1, p-values were written as 0.000, better to write <0.001 3. Results sections, for better flow, the multivariate analysis should be the last part presented in the results section and not the polyp characteristics. 4. Conclusions of the manuscript: the conclusion of the manuscript is nice, but not related the study's findings. The authors need to write a conclusion in the context of the study findings.	Title: Epidemiology and clinical characteristics of colorectal cancer and advanced adenoma: a single center experience in Jordan Version: 3 Date: 24 Jul 2024 Reviewer's report: The manuscript was improved a lot after the comments of the colleagues from the first review round. The are lot of limitations of the study, which was mentioned, however the study is important in the context of Jordan. Here are several minor points showed be addressed: 1. Mean BMI of 46 seems to be Unlogical, can't be most of the patients with severe obesity in the cohort. Please recheck it. Maybe you have few outsiders in the cohort that make this high number. 2. In table 1, p-values were written as 0.000, better to write <0.001 3. Results sections, for better flow, the multivariate analysis should be the last part presented in the results section and not the polyp characteristics. 4. Conclusions of the manuscript: the conclusion of the manuscript is nice, but not related the study's findings. The authors need to write a conclusion in the context of the study findings.	BMC	12876_2024_3531_ReviewerReport_V3_R8.pdf	{ "criticism": 2, "example": 1, "importance_and_relevance": 1, "materials_and_methods": 3, "praise": 2, "presentation_and_reporting": 4, "results_and_discussion": 2, "suggestion_and_solution": 5, "total": 12 }	{ "criticism": 0.16666666666666666, "example": 0.08333333333333333, "importance_and_relevance": 0.08333333333333333, "materials_and_methods": 0.25, "praise": 0.16666666666666666, "presentation_and_reporting": 0.3333333333333333, "results_and_discussion": 0.16666666666666666, "suggestion_and_solution": 0.4166666666666667 }	1.666667	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Epidemiology and clinical characteristics of colorectal cancer and advanced adenoma: a\nsingle center experience in Jordan\nVersion: 3 Date: 24 Jul 2024\nReviewer's report:\nThe manuscript was improved a lot after the comments of the colleagues from the first review\nround. The are lot of limitations of the study, which was mentioned, however the study is\nimportant in the context of Jordan.\nHere are several minor points showed be addressed:\n1. Mean BMI of 46 seems to be Unlogical, can't be most of the patients with severe obesity in\nthe cohort. Please recheck it. Maybe you have few outsiders in the cohort that make this high\nnumber.\n2. In table 1, p-values were written as 0.000, better to write <0.001\n3. Results sections, for better flow, the multivariate analysis should be the last part presented in\nthe results section and not the polyp characteristics.\n4. Conclusions of the manuscript: the conclusion of the manuscript is nice, but not related the\nstudy's findings. The authors need to write a conclusion in the context of the study findings.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03531-1	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Epidemiology and clinical characteristics of colorectal cancer and advanced adenoma: a single center experience in Jordan Version: 3 Date: 25 Jul 2024 Reviewer's report: Dear Authors In your paper You evaluated the epidemiology and clinical characteristics of colorectal polyps to formulate an appropriate screening program. Following my specific comments; 1) The aim of the paper is very clear. 2) The topic addressed is consistent with current literature. 3) The bibliography is in line with the topic of the article. 4) Although this article can provide useful guidance for clinical practice, a critical issue should be addressed: a) A correlation with the definition of adenoma detection rate b) A reference to the possible an adenoma detection rate redefination relatively to the Jordan population Formulate an appropriate screening program a difficult reality to define. There are good suggestions in the article on how to formulate an adequate screening program.	Title: Epidemiology and clinical characteristics of colorectal cancer and advanced adenoma: a single center experience in Jordan Version: 3 Date: 25 Jul 2024 Reviewer's report: Dear Authors In your paper You evaluated the epidemiology and clinical characteristics of colorectal polyps to formulate an appropriate screening program. Following my specific comments; 1) The aim of the paper is very clear. 2) The topic addressed is consistent with current literature. 3) The bibliography is in line with the topic of the article. 4) Although this article can provide useful guidance for clinical practice, a critical issue should be addressed: a) A correlation with the definition of adenoma detection rate b) A reference to the possible an adenoma detection rate redefination relatively to the Jordan population Formulate an appropriate screening program a difficult reality to define. There are good suggestions in the article on how to formulate an adequate screening program.	BMC	12876_2024_3531_ReviewerReport_V3_R7.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 1, "materials_and_methods": 3, "praise": 4, "presentation_and_reporting": 2, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 2, "total": 6 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0.16666666666666666, "materials_and_methods": 0.5, "praise": 0.6666666666666666, "presentation_and_reporting": 0.3333333333333333, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0.3333333333333333 }	2	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Epidemiology and clinical characteristics of colorectal cancer and advanced adenoma: a\nsingle center experience in Jordan\nVersion: 3 Date: 25 Jul 2024\nReviewer's report:\nDear Authors\nIn your paper You evaluated the epidemiology and clinical characteristics of colorectal polyps\nto formulate an appropriate screening program.\nFollowing my specific comments;\n1) The aim of the paper is very clear.\n2) The topic addressed is consistent with current literature.\n3) The bibliography is in line with the topic of the article.\n4) Although this article can provide useful guidance for clinical practice, a critical issue should\nbe addressed:\na) A correlation with the definition of adenoma detection rate\nb) A reference to the possible an adenoma detection rate redefination relatively to the Jordan\npopulation\nFormulate an appropriate screening program a difficult reality to define. There are good\nsuggestions in the article on how to formulate an adequate screening program.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03728-y	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Dual-phase contrast-enhanced CT-based intratumoral and peritumoral radiomics for preoperative prediction of lymph node metastasis in gastric cancer Version: 1 Date: 30 Jan 2025 Reviewer's report:	Title: Dual-phase contrast-enhanced CT-based intratumoral and peritumoral radiomics for preoperative prediction of lymph node metastasis in gastric cancer Version: 1 Date: 30 Jan 2025 Reviewer's report:	BMC	12876_2025_3728_ReviewerReport_V1_R1.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0, "total": 1 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0 }	1	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Dual-phase contrast-enhanced CT-based intratumoral and peritumoral radiomics for\npreoperative prediction of lymph node metastasis in gastric cancer\nVersion: 1 Date: 30 Jan 2025\nReviewer's report:", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03728-y	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Dual-phase contrast-enhanced CT-based intratumoral and peritumoral radiomics for preoperative prediction of lymph node metastasis in gastric cancer Version: 1 Date: 03 Feb 2025 Reviewer's report:	Title: Dual-phase contrast-enhanced CT-based intratumoral and peritumoral radiomics for preoperative prediction of lymph node metastasis in gastric cancer Version: 1 Date: 03 Feb 2025 Reviewer's report:	BMC	12876_2025_3728_ReviewerReport_V1_R2.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0, "total": 1 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0 }	1	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Dual-phase contrast-enhanced CT-based intratumoral and peritumoral radiomics for\npreoperative prediction of lymph node metastasis in gastric cancer\nVersion: 1 Date: 03 Feb 2025\nReviewer's report:", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03718-0	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Impact of Simulated Animated Video Education on Patients’ Disease Uncertainty, Anxiety, and Sleep Quality in Digestive Endoscopy Examination Version: 2 Date: 23 Nov 2024 Reviewer's report: I am unsure if this is a first submission or revision; the files included are confusing. Major Concerns: 1. Study Design and Generalizability: The manuscript employs a retrospective cohort design, which inherently limits the ability to draw causal conclusions. The authors should consider discussing these limitations in greater depth and addressing how this design impacts the strength of their findings. The lack of randomization may introduce selection bias. 2. Sample Limitations: The study focuses on patients from a single hospital, limiting generalizability. The authors should discuss how these results might differ in a more diverse, multi-site sample. 3. Statistical Analysis: The description of the statistical analysis is relatively brief. The authors should provide more details regarding the statistical tests employed and justify their choices. Specifically, mentioning controlling for confounding variables would help address concerns related to the study's observational nature. 4. Intervention Details: More information is needed on the content and development of the simulated animated video. Who created the content, and how was its effectiveness initially validated? This will help assess the intervention’s quality and reproducibility. 5. Outcome Reporting: The results section reports statistically significant findings but needs a more practical interpretation. The authors should discuss the clinical significance of the observed differences in MUIS, HAM, and PSQI scores. For instance, is reducing anxiety or uncertainty meaningful enough to influence procedural outcomes or patient compliance? Minor Issues: 1. Language and Grammar: Occasional grammatical inconsistencies may hinder clarity. Consider a thorough language edit to improve readability. 2. Ethical Considerations: The manuscript states that informed consent was waived due to the use of de-identified data. While this complies with ethical standards, a stronger justification for the waiver would enhance transparency, particularly regarding patient autonomy. Recommendations for Authors: a) Address the study design's limitations and clearly articulate how they affect the interpretation of the results. b) Expand on the statistical analysis methods and ensure sufficient detail is given about the tools and adjustments used. c) Provide additional information on the animated video intervention's development, validation, and content. d) Consider reformatting some sections for clarity and incorporating visual aids.	Title: Impact of Simulated Animated Video Education on Patients’ Disease Uncertainty, Anxiety, and Sleep Quality in Digestive Endoscopy Examination Version: 2 Date: 23 Nov 2024 Reviewer's report: I am unsure if this is a first submission or revision; the files included are confusing. Major Concerns: 1. Study Design and Generalizability: The manuscript employs a retrospective cohort design, which inherently limits the ability to draw causal conclusions. The authors should consider discussing these limitations in greater depth and addressing how this design impacts the strength of their findings. The lack of randomization may introduce selection bias. 2. Sample Limitations: The study focuses on patients from a single hospital, limiting generalizability. The authors should discuss how these results might differ in a more diverse, multi-site sample. 3. Statistical Analysis: The description of the statistical analysis is relatively brief. The authors should provide more details regarding the statistical tests employed and justify their choices. Specifically, mentioning controlling for confounding variables would help address concerns related to the study's observational nature. 4. Intervention Details: More information is needed on the content and development of the simulated animated video. Who created the content, and how was its effectiveness initially validated? This will help assess the intervention’s quality and reproducibility. 5. Outcome Reporting: The results section reports statistically significant findings but needs a more practical interpretation. The authors should discuss the clinical significance of the observed differences in MUIS, HAM, and PSQI scores. For instance, is reducing anxiety or uncertainty meaningful enough to influence procedural outcomes or patient compliance? Minor Issues: 1. Language and Grammar: Occasional grammatical inconsistencies may hinder clarity. Consider a thorough language edit to improve readability. 2. Ethical Considerations: The manuscript states that informed consent was waived due to the use of de-identified data. While this complies with ethical standards, a stronger justification for the waiver would enhance transparency, particularly regarding patient autonomy. Recommendations for Authors: a) Address the study design's limitations and clearly articulate how they affect the interpretation of the results. b) Expand on the statistical analysis methods and ensure sufficient detail is given about the tools and adjustments used. c) Provide additional information on the animated video intervention's development, validation, and content. d) Consider reformatting some sections for clarity and incorporating visual aids.	BMC	12876_2025_3718_ReviewerReport_V2_R2.pdf	{ "criticism": 2, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 15, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 11, "results_and_discussion": 7, "suggestion_and_solution": 12, "total": 30 }	{ "criticism": 0.06666666666666667, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 0.5, "praise": 0.03333333333333333, "presentation_and_reporting": 0.36666666666666664, "results_and_discussion": 0.23333333333333334, "suggestion_and_solution": 0.4 }	1.6	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Impact of Simulated Animated Video Education on Patients’ Disease Uncertainty,\nAnxiety, and Sleep Quality in Digestive Endoscopy Examination\nVersion: 2 Date: 23 Nov 2024\nReviewer's report:\nI am unsure if this is a first submission or revision; the files included are confusing.\nMajor Concerns:\n1. Study Design and Generalizability: The manuscript employs a retrospective cohort design,\nwhich inherently limits the ability to draw causal conclusions. The authors should consider\ndiscussing these limitations in greater depth and addressing how this design impacts the strength\nof their findings. The lack of randomization may introduce selection bias.\n2. Sample Limitations: The study focuses on patients from a single hospital, limiting\ngeneralizability. The authors should discuss how these results might differ in a more diverse,\nmulti-site sample.\n3. Statistical Analysis: The description of the statistical analysis is relatively brief. The authors\nshould provide more details regarding the statistical tests employed and justify their choices.\nSpecifically, mentioning controlling for confounding variables would help address concerns\nrelated to the study's observational nature.\n4. Intervention Details: More information is needed on the content and development of the\nsimulated animated video. Who created the content, and how was its effectiveness initially\nvalidated? This will help assess the intervention’s quality and reproducibility.\n5. Outcome Reporting: The results section reports statistically significant findings but needs a\nmore practical interpretation. The authors should discuss the clinical significance of the observed\ndifferences in MUIS, HAM, and PSQI scores. For instance, is reducing anxiety or uncertainty\nmeaningful enough to influence procedural outcomes or patient compliance?\nMinor Issues:\n1. Language and Grammar: Occasional grammatical inconsistencies may hinder clarity.\nConsider a thorough language edit to improve readability.\n2. Ethical Considerations: The manuscript states that informed consent was waived due to the\nuse of de-identified data. While this complies with ethical standards, a stronger justification for\nthe waiver would enhance transparency, particularly regarding patient autonomy.\nRecommendations for Authors:\na) Address the study design's limitations and clearly articulate how they affect the interpretation\nof the results.\nb) Expand on the statistical analysis methods and ensure sufficient detail is given about the tools\nand adjustments used.\nc) Provide additional information on the animated video intervention's development, validation,\nand content.\nd) Consider reformatting some sections for clarity and incorporating visual aids.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03718-0	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Impact of Simulated Animated Video Education on Patients’ Disease Uncertainty, Anxiety, and Sleep Quality in Digestive Endoscopy Examination Version: 2 Date: 09 Dec 2024 Reviewer: Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr Reviewer's report: Dear Authors, please address the following points below -While the study describes the content of the conventional education (verbal explanation by healthcare staff), the specifics of the animated video content are underexplored. More detail is needed about the animation itself—its length, format, tone, and whether it covered additional aspects such as psychological coping strategies or personalized information for patients. The general effectiveness of animated videos in healthcare often depends on the specific content and design, so a more detailed description would clarify why this particular intervention was successful. -Additionally, the duration of the video (two minutes) is noted, but more information about the content delivery and whether patients had the opportunity to ask questions or revisit the video would help readers understand the depth and accessibility of the education. -Although the manuscript reports that baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups, it would be useful to include more detailed demographic data (such as ethnicity or socioeconomic status) and clinical characteristics. Differences in patient backgrounds might influence how they perceive uncertainty or anxiety, and a more granular demographic breakdown would help assess the generalizability of the findings. -The manuscript mentions the inclusion of various GI conditions, but it would be useful to know whether specific diseases (e.g., cancer vs. benign conditions) influenced outcomes in either group. An analysis of whether disease type modulated the impact of the intervention could offer valuable insights. -The study is limited to patients from a single hospital (Banan District People's Hospital of Chongqing), and the sample may not be fully representative of the broader population of patients undergoing GI endoscopies. The findings would benefit from additional multicenter studies that include more diverse patient populations, especially considering cultural or regional differences in healthcare perceptions and responses to digital interventions. -The study does not mention how missing data were handled. Were patients who missed follow- up assessments excluded from the analysis? If not, how were missing data imputed? A more thorough discussion of these aspects would improve transparency and the rigor of the statistical analysis. -The discussion focuses heavily on the positives of the video intervention, but the study does not explore in detail whether certain patients (e.g., those with limited digital literacy or older patients) might prefer or benefit more from conventional education. The discussion mentions that sleep quality improved with both interventions, but it does not fully explore why this occurred or how it relates to the educational interventions. -A deeper review of the literature on how visual aids directly reduce patient stress and improve comprehension would help justify the choice of using animated video over other educational tools (e.g., pamphlets, verbal instructions, etc.). -The study provides valuable insights into the potential of simulated animated video education in improving patient outcomes in gastrointestinal care. With some refinements in the discussion and conclusion sections, this paper has the potential to make a significant contribution to the field.	Title: Impact of Simulated Animated Video Education on Patients’ Disease Uncertainty, Anxiety, and Sleep Quality in Digestive Endoscopy Examination Version: 2 Date: 09 Dec 2024 Reviewer: Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr Reviewer's report: Dear Authors, please address the following points below -While the study describes the content of the conventional education (verbal explanation by healthcare staff), the specifics of the animated video content are underexplored. More detail is needed about the animation itself—its length, format, tone, and whether it covered additional aspects such as psychological coping strategies or personalized information for patients. The general effectiveness of animated videos in healthcare often depends on the specific content and design, so a more detailed description would clarify why this particular intervention was successful. -Additionally, the duration of the video (two minutes) is noted, but more information about the content delivery and whether patients had the opportunity to ask questions or revisit the video would help readers understand the depth and accessibility of the education. -Although the manuscript reports that baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups, it would be useful to include more detailed demographic data (such as ethnicity or socioeconomic status) and clinical characteristics. Differences in patient backgrounds might influence how they perceive uncertainty or anxiety, and a more granular demographic breakdown would help assess the generalizability of the findings. -The manuscript mentions the inclusion of various GI conditions, but it would be useful to know whether specific diseases (e.g., cancer vs. benign conditions) influenced outcomes in either group. An analysis of whether disease type modulated the impact of the intervention could offer valuable insights. -The study is limited to patients from a single hospital (Banan District People's Hospital of Chongqing), and the sample may not be fully representative of the broader population of patients undergoing GI endoscopies. The findings would benefit from additional multicenter studies that include more diverse patient populations, especially considering cultural or regional differences in healthcare perceptions and responses to digital interventions. -The study does not mention how missing data were handled. Were patients who missed follow- up assessments excluded from the analysis? If not, how were missing data imputed? A more thorough discussion of these aspects would improve transparency and the rigor of the statistical analysis. -The discussion focuses heavily on the positives of the video intervention, but the study does not explore in detail whether certain patients (e.g., those with limited digital literacy or older patients) might prefer or benefit more from conventional education. The discussion mentions that sleep quality improved with both interventions, but it does not fully explore why this occurred or how it relates to the educational interventions. -A deeper review of the literature on how visual aids directly reduce patient stress and improve comprehension would help justify the choice of using animated video over other educational tools (e.g., pamphlets, verbal instructions, etc.). -The study provides valuable insights into the potential of simulated animated video education in improving patient outcomes in gastrointestinal care. With some refinements in the discussion and conclusion sections, this paper has the potential to make a significant contribution to the field.	BMC	12876_2025_3718_ReviewerReport_V2_R6.pdf	{ "criticism": 4, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 4, "materials_and_methods": 10, "praise": 4, "presentation_and_reporting": 4, "results_and_discussion": 7, "suggestion_and_solution": 9, "total": 19 }	{ "criticism": 0.21052631578947367, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0.21052631578947367, "materials_and_methods": 0.5263157894736842, "praise": 0.21052631578947367, "presentation_and_reporting": 0.21052631578947367, "results_and_discussion": 0.3684210526315789, "suggestion_and_solution": 0.47368421052631576 }	2.210526	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Impact of Simulated Animated Video Education on Patients’ Disease Uncertainty,\nAnxiety, and Sleep Quality in Digestive Endoscopy Examination\nVersion: 2 Date: 09 Dec 2024\nReviewer: Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr\nReviewer's report:\nDear Authors, please address the following points below\n-While the study describes the content of the conventional education (verbal explanation by\nhealthcare staff), the specifics of the animated video content are underexplored. More detail is\nneeded about the animation itself—its length, format, tone, and whether it covered additional\naspects such as psychological coping strategies or personalized information for patients. The\ngeneral effectiveness of animated videos in healthcare often depends on the specific content\nand design, so a more detailed description would clarify why this particular intervention was\nsuccessful.\n-Additionally, the duration of the video (two minutes) is noted, but more information about the\ncontent delivery and whether patients had the opportunity to ask questions or revisit the video\nwould help readers understand the depth and accessibility of the education.\n-Although the manuscript reports that baseline characteristics were similar between the two\ngroups, it would be useful to include more detailed demographic data (such as ethnicity\nor socioeconomic status) and clinical characteristics. Differences in patient backgrounds\nmight influence how they perceive uncertainty or anxiety, and a more granular demographic\nbreakdown would help assess the generalizability of the findings.\n-The manuscript mentions the inclusion of various GI conditions, but it would be useful to know\nwhether specific diseases (e.g., cancer vs. benign conditions) influenced outcomes in either\ngroup. An analysis of whether disease type modulated the impact of the intervention could offer\nvaluable insights.\n-The study is limited to patients from a single hospital (Banan District People's Hospital of\nChongqing), and the sample may not be fully representative of the broader population of patients\nundergoing GI endoscopies. The findings would benefit from additional multicenter studies that\ninclude more diverse patient populations, especially considering cultural or regional differences\nin healthcare perceptions and responses to digital interventions.\n-The study does not mention how missing data were handled. Were patients who missed follow-\nup assessments excluded from the analysis? If not, how were missing data imputed? A more\nthorough discussion of these aspects would improve transparency and the rigor of the statistical\nanalysis.\n-The discussion focuses heavily on the positives of the video intervention, but the study does\nnot explore in detail whether certain patients (e.g., those with limited digital literacy or older\npatients) might prefer or benefit more from conventional education.\nThe discussion mentions that sleep quality improved with both interventions, but it does not\nfully explore why this occurred or how it relates to the educational interventions.\n-A deeper review of the literature on how visual aids directly reduce patient stress and improve\ncomprehension would help justify the choice of using animated video over other educational\ntools (e.g., pamphlets, verbal instructions, etc.).\n-The study provides valuable insights into the potential of simulated animated video education\nin improving patient outcomes in gastrointestinal care. With some refinements in the discussion\nand conclusion sections, this paper has the potential to make a significant contribution to the\nfield.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03718-0	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Impact of Simulated Animated Video Education on Patients’ Disease Uncertainty, Anxiety, and Sleep Quality in Digestive Endoscopy Examination Version: 3 Date: 04 Jan 2025 Reviewer: Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr Reviewer's report: Responses are satisfactory .	Title: Impact of Simulated Animated Video Education on Patients’ Disease Uncertainty, Anxiety, and Sleep Quality in Digestive Endoscopy Examination Version: 3 Date: 04 Jan 2025 Reviewer: Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr Reviewer's report: Responses are satisfactory .	BMC	12876_2025_3718_ReviewerReport_V3_R6.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 0, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0, "total": 1 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 0, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0 }	1	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Impact of Simulated Animated Video Education on Patients’ Disease Uncertainty,\nAnxiety, and Sleep Quality in Digestive Endoscopy Examination\nVersion: 3 Date: 04 Jan 2025\nReviewer: Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr\nReviewer's report:\nResponses are satisfactory .", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03718-0	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Impact of Simulated Animated Video Education on Patients’ Disease Uncertainty, Anxiety, and Sleep Quality in Digestive Endoscopy Examination Version: 3 Date: 22 Jan 2025 Reviewer's report:	Title: Impact of Simulated Animated Video Education on Patients’ Disease Uncertainty, Anxiety, and Sleep Quality in Digestive Endoscopy Examination Version: 3 Date: 22 Jan 2025 Reviewer's report:	BMC	12876_2025_3718_ReviewerReport_V3_R4.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 0, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0, "total": 1 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 0, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0 }	0	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Impact of Simulated Animated Video Education on Patients’ Disease Uncertainty,\nAnxiety, and Sleep Quality in Digestive Endoscopy Examination\nVersion: 3 Date: 22 Jan 2025\nReviewer's report:", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03718-0	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Impact of Simulated Animated Video Education on Patients’ Disease Uncertainty, Anxiety, and Sleep Quality in Digestive Endoscopy Examination Version: 3 Date: 30 Jan 2025 Reviewer: Maria Piskorz Reviewer's report: This is an interesting study that presents a practical and educational approach for patients undergoing endoscopic procedures. By utilizing animated video education, the study explores an innovative method to enhance patient understanding, reduce anxiety, and improve overall experience with the procedure. I have suggested some changes to improve your manuscript. I hope you find them useful.	Title: Impact of Simulated Animated Video Education on Patients’ Disease Uncertainty, Anxiety, and Sleep Quality in Digestive Endoscopy Examination Version: 3 Date: 30 Jan 2025 Reviewer: Maria Piskorz Reviewer's report: This is an interesting study that presents a practical and educational approach for patients undergoing endoscopic procedures. By utilizing animated video education, the study explores an innovative method to enhance patient understanding, reduce anxiety, and improve overall experience with the procedure. I have suggested some changes to improve your manuscript. I hope you find them useful.	BMC	12876_2025_3718_ReviewerReport_V3_R7.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 2, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 2, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 1, "total": 4 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0.5, "materials_and_methods": 0.25, "praise": 0.5, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0.25 }	1.5	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Impact of Simulated Animated Video Education on Patients’ Disease Uncertainty,\nAnxiety, and Sleep Quality in Digestive Endoscopy Examination\nVersion: 3 Date: 30 Jan 2025\nReviewer: Maria Piskorz\nReviewer's report:\nThis is an interesting study that presents a practical and educational approach for patients\nundergoing endoscopic procedures. By utilizing animated video education, the study explores\nan innovative method to enhance patient understanding, reduce anxiety, and improve overall\nexperience with the procedure. I have suggested some changes to improve your manuscript. I\nhope you find them useful.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03718-0	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Impact of Simulated Animated Video Education on Patients’ Disease Uncertainty, Anxiety, and Sleep Quality in Digestive Endoscopy Examination Version: 4 Date: 14 Feb 2025 Reviewer: Maria Piskorz Reviewer's report: Responses are satisfactory	Title: Impact of Simulated Animated Video Education on Patients’ Disease Uncertainty, Anxiety, and Sleep Quality in Digestive Endoscopy Examination Version: 4 Date: 14 Feb 2025 Reviewer: Maria Piskorz Reviewer's report: Responses are satisfactory	BMC	12876_2025_3718_ReviewerReport_V4_R7.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 0, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0, "total": 1 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 0, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0 }	1	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Impact of Simulated Animated Video Education on Patients’ Disease Uncertainty,\nAnxiety, and Sleep Quality in Digestive Endoscopy Examination\nVersion: 4 Date: 14 Feb 2025\nReviewer: Maria Piskorz\nReviewer's report:\nResponses are satisfactory", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03718-0	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Impact of Simulated Animated Video Education on Patients’ Disease Uncertainty, Anxiety, and Sleep Quality in Digestive Endoscopy Examination Version: 4 Date: 14 Feb 2025 Reviewer: Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr Reviewer's report: The responses are satisfactory.	Title: Impact of Simulated Animated Video Education on Patients’ Disease Uncertainty, Anxiety, and Sleep Quality in Digestive Endoscopy Examination Version: 4 Date: 14 Feb 2025 Reviewer: Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr Reviewer's report: The responses are satisfactory.	BMC	12876_2025_3718_ReviewerReport_V4_R6.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 0, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0, "total": 1 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 0, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0 }	1	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Impact of Simulated Animated Video Education on Patients’ Disease Uncertainty,\nAnxiety, and Sleep Quality in Digestive Endoscopy Examination\nVersion: 4 Date: 14 Feb 2025\nReviewer: Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr\nReviewer's report:\nThe responses are satisfactory.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03700-w	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: The impact of pancreatic duct stent placement on the clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula rate for high-risk anastomoses: A systematic review and meta-analysis Version: 2 Date: 07 Nov 2024 Reviewer: Sushila Kumar Pattanaik Reviewer's report: Authors have done a good job of systematically reviewing and synthesising the available data with appropriate statistical methods on a relevant issue. Please make few corrections of inadvertent errors. 1. In the Abstract section, full form of CR-POPF may be mentioned at its first appearance in text. At the end of the sentence, "...for at least one high-risk factor (p = 0.234)", you can add "out of two factors selected" for more clarity at this stage. You may omit if it crosses the word limit. 2. Heterogeneity classification based on Higgin's I2 is to be discouraged, in my view. Because it is not an absolute variance, but a proportion as you have mentioned correctly. 3. In the Supplementary Appendix 1: Introduction is to be located in Section 2 instead of Section 1. 4. Can we revise the serial no of references from 9 to 13 as follows: 10 to 9, 13 to 10, 9 to 11, 11 to 12, and 12 to 13, and cite accordingly. 5. In Tables 1 and 2: Spellings of representation, duodenum, and spacing between some words may be corrected.	Title: The impact of pancreatic duct stent placement on the clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula rate for high-risk anastomoses: A systematic review and meta-analysis Version: 2 Date: 07 Nov 2024 Reviewer: Sushila Kumar Pattanaik Reviewer's report: Authors have done a good job of systematically reviewing and synthesising the available data with appropriate statistical methods on a relevant issue. Please make few corrections of inadvertent errors. 1. In the Abstract section, full form of CR-POPF may be mentioned at its first appearance in text. At the end of the sentence, "...for at least one high-risk factor (p = 0.234)", you can add "out of two factors selected" for more clarity at this stage. You may omit if it crosses the word limit. 2. Heterogeneity classification based on Higgin's I2 is to be discouraged, in my view. Because it is not an absolute variance, but a proportion as you have mentioned correctly. 3. In the Supplementary Appendix 1: Introduction is to be located in Section 2 instead of Section 1. 4. Can we revise the serial no of references from 9 to 13 as follows: 10 to 9, 13 to 10, 9 to 11, 11 to 12, and 12 to 13, and cite accordingly. 5. In Tables 1 and 2: Spellings of representation, duodenum, and spacing between some words may be corrected.	BMC	12876_2025_3700_ReviewerReport_V2_R2.pdf	{ "criticism": 1, "example": 2, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 3, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 7, "results_and_discussion": 1, "suggestion_and_solution": 8, "total": 15 }	{ "criticism": 0.06666666666666667, "example": 0.13333333333333333, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 0.2, "praise": 0.06666666666666667, "presentation_and_reporting": 0.4666666666666667, "results_and_discussion": 0.06666666666666667, "suggestion_and_solution": 0.5333333333333333 }	1.533333	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: The impact of pancreatic duct stent placement on the clinically relevant postoperative\npancreatic fistula rate for high-risk anastomoses: A systematic review and meta-analysis\nVersion: 2 Date: 07 Nov 2024\nReviewer: Sushila Kumar Pattanaik\nReviewer's report:\nAuthors have done a good job of systematically reviewing and synthesising the available data\nwith appropriate statistical methods on a relevant issue.\nPlease make few corrections of inadvertent errors.\n1. In the Abstract section, full form of CR-POPF may be mentioned at its first appearance in\ntext. At the end of the sentence, \"...for at least one high-risk factor (p = 0.234)\", you can add \"out\nof two factors selected\" for more clarity at this stage. You may omit if it crosses the word limit.\n2. Heterogeneity classification based on Higgin's I2 is to be discouraged, in my view. Because\nit is not an absolute variance, but a proportion as you have mentioned correctly.\n3. In the Supplementary Appendix 1: Introduction is to be located in Section 2 instead of Section\n1.\n4. Can we revise the serial no of references from 9 to 13 as follows: 10 to 9, 13 to 10, 9 to 11,\n11 to 12, and 12 to 13, and cite accordingly.\n5. In Tables 1 and 2: Spellings of representation, duodenum, and spacing between some words\nmay be corrected.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03700-w	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: The impact of pancreatic duct stent placement on the clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula rate for high-risk anastomoses: A systematic review and meta-analysis Version: 2 Date: 17 Dec 2024 Reviewer: Jahnvi Dhar Reviewer's report: I read with great interest the article by Dai et al titled “The impact of pancreatic duct stent placement on the clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula rate for high-risk anastomoses: A systematic review and meta-analysis” and congratulate them for this study. Six studies were analyzed for the same with no difference in POPF rates overall. The study has been well conducted, analyzed and reported in the manuscript. Moreover, the SRMA has been registered with PROSPERO as per guidelines. I have following comments for the manuscript: 1. Please provide a sub-group analysis using the studies classified as low risk of bias (5 RCTs). 2. If there individual data of POPF rates for the type of resection techniques, I would suggest the authors to provide that data, if feasible.	Title: The impact of pancreatic duct stent placement on the clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula rate for high-risk anastomoses: A systematic review and meta-analysis Version: 2 Date: 17 Dec 2024 Reviewer: Jahnvi Dhar Reviewer's report: I read with great interest the article by Dai et al titled “The impact of pancreatic duct stent placement on the clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula rate for high-risk anastomoses: A systematic review and meta-analysis” and congratulate them for this study. Six studies were analyzed for the same with no difference in POPF rates overall. The study has been well conducted, analyzed and reported in the manuscript. Moreover, the SRMA has been registered with PROSPERO as per guidelines. I have following comments for the manuscript: 1. Please provide a sub-group analysis using the studies classified as low risk of bias (5 RCTs). 2. If there individual data of POPF rates for the type of resection techniques, I would suggest the authors to provide that data, if feasible.	BMC	12876_2025_3700_ReviewerReport_V2_R4.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 6, "praise": 2, "presentation_and_reporting": 1, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 2, "total": 8 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 0.75, "praise": 0.25, "presentation_and_reporting": 0.125, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0.25 }	1.375	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: The impact of pancreatic duct stent placement on the clinically relevant postoperative\npancreatic fistula rate for high-risk anastomoses: A systematic review and meta-analysis\nVersion: 2 Date: 17 Dec 2024\nReviewer: Jahnvi Dhar\nReviewer's report:\nI read with great interest the article by Dai et al titled “The impact of pancreatic duct\nstent placement on the clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula rate for high-risk\nanastomoses: A systematic review and meta-analysis” and congratulate them for this study.\nSix studies were analyzed for the same with no difference in POPF rates overall. The study has\nbeen well conducted, analyzed and reported in the manuscript. Moreover, the SRMA has been\nregistered with PROSPERO as per guidelines.\nI have following comments for the manuscript:\n1. Please provide a sub-group analysis using the studies classified as low risk of bias (5 RCTs).\n2. If there individual data of POPF rates for the type of resection techniques, I would suggest\nthe authors to provide that data, if feasible.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03700-w	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: The impact of pancreatic duct stent placement on the clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula rate for high-risk anastomoses: A systematic review and meta-analysis Version: 3 Date: 01 Jan 2025 Reviewer: Jahnvi Dhar Reviewer's report: The authors have answered all my queries. i congratulate them for their manuscript.	Title: The impact of pancreatic duct stent placement on the clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula rate for high-risk anastomoses: A systematic review and meta-analysis Version: 3 Date: 01 Jan 2025 Reviewer: Jahnvi Dhar Reviewer's report: The authors have answered all my queries. i congratulate them for their manuscript.	BMC	12876_2025_3700_ReviewerReport_V3_R4.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0, "total": 2 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 0.5, "praise": 0.5, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0 }	1	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: The impact of pancreatic duct stent placement on the clinically relevant postoperative\npancreatic fistula rate for high-risk anastomoses: A systematic review and meta-analysis\nVersion: 3 Date: 01 Jan 2025\nReviewer: Jahnvi Dhar\nReviewer's report:\nThe authors have answered all my queries. i congratulate them for their manuscript.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03700-w	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: The impact of pancreatic duct stent placement on the clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula rate for high-risk anastomoses: A systematic review and meta-analysis Version: 3 Date: 03 Jan 2025 Reviewer: Sushila Kumar Pattanaik Reviewer's report: Response is satisfactory.	Title: The impact of pancreatic duct stent placement on the clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula rate for high-risk anastomoses: A systematic review and meta-analysis Version: 3 Date: 03 Jan 2025 Reviewer: Sushila Kumar Pattanaik Reviewer's report: Response is satisfactory.	BMC	12876_2025_3700_ReviewerReport_V3_R2.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0, "total": 1 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0 }	2	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: The impact of pancreatic duct stent placement on the clinically relevant postoperative\npancreatic fistula rate for high-risk anastomoses: A systematic review and meta-analysis\nVersion: 3 Date: 03 Jan 2025\nReviewer: Sushila Kumar Pattanaik\nReviewer's report:\nResponse is satisfactory.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03720-6	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Prevalent Osteoporosis and Fracture Risk in Patients with Hepatic Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Version: 0 Date: 08 Jan 2025 Reviewer's report: This study included 21 studies through extensive database searches and systematically analyzed the risk of osteoporosis and fractures in patients with cirrhosis. The results showed that patients with cirrhosis have a higher risk of osteoporosis and fractures, suggesting the importance of risk management and disease screening for patients with cirrhosis in the future. This study has a reasonable design, clear logic, and appropriate analysis of relevant data, and has high clinical significance. However, this study still has the following problems to be solved: 1. The first two paragraphs of the background introduction should introduce osteoporosis and cirrhosis separately. First, briefly introduce the characteristics of the two diseases, then explain the potential relationship between them, and finally explain that the current research on this relationship is still insufficient, thus leading to the necessity of this study. 2. Meta-analyses need to be excluded from the exclusion criteria. 3. Normally, patients with cirrhosis who have a higher average age should have an increased risk of osteoporosis. Still, the opposite conclusion was obtained in this study#Meta-regression revealed that studies with a higher mean age (p= 0.04) (Supplementary file 1: Figure S2) and a higher prevalence of males (p= 0.03) (Supplementary file 1: Figure S3) had reduced odds of osteoporosis in cirrhotic patients compared to controls. Study design was found not to be a possible source of heterogeneity (p>0.05).#. How does the author explain this difference? 4. Table 2 is not standardized and should be drawn in accordance with the standards of the three- line table. 5. When conducting risk analysis in this study, several results showed excessive heterogeneity. After removing individual studies, the heterogeneity was significantly reduced. Therefore, the authors should focus on explaining in the discussion why the excluded studies can explain the source of heterogeneity. For example, the study by Gonzalez-Calvin, Chen, Zheng et al.? 6. The authors could conduct subgroup analysis based on country (Western, Central Asia), economic development level (developed, developing), and ethnicity, which would further enrich the content of this study.	Title: Prevalent Osteoporosis and Fracture Risk in Patients with Hepatic Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Version: 0 Date: 08 Jan 2025 Reviewer's report: This study included 21 studies through extensive database searches and systematically analyzed the risk of osteoporosis and fractures in patients with cirrhosis. The results showed that patients with cirrhosis have a higher risk of osteoporosis and fractures, suggesting the importance of risk management and disease screening for patients with cirrhosis in the future. This study has a reasonable design, clear logic, and appropriate analysis of relevant data, and has high clinical significance. However, this study still has the following problems to be solved: 1. The first two paragraphs of the background introduction should introduce osteoporosis and cirrhosis separately. First, briefly introduce the characteristics of the two diseases, then explain the potential relationship between them, and finally explain that the current research on this relationship is still insufficient, thus leading to the necessity of this study. 2. Meta-analyses need to be excluded from the exclusion criteria. 3. Normally, patients with cirrhosis who have a higher average age should have an increased risk of osteoporosis. Still, the opposite conclusion was obtained in this study#Meta-regression revealed that studies with a higher mean age (p= 0.04) (Supplementary file 1: Figure S2) and a higher prevalence of males (p= 0.03) (Supplementary file 1: Figure S3) had reduced odds of osteoporosis in cirrhotic patients compared to controls. Study design was found not to be a possible source of heterogeneity (p>0.05).#. How does the author explain this difference? 4. Table 2 is not standardized and should be drawn in accordance with the standards of the three- line table. 5. When conducting risk analysis in this study, several results showed excessive heterogeneity. After removing individual studies, the heterogeneity was significantly reduced. Therefore, the authors should focus on explaining in the discussion why the excluded studies can explain the source of heterogeneity. For example, the study by Gonzalez-Calvin, Chen, Zheng et al.? 6. The authors could conduct subgroup analysis based on country (Western, Central Asia), economic development level (developed, developing), and ethnicity, which would further enrich the content of this study.	BMC	12876_2025_3720_ReviewerReport_V0_R2.pdf	{ "criticism": 3, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 4, "materials_and_methods": 10, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 4, "results_and_discussion": 5, "suggestion_and_solution": 6, "total": 22 }	{ "criticism": 0.13636363636363635, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0.18181818181818182, "materials_and_methods": 0.45454545454545453, "praise": 0.045454545454545456, "presentation_and_reporting": 0.18181818181818182, "results_and_discussion": 0.22727272727272727, "suggestion_and_solution": 0.2727272727272727 }	1.5	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Prevalent Osteoporosis and Fracture Risk in Patients with Hepatic Cirrhosis: A Systematic\nReview and Meta-analysis\nVersion: 0 Date: 08 Jan 2025\nReviewer's report:\nThis study included 21 studies through extensive database searches and systematically analyzed\nthe risk of osteoporosis and fractures in patients with cirrhosis. The results showed that patients\nwith cirrhosis have a higher risk of osteoporosis and fractures, suggesting the importance of\nrisk management and disease screening for patients with cirrhosis in the future. This study has\na reasonable design, clear logic, and appropriate analysis of relevant data, and has high clinical\nsignificance.\nHowever, this study still has the following problems to be solved:\n1. The first two paragraphs of the background introduction should introduce osteoporosis and\ncirrhosis separately. First, briefly introduce the characteristics of the two diseases, then explain\nthe potential relationship between them, and finally explain that the current research on this\nrelationship is still insufficient, thus leading to the necessity of this study.\n2. Meta-analyses need to be excluded from the exclusion criteria.\n3. Normally, patients with cirrhosis who have a higher average age should have an increased\nrisk of osteoporosis. Still, the opposite conclusion was obtained in this study#Meta-regression\nrevealed that studies with a higher mean age (p= 0.04) (Supplementary file 1: Figure S2) and\na higher prevalence of males (p= 0.03) (Supplementary file 1: Figure S3) had reduced odds of\nosteoporosis in cirrhotic patients compared to controls. Study design was found not to be a\npossible source of heterogeneity (p>0.05).#. How does the author explain this difference?\n4. Table 2 is not standardized and should be drawn in accordance with the standards of the three-\nline table.\n5. When conducting risk analysis in this study, several results showed excessive heterogeneity.\nAfter removing individual studies, the heterogeneity was significantly reduced. Therefore, the\nauthors should focus on explaining in the discussion why the excluded studies can explain the\nsource of heterogeneity. For example, the study by Gonzalez-Calvin, Chen, Zheng et al.?\n6. The authors could conduct subgroup analysis based on country (Western, Central Asia),\neconomic development level (developed, developing), and ethnicity, which would further enrich\nthe content of this study.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03720-6	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Prevalent Osteoporosis and Fracture Risk in Patients with Hepatic Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Version: 0 Date: 15 Jan 2025 Reviewer's report: This is an interesting study showing that cirrhotic patients have an increased risk of osteoporosis and fractures. However, it needs a clear definition of the research question and methodological clarifications. 1 - The authors claim to have demonstrated an increased risk of osteoporosis. Does this mean a higher prevalence or incidence of osteoporosis? Please note that if you want to evaluate incidence, you only need to evaluate data from longitudinal studies. If you want to evaluate prevalence data, it is possible to include other observational studies (cross-sectional and case- control). 2 - The authors claim to have found a higher incidence of fractures in patients with cirrhosis. However, non-longitudinal studies were included in this analysis, including Chen 1996 (cross- sectional) and Zhang 2020 (case-control). These studies should be removed from the analysis.	Title: Prevalent Osteoporosis and Fracture Risk in Patients with Hepatic Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Version: 0 Date: 15 Jan 2025 Reviewer's report: This is an interesting study showing that cirrhotic patients have an increased risk of osteoporosis and fractures. However, it needs a clear definition of the research question and methodological clarifications. 1 - The authors claim to have demonstrated an increased risk of osteoporosis. Does this mean a higher prevalence or incidence of osteoporosis? Please note that if you want to evaluate incidence, you only need to evaluate data from longitudinal studies. If you want to evaluate prevalence data, it is possible to include other observational studies (cross-sectional and case- control). 2 - The authors claim to have found a higher incidence of fractures in patients with cirrhosis. However, non-longitudinal studies were included in this analysis, including Chen 1996 (cross- sectional) and Zhang 2020 (case-control). These studies should be removed from the analysis.	BMC	12876_2025_3720_ReviewerReport_V0_R1.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 2, "materials_and_methods": 6, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 2, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 4, "total": 9 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0.2222222222222222, "materials_and_methods": 0.6666666666666666, "praise": 0.1111111111111111, "presentation_and_reporting": 0.2222222222222222, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0.4444444444444444 }	1.666667	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Prevalent Osteoporosis and Fracture Risk in Patients with Hepatic Cirrhosis: A Systematic\nReview and Meta-analysis\nVersion: 0 Date: 15 Jan 2025\nReviewer's report:\nThis is an interesting study showing that cirrhotic patients have an increased risk of osteoporosis\nand fractures. However, it needs a clear definition of the research question and methodological\nclarifications.\n1 - The authors claim to have demonstrated an increased risk of osteoporosis. Does this mean\na higher prevalence or incidence of osteoporosis? Please note that if you want to evaluate\nincidence, you only need to evaluate data from longitudinal studies. If you want to evaluate\nprevalence data, it is possible to include other observational studies (cross-sectional and case-\ncontrol).\n2 - The authors claim to have found a higher incidence of fractures in patients with cirrhosis.\nHowever, non-longitudinal studies were included in this analysis, including Chen 1996 (cross-\nsectional) and Zhang 2020 (case-control). These studies should be removed from the analysis.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03720-6	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Prevalent Osteoporosis and Fracture Risk in Patients with Hepatic Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Version: 0 Date: 16 Jan 2025 Reviewer's report: Dear Editor, Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled "Incident Osteoporosis and Fracture Risk in Patients with Hepatic Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis." The authors present a thorough meta-analysis investigating the heightened risk of osteoporosis and fractures in patients with hepatic cirrhosis, a topic of increasing clinical significance. The study finds that cirrhotic patients are significantly more likely to experience osteoporosis and fractures compared to healthy controls, providing important insights into the bone health complications associated with cirrhosis. Statistical Comments: Heterogeneity in Bone Mineral Density (BMD) Analyses: While the manuscript appropriately addresses heterogeneity through sensitivity analysis, the BMD results for the lumbar spine and femoral neck still show considerable variability (I² > 50%). It would be helpful to explore potential sources of this heterogeneity further, particularly in terms of the underlying etiology of cirrhosis (e.g., viral, alcoholic, metabolic), as these factors may influence BMD outcomes. Meta-Regression Findings: The meta-regression analysis suggests that male prevalence may impact the association between cirrhosis and bone outcomes. However, the study could benefit from exploring other potential confounders (e.g., age, comorbidities, medication use) in more detail to assess their effects on the association between cirrhosis and osteoporosis risk. Publication Bias and Sensitivity Analysis: The authors report no significant publication bias, which is reassuring. However, further clarification on how the exclusion of certain studies, such as Figueiredo et al., influenced the results could strengthen the interpretation of the findings. Specifically, does the exclusion of these studies alter the generalizability of the conclusions for certain patient subgroups? Clinical Comments: Clinical Implications of Fracture Risk: The finding that cirrhotic patients have a 2.3 times higher risk of fractures compared to healthy controls is clinically significant. However, the manuscript could further emphasize how these findings should influence clinical practice, particularly in the context of screening and managing fracture risk in cirrhotic patients. What specific preventive measures should be implemented in clinical settings for these patients? Vitamin D and Calcium Deficiency: The manuscript appropriately discusses the role of vitamin D and calcium deficiency in increasing fracture risk in cirrhosis patients. It would be beneficial to explore how the current evidence could shape clinical guidelines for supplementation and bone health monitoring in cirrhotic patients, particularly for those with advanced liver disease. Integration into Fracture Risk Models: The authors suggest that cirrhosis should be integrated into fracture risk models. It would be helpful if they could provide more concrete recommendations on how cirrhosis could be incorporated into existing models like FRAX, or whether new models might be needed to more accurately predict fracture risk in this population.	Title: Prevalent Osteoporosis and Fracture Risk in Patients with Hepatic Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Version: 0 Date: 16 Jan 2025 Reviewer's report: Dear Editor, Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled "Incident Osteoporosis and Fracture Risk in Patients with Hepatic Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis." The authors present a thorough meta-analysis investigating the heightened risk of osteoporosis and fractures in patients with hepatic cirrhosis, a topic of increasing clinical significance. The study finds that cirrhotic patients are significantly more likely to experience osteoporosis and fractures compared to healthy controls, providing important insights into the bone health complications associated with cirrhosis. Statistical Comments: Heterogeneity in Bone Mineral Density (BMD) Analyses: While the manuscript appropriately addresses heterogeneity through sensitivity analysis, the BMD results for the lumbar spine and femoral neck still show considerable variability (I² > 50%). It would be helpful to explore potential sources of this heterogeneity further, particularly in terms of the underlying etiology of cirrhosis (e.g., viral, alcoholic, metabolic), as these factors may influence BMD outcomes. Meta-Regression Findings: The meta-regression analysis suggests that male prevalence may impact the association between cirrhosis and bone outcomes. However, the study could benefit from exploring other potential confounders (e.g., age, comorbidities, medication use) in more detail to assess their effects on the association between cirrhosis and osteoporosis risk. Publication Bias and Sensitivity Analysis: The authors report no significant publication bias, which is reassuring. However, further clarification on how the exclusion of certain studies, such as Figueiredo et al., influenced the results could strengthen the interpretation of the findings. Specifically, does the exclusion of these studies alter the generalizability of the conclusions for certain patient subgroups? Clinical Comments: Clinical Implications of Fracture Risk: The finding that cirrhotic patients have a 2.3 times higher risk of fractures compared to healthy controls is clinically significant. However, the manuscript could further emphasize how these findings should influence clinical practice, particularly in the context of screening and managing fracture risk in cirrhotic patients. What specific preventive measures should be implemented in clinical settings for these patients? Vitamin D and Calcium Deficiency: The manuscript appropriately discusses the role of vitamin D and calcium deficiency in increasing fracture risk in cirrhosis patients. It would be beneficial to explore how the current evidence could shape clinical guidelines for supplementation and bone health monitoring in cirrhotic patients, particularly for those with advanced liver disease. Integration into Fracture Risk Models: The authors suggest that cirrhosis should be integrated into fracture risk models. It would be helpful if they could provide more concrete recommendations on how cirrhosis could be incorporated into existing models like FRAX, or whether new models might be needed to more accurately predict fracture risk in this population.	BMC	12876_2025_3720_ReviewerReport_V0_R3.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 4, "materials_and_methods": 12, "praise": 2, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 7, "suggestion_and_solution": 8, "total": 17 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0.23529411764705882, "materials_and_methods": 0.7058823529411765, "praise": 0.11764705882352941, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0.4117647058823529, "suggestion_and_solution": 0.47058823529411764 }	1.941176	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Prevalent Osteoporosis and Fracture Risk in Patients with Hepatic Cirrhosis: A Systematic\nReview and Meta-analysis\nVersion: 0 Date: 16 Jan 2025\nReviewer's report:\nDear Editor,\nThank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled \"Incident Osteoporosis and\nFracture Risk in Patients with Hepatic Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.\" The\nauthors present a thorough meta-analysis investigating the heightened risk of osteoporosis and\nfractures in patients with hepatic cirrhosis, a topic of increasing clinical significance. The study\nfinds that cirrhotic patients are significantly more likely to experience osteoporosis and fractures\ncompared to healthy controls, providing important insights into the bone health complications\nassociated with cirrhosis.\nStatistical Comments:\nHeterogeneity in Bone Mineral Density (BMD) Analyses: While the manuscript appropriately\naddresses heterogeneity through sensitivity analysis, the BMD results for the lumbar spine and\nfemoral neck still show considerable variability (I² > 50%). It would be helpful to explore\npotential sources of this heterogeneity further, particularly in terms of the underlying etiology\nof cirrhosis (e.g., viral, alcoholic, metabolic), as these factors may influence BMD outcomes.\nMeta-Regression Findings: The meta-regression analysis suggests that male prevalence may\nimpact the association between cirrhosis and bone outcomes. However, the study could benefit\nfrom exploring other potential confounders (e.g., age, comorbidities, medication use) in more\ndetail to assess their effects on the association between cirrhosis and osteoporosis risk.\nPublication Bias and Sensitivity Analysis: The authors report no significant publication bias,\nwhich is reassuring. However, further clarification on how the exclusion of certain studies, such\nas Figueiredo et al., influenced the results could strengthen the interpretation of the findings.\nSpecifically, does the exclusion of these studies alter the generalizability of the conclusions for\ncertain patient subgroups?\nClinical Comments:\nClinical Implications of Fracture Risk: The finding that cirrhotic patients have a 2.3 times higher\nrisk of fractures compared to healthy controls is clinically significant. However, the manuscript\ncould further emphasize how these findings should influence clinical practice, particularly in the\ncontext of screening and managing fracture risk in cirrhotic patients. What specific preventive\nmeasures should be implemented in clinical settings for these patients?\nVitamin D and Calcium Deficiency: The manuscript appropriately discusses the role of vitamin\nD and calcium deficiency in increasing fracture risk in cirrhosis patients. It would be beneficial\nto explore how the current evidence could shape clinical guidelines for supplementation and\nbone health monitoring in cirrhotic patients, particularly for those with advanced liver disease.\nIntegration into Fracture Risk Models: The authors suggest that cirrhosis should be integrated\ninto fracture risk models. It would be helpful if they could provide more concrete\nrecommendations on how cirrhosis could be incorporated into existing models like FRAX, or\nwhether new models might be needed to more accurately predict fracture risk in this population.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03720-6	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Prevalent Osteoporosis and Fracture Risk in Patients with Hepatic Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Version: 1 Date: 17 Feb 2025 Reviewer's report: The author did a good job of addressing the issues I raised.	Title: Prevalent Osteoporosis and Fracture Risk in Patients with Hepatic Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Version: 1 Date: 17 Feb 2025 Reviewer's report: The author did a good job of addressing the issues I raised.	BMC	12876_2025_3720_ReviewerReport_V1_R2.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0, "total": 1 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0 }	2	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Prevalent Osteoporosis and Fracture Risk in Patients with Hepatic Cirrhosis: A Systematic\nReview and Meta-analysis\nVersion: 1 Date: 17 Feb 2025\nReviewer's report:\nThe author did a good job of addressing the issues I raised.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03720-6	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Prevalent Osteoporosis and Fracture Risk in Patients with Hepatic Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Version: 1 Date: 17 Feb 2025 Reviewer's report:	Title: Prevalent Osteoporosis and Fracture Risk in Patients with Hepatic Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Version: 1 Date: 17 Feb 2025 Reviewer's report:	BMC	12876_2025_3720_ReviewerReport_V1_R1.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0, "total": 1 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0 }	1	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Prevalent Osteoporosis and Fracture Risk in Patients with Hepatic Cirrhosis: A Systematic\nReview and Meta-analysis\nVersion: 1 Date: 17 Feb 2025\nReviewer's report:", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03720-6	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Prevalent Osteoporosis and Fracture Risk in Patients with Hepatic Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Version: 1 Date: 18 Feb 2025 Reviewer's report: I have no further comments.	Title: Prevalent Osteoporosis and Fracture Risk in Patients with Hepatic Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Version: 1 Date: 18 Feb 2025 Reviewer's report: I have no further comments.	BMC	12876_2025_3720_ReviewerReport_V1_R3.pdf	{ "criticism": 1, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0, "total": 1 }	{ "criticism": 1, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0 }	2	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Prevalent Osteoporosis and Fracture Risk in Patients with Hepatic Cirrhosis: A Systematic\nReview and Meta-analysis\nVersion: 1 Date: 18 Feb 2025\nReviewer's report:\nI have no further comments.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03702-8	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Risk of stroke in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis Version: 2 Date: 10 Dec 2024 Reviewer's report:	Title: Risk of stroke in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis Version: 2 Date: 10 Dec 2024 Reviewer's report:	BMC	12876_2025_3702_ReviewerReport_V2_R1.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0, "total": 1 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0 }	1	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Risk of stroke in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: A systematic review and\nmeta-analysis\nVersion: 2 Date: 10 Dec 2024\nReviewer's report:", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03702-8	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Risk of stroke in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis Version: 2 Date: 28 Dec 2024 Reviewer's report: Luo et al. present a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the risk of stroke in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The authors found that IBD patients have a 30% increased risk of stroke compared to controls (HR 1.30 [95% CI 1.21–1.39]), with a slightly higher risk observed in Crohn's disease (CD) patients. While the topic addresses a relevant clinical question, the primary concern is the lack of novelty. Several systematic reviews and meta-analyses have previously investigated this association and reached similar conclusions—a modestly increased risk of stroke in IBD patients (PMID: 23978350, PMID: 26360973, PMID: 36863421, PMID: 37796223, PMID: 38046580, PMID: 38271615). This paper makes limited reference to these earlier studies and does not clearly articulate how it builds upon or adds to the existing body of evidence. Major Comments: 1. Introduction and Discussion: o The authors should better justify the necessity of this systematic review and meta-analysis (SR-MA). Specifically, they should highlight its contribution to the existing literature and how it sets itself apart from prior evidence syntheses. For instance, apart from subgroup analyses by CD and UC, previous SR-MAs have also explored differences in stroke risk by gender and age. Currently, the paper provides additional data but no novel insights. 2. Introduction: o The statement, “Similarly, studies suggested a possible link between anti-TNF# therapies and increased risk of thromboembolic events [14, 15],” is misleading. On the contrary, evidence suggests that anti-TNFs are associated with reduced risk of venous and arterial thrombotic events. Refer to this review for clarification: Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021;18(12):857– 873 (PMID: 34453143). o The authors claim that findings on the association between IBD and cerebrovascular diseases are inconsistent. However, previous meta-analyses have consistently demonstrated a modest increase in risk. This point should be clarified. 3. Methods: o The search strategies for all databases should be included as a supplementary appendix for reproducibility. o The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), while commonly used, is oversimplified, lacks granularity, and relies heavily on subjective interpretation. The ROBINS-E tool is a more robust and rigorous option for risk of bias assessment and should be considered. o Six of the 13 included studies were assessed as having a high risk of bias using the NOS. A sensitivity analysis excluding these studies should be performed to assess their impact on the findings. o The claim that selective reporting was assessed by comparing outcomes with protocols or trial registries is unclear, as none of the included studies are clinical trials. Please clarify whether this was actually done and how many studies had available protocols or registries. o Sensitivity analyses should be clearly described in the methods, including whether they were planned a priori. 4. Results: o Clarify whether the 10 cohort studies were prospective. Table 1 and the text should specify whether studies were population-based or hospital-based. o “encompassing a total sample size of over 2.6 million participants” and in the following paragraph “Data from 13 studies with a total of 2,802,955 participants were analyzed” Please keep it consistent. o Provide more details on the risk of bias assessment, including a figure summarizing each assessed domain. o The x-axis for forest plots spans unnecessarily wide ranges, making confidence intervals hard to interpret. Adjust the maximum HR to 4, as the highest upper bound CI is 3.41 (Keller 2014). o Clarify whether the mean age of participants refers to age at IBD diagnosis or at the time of events. Also, specify whether the cases were incident or prevalent. 5. Discussion: o When discussing strengths, explicitly state what sets this SR-MA apart from prior reviews. For example, citing a larger sample size as a strength is weak given that previous meta-analyses (e.g., Fan et al. Front Neurol 2023;14:1204727) included almost twice as many participants (4,495,055 individuals). Similarly, stratification by IBD subtype has been consistently performed in earlier SR-MAs. Minor Comments: 1. Methods: o For heterogeneity assessment, describe how results from the I² statistic were interpreted and which thresholds were used. 2. Results: o Replace “Salient features of the included studies” with “Characteristics of included studies.” 3. Discussion: o Correct typographical errors in phrases such as “various demographics that incrteases generalizability of our results” and “Due to the lack of such granular data in the included stidies.” 4. Style: o Avoid contractions like “didn’t” or “isn’t” to maintain formal academic tone.	Title: Risk of stroke in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis Version: 2 Date: 28 Dec 2024 Reviewer's report: Luo et al. present a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the risk of stroke in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The authors found that IBD patients have a 30% increased risk of stroke compared to controls (HR 1.30 [95% CI 1.21–1.39]), with a slightly higher risk observed in Crohn's disease (CD) patients. While the topic addresses a relevant clinical question, the primary concern is the lack of novelty. Several systematic reviews and meta-analyses have previously investigated this association and reached similar conclusions—a modestly increased risk of stroke in IBD patients (PMID: 23978350, PMID: 26360973, PMID: 36863421, PMID: 37796223, PMID: 38046580, PMID: 38271615). This paper makes limited reference to these earlier studies and does not clearly articulate how it builds upon or adds to the existing body of evidence. Major Comments: 1. Introduction and Discussion: o The authors should better justify the necessity of this systematic review and meta-analysis (SR-MA). Specifically, they should highlight its contribution to the existing literature and how it sets itself apart from prior evidence syntheses. For instance, apart from subgroup analyses by CD and UC, previous SR-MAs have also explored differences in stroke risk by gender and age. Currently, the paper provides additional data but no novel insights. 2. Introduction: o The statement, “Similarly, studies suggested a possible link between anti-TNF# therapies and increased risk of thromboembolic events [14, 15],” is misleading. On the contrary, evidence suggests that anti-TNFs are associated with reduced risk of venous and arterial thrombotic events. Refer to this review for clarification: Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021;18(12):857– 873 (PMID: 34453143). o The authors claim that findings on the association between IBD and cerebrovascular diseases are inconsistent. However, previous meta-analyses have consistently demonstrated a modest increase in risk. This point should be clarified. 3. Methods: o The search strategies for all databases should be included as a supplementary appendix for reproducibility. o The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), while commonly used, is oversimplified, lacks granularity, and relies heavily on subjective interpretation. The ROBINS-E tool is a more robust and rigorous option for risk of bias assessment and should be considered. o Six of the 13 included studies were assessed as having a high risk of bias using the NOS. A sensitivity analysis excluding these studies should be performed to assess their impact on the findings. o The claim that selective reporting was assessed by comparing outcomes with protocols or trial registries is unclear, as none of the included studies are clinical trials. Please clarify whether this was actually done and how many studies had available protocols or registries. o Sensitivity analyses should be clearly described in the methods, including whether they were planned a priori. 4. Results: o Clarify whether the 10 cohort studies were prospective. Table 1 and the text should specify whether studies were population-based or hospital-based. o “encompassing a total sample size of over 2.6 million participants” and in the following paragraph “Data from 13 studies with a total of 2,802,955 participants were analyzed” Please keep it consistent. o Provide more details on the risk of bias assessment, including a figure summarizing each assessed domain. o The x-axis for forest plots spans unnecessarily wide ranges, making confidence intervals hard to interpret. Adjust the maximum HR to 4, as the highest upper bound CI is 3.41 (Keller 2014). o Clarify whether the mean age of participants refers to age at IBD diagnosis or at the time of events. Also, specify whether the cases were incident or prevalent. 5. Discussion: o When discussing strengths, explicitly state what sets this SR-MA apart from prior reviews. For example, citing a larger sample size as a strength is weak given that previous meta-analyses (e.g., Fan et al. Front Neurol 2023;14:1204727) included almost twice as many participants (4,495,055 individuals). Similarly, stratification by IBD subtype has been consistently performed in earlier SR-MAs. Minor Comments: 1. Methods: o For heterogeneity assessment, describe how results from the I² statistic were interpreted and which thresholds were used. 2. Results: o Replace “Salient features of the included studies” with “Characteristics of included studies.” 3. Discussion: o Correct typographical errors in phrases such as “various demographics that incrteases generalizability of our results” and “Due to the lack of such granular data in the included stidies.” 4. Style: o Avoid contractions like “didn’t” or “isn’t” to maintain formal academic tone.	BMC	12876_2025_3702_ReviewerReport_V2_R2.pdf	{ "criticism": 9, "example": 2, "importance_and_relevance": 4, "materials_and_methods": 29, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 12, "results_and_discussion": 8, "suggestion_and_solution": 20, "total": 47 }	{ "criticism": 0.19148936170212766, "example": 0.0425531914893617, "importance_and_relevance": 0.0851063829787234, "materials_and_methods": 0.6170212765957447, "praise": 0.02127659574468085, "presentation_and_reporting": 0.2553191489361702, "results_and_discussion": 0.1702127659574468, "suggestion_and_solution": 0.425531914893617 }	1.808511	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Risk of stroke in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: A systematic review and\nmeta-analysis\nVersion: 2 Date: 28 Dec 2024\nReviewer's report:\nLuo et al. present a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the risk of stroke in patients\nwith inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The authors found that IBD patients have a 30%\nincreased risk of stroke compared to controls (HR 1.30 [95% CI 1.21–1.39]), with a slightly\nhigher risk observed in Crohn's disease (CD) patients. While the topic addresses a relevant\nclinical question, the primary concern is the lack of novelty. Several systematic reviews and\nmeta-analyses have previously investigated this association and reached similar conclusions—a\nmodestly increased risk of stroke in IBD patients (PMID: 23978350, PMID: 26360973, PMID:\n36863421, PMID: 37796223, PMID: 38046580, PMID: 38271615). This paper makes limited\nreference to these earlier studies and does not clearly articulate how it builds upon or adds to\nthe existing body of evidence.\nMajor Comments:\n1. Introduction and Discussion:\no The authors should better justify the necessity of this systematic review and meta-analysis\n(SR-MA). Specifically, they should highlight its contribution to the existing literature and how\nit sets itself apart from prior evidence syntheses. For instance, apart from subgroup analyses by\nCD and UC, previous SR-MAs have also explored differences in stroke risk by gender and age.\nCurrently, the paper provides additional data but no novel insights.\n2. Introduction:\no The statement, “Similarly, studies suggested a possible link between anti-TNF# therapies and\nincreased risk of thromboembolic events [14, 15],” is misleading. On the contrary, evidence\nsuggests that anti-TNFs are associated with reduced risk of venous and arterial thrombotic\nevents. Refer to this review for clarification: Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021;18(12):857–\n873 (PMID: 34453143).\no The authors claim that findings on the association between IBD and cerebrovascular diseases\nare inconsistent. However, previous meta-analyses have consistently demonstrated a modest\nincrease in risk. This point should be clarified.\n3. Methods:\no The search strategies for all databases should be included as a supplementary appendix for\nreproducibility.\no The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), while commonly used, is oversimplified, lacks\ngranularity, and relies heavily on subjective interpretation. The ROBINS-E tool is a more robust\nand rigorous option for risk of bias assessment and should be considered.\no Six of the 13 included studies were assessed as having a high risk of bias using the NOS. A\nsensitivity analysis excluding these studies should be performed to assess their impact on the\nfindings.\no The claim that selective reporting was assessed by comparing outcomes with protocols or trial\nregistries is unclear, as none of the included studies are clinical trials. Please clarify whether this\nwas actually done and how many studies had available protocols or registries.\no Sensitivity analyses should be clearly described in the methods, including whether they were\nplanned a priori.\n4. Results:\no Clarify whether the 10 cohort studies were prospective. Table 1 and the text should specify\nwhether studies were population-based or hospital-based.\no “encompassing a total sample size of over 2.6 million participants” and in the following\nparagraph “Data from 13 studies with a total of 2,802,955 participants were analyzed” Please\nkeep it consistent.\no Provide more details on the risk of bias assessment, including a figure summarizing each\nassessed domain.\no The x-axis for forest plots spans unnecessarily wide ranges, making confidence intervals hard\nto interpret. Adjust the maximum HR to 4, as the highest upper bound CI is 3.41 (Keller 2014).\no Clarify whether the mean age of participants refers to age at IBD diagnosis or at the time of\nevents. Also, specify whether the cases were incident or prevalent.\n5. Discussion:\no When discussing strengths, explicitly state what sets this SR-MA apart from prior reviews. For\nexample, citing a larger sample size as a strength is weak given that previous meta-analyses (e.g.,\nFan et al. Front Neurol 2023;14:1204727) included almost twice as many participants (4,495,055\nindividuals). Similarly, stratification by IBD subtype has been consistently performed in earlier\nSR-MAs.\nMinor Comments:\n1. Methods:\no For heterogeneity assessment, describe how results from the I² statistic were interpreted and\nwhich thresholds were used.\n2. Results:\no Replace “Salient features of the included studies” with “Characteristics of included studies.”\n3. Discussion:\no Correct typographical errors in phrases such as “various demographics that incrteases\ngeneralizability of our results” and “Due to the lack of such granular data in the included stidies.”\n4. Style:\no Avoid contractions like “didn’t” or “isn’t” to maintain formal academic tone.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03702-8	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Risk of stroke in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis Version: 2 Date: 02 Jan 2025 Reviewer's report: Dr. Luo et al. investigated the association between stroke and IBD using a meta-analysis methodology. The study was well conducted but exhibited high heterogeneity across all analyses. The potential reasons for this heterogeneity should be addressed in either the Results or Discussion section. Possible explanations could include differences in patient enrollment criteria or variations in diagnostic criteria. I do not recommend this study to be published unless the authors provide a well-explained explanation of this heterogeneity.	Title: Risk of stroke in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis Version: 2 Date: 02 Jan 2025 Reviewer's report: Dr. Luo et al. investigated the association between stroke and IBD using a meta-analysis methodology. The study was well conducted but exhibited high heterogeneity across all analyses. The potential reasons for this heterogeneity should be addressed in either the Results or Discussion section. Possible explanations could include differences in patient enrollment criteria or variations in diagnostic criteria. I do not recommend this study to be published unless the authors provide a well-explained explanation of this heterogeneity.	BMC	12876_2025_3702_ReviewerReport_V2_R3.pdf	{ "criticism": 1, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 4, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 2, "results_and_discussion": 1, "suggestion_and_solution": 2, "total": 6 }	{ "criticism": 0.16666666666666666, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 0.6666666666666666, "praise": 0.16666666666666666, "presentation_and_reporting": 0.3333333333333333, "results_and_discussion": 0.16666666666666666, "suggestion_and_solution": 0.3333333333333333 }	1.833333	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Risk of stroke in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: A systematic review and\nmeta-analysis\nVersion: 2 Date: 02 Jan 2025\nReviewer's report:\nDr. Luo et al. investigated the association between stroke and IBD using a meta-analysis\nmethodology. The study was well conducted but exhibited high heterogeneity across all\nanalyses. The potential reasons for this heterogeneity should be addressed in either the Results or\nDiscussion section. Possible explanations could include differences in patient enrollment criteria\nor variations in diagnostic criteria.\nI do not recommend this study to be published unless the authors provide a well-explained\nexplanation of this heterogeneity.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03710-8	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Inflammatory Biomarker Correlations and Prognosis in High-risk Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor Patients: A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis Version: 1 Date: 25 Sep 2024 Reviewer: Tsunehiko Maruyama Reviewer's report: This article reports on the clinical usefulness of NLR in predicting the prognosis of patients with high-risk GIST. I have a few questions. 1. Is it acceptable to use the median value as the cut-off value for NLR, PLR, SII and PNI? In many other reports, analyses are carried out using various cut-off values. If you change the cut- off value, is there significant difference in the multivariate analysis? 2. There are not many cases of imatinib being administered to high-risk patients, but is there a problem with the level of medical care? 3. What kind of treatment strategy would you use for a high-risk GIST patient who has been judged to have a poor prognosis by NLR?	Title: Inflammatory Biomarker Correlations and Prognosis in High-risk Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor Patients: A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis Version: 1 Date: 25 Sep 2024 Reviewer: Tsunehiko Maruyama Reviewer's report: This article reports on the clinical usefulness of NLR in predicting the prognosis of patients with high-risk GIST. I have a few questions. 1. Is it acceptable to use the median value as the cut-off value for NLR, PLR, SII and PNI? In many other reports, analyses are carried out using various cut-off values. If you change the cut- off value, is there significant difference in the multivariate analysis? 2. There are not many cases of imatinib being administered to high-risk patients, but is there a problem with the level of medical care? 3. What kind of treatment strategy would you use for a high-risk GIST patient who has been judged to have a poor prognosis by NLR?	BMC	12876_2025_3710_ReviewerReport_V1_R1.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 1, "materials_and_methods": 6, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 1, "suggestion_and_solution": 0, "total": 10 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0.1, "materials_and_methods": 0.6, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0.1, "suggestion_and_solution": 0 }	0.8	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Inflammatory Biomarker Correlations and Prognosis in High-risk Gastrointestinal\nStromal Tumor Patients: A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis\nVersion: 1 Date: 25 Sep 2024\nReviewer: Tsunehiko Maruyama\nReviewer's report:\nThis article reports on the clinical usefulness of NLR in predicting the prognosis of patients with\nhigh-risk GIST. I have a few questions.\n1. Is it acceptable to use the median value as the cut-off value for NLR, PLR, SII and PNI? In\nmany other reports, analyses are carried out using various cut-off values. If you change the cut-\noff value, is there significant difference in the multivariate analysis?\n2. There are not many cases of imatinib being administered to high-risk patients, but is there a\nproblem with the level of medical care?\n3. What kind of treatment strategy would you use for a high-risk GIST patient who has been\njudged to have a poor prognosis by NLR?", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03710-8	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Inflammatory Biomarker Correlations and Prognosis in High-risk Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor Patients: A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis Version: 1 Date: 13 Nov 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? Not sure - key details are missing from the manuscript EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow confidence in the results? No - there are minor issues STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate? No - there are issues with the statistics in the study INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not overstated? No - there are major issues OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound? Maybe - with major revisions PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS: GENERAL COMMENTS: Overall Impression This is a descriptive study of the association of preoperative inflammatory biomarkers and pathological findings versus recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with high risk GIST tumors of the gut. On multivariate analysis, only two of the multiple variables were found to be statistically significantly associated with decreased RFS and OS but not treatment with inatinab. What is lacking is an explanation of how these findings will be of therapeutic value to clinical treatment of GISTs. What have the authors done well The detailed analysis of presumptive predictive values is well carried out In what ways does it not meet best practice In terms of best practice, the real questions that the readership will ask are 1. How were the threshold values selected 2. How can we use these parameters to improve treatment and 3. are there any focuses biological agents. Addressing the inflammatory state that might be tried ? These are lacking I have seen these other questions asked on another AJE form so I am including these here What are the major findings The major findings are that after a multivariate analysis, only two of the multiple variables were statistically significantly associated with decreased RFS and OS but interestingly not treatment with inatinab. What are the unusual or novel methods used if any None are novel; these comparisons have been done by many others in other neoplasms and many of the variables that are not inflammatory markers have been evaluated before in patients with GISTs How does this contribute to the field In the current state, these findings may aid the physician I predicting the future outcome of such patients and providing patients with survival concerns, but the study does not add or address any therapeutic implications in high risk GIST tumors such as more aggressive chemo, radiation therapy, new focused biological agents for targeting the inflammatory state, etc How could other researchers ue the information presented in their own work This study will may provide a basis for other groups interested in ameliorating the inflammatory state of these patients s with anti-inflammatory biological agents addressing such things as TNF, genomic mutations in GISTS, anti TGF beta etc REQUESTED REVISIONS: Are there additional revisions the authors should make-consider 1. Line 6 please reserve the use of the word “significant” for statistical uses. Rather use words like substantial, extensive, substantive etc. eg also line 63,99 and elsewhere throughout the text 2.line 21 do you mean “and treatment response with imatinib” 3. Line 123 delete the phrase “The data revealed” 4. Line 39 do you mean preoperative or even neoadjuvant use of inatinab 5.add preoperative inflammatory markers and GIST to the key words 6. Line 50 and 121 and Table 1 change gender to sex. Gender is the phenotype while sex , the important variable, is the genotype 7. line 82. Don’t you mean “ Our hypothesis was that inflammatory factors affect survival in patients with high-risk GISTs. Our goal was to ••• “ it is always good to add a hypothesis and goal to any experimental paper 8. Line 89 second sentence can be deleted ;this is well described above 9. Line 95. Don’t you mean “other” malignant tumors? 10. Line 99 start a new paragraph after “failures).” 11. I do not see where you registered this study in a national or international database. You need to do this. 11.line 167 on did you consider looking at the Ki-67 values? 12. Line 132. Should you include a few references here 13.Line 123 were the patient data de-identified? If not why? 14. Line 144 please define PNI 15. concerning the results section- this is disappointing -you refer the reader to the Table 1 but make no summary or point out the important variables that reached statistical significance. Most authors would explicitly point out which variables were important and add the respective p. values or say something like “x, x, x , and e all were associated with a decrease in survival, while x, x, and x were associated with improved survival “. For instance, which variables were statistically significant for RFS and which for OS. Most readers will expect this and you are asking the readers to make their own conclusions cc the tables. 16. Table 1 it is impossible to have a p value of 0.000, similarly the percentages are only allowed to a tenth of a percentage with the total number of patients you have (145). When I looked for the threshold points, such as an age of 60, a preop NLR of 2.34 etc how were these chosen? When I look at lines 147-151 you do not explain what you mean by “enabling meaningful classification”. Also some of the values have too many significant figures. Like preop PLR to the hundredths of a point and so forth for many others 17. Discussion. While you say that this evaluation can be used to determine improvements in treatment, you do not suggest any- what about biological agents focused at inflammatory pathways? Are there any focused agents you think can be evaluated in any of your findings, should other agents than inatinab be considered? While I understand that several of these inflammatory biomarkers may suggest an increased risk of recurrent disease , this is good for outlining a more detailed follow up and giving patients potentially predictive survival expectations, but to what end? Do you have any suggestions cc therapeutic possibilities based on your study? For instance lines 310-312; this begs the question of “HOW? or what are the implications for clinical management? 18. Limitations. Your study does not point out how these data will or could be used clinically. What does the future hold in terms of treatment? 19 figure 1 and 2. How many patients are evaluated at each time point, this is quite important! Did all the patients have complete follow up? When I look at these figures, it looks like the threshold values you have chosen are quite good at separating the groups so how were these values chosen see #16 above 20. In summary it appears to this reviewer that ONLY preop NLR and mitotic index are predictive variables but not age as you stated on line 306. - why did you include age here? Were you surprised that treatment with inatinab was not predictive and if so why ? ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS: see above detailed suggestions"	Title: Inflammatory Biomarker Correlations and Prognosis in High-risk Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor Patients: A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis Version: 1 Date: 13 Nov 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? Not sure - key details are missing from the manuscript EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow confidence in the results? No - there are minor issues STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate? No - there are issues with the statistics in the study INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not overstated? No - there are major issues OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound? Maybe - with major revisions PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS: GENERAL COMMENTS: Overall Impression This is a descriptive study of the association of preoperative inflammatory biomarkers and pathological findings versus recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with high risk GIST tumors of the gut. On multivariate analysis, only two of the multiple variables were found to be statistically significantly associated with decreased RFS and OS but not treatment with inatinab. What is lacking is an explanation of how these findings will be of therapeutic value to clinical treatment of GISTs. What have the authors done well The detailed analysis of presumptive predictive values is well carried out In what ways does it not meet best practice In terms of best practice, the real questions that the readership will ask are 1. How were the threshold values selected 2. How can we use these parameters to improve treatment and 3. are there any focuses biological agents. Addressing the inflammatory state that might be tried ? These are lacking I have seen these other questions asked on another AJE form so I am including these here What are the major findings The major findings are that after a multivariate analysis, only two of the multiple variables were statistically significantly associated with decreased RFS and OS but interestingly not treatment with inatinab. What are the unusual or novel methods used if any None are novel; these comparisons have been done by many others in other neoplasms and many of the variables that are not inflammatory markers have been evaluated before in patients with GISTs How does this contribute to the field In the current state, these findings may aid the physician I predicting the future outcome of such patients and providing patients with survival concerns, but the study does not add or address any therapeutic implications in high risk GIST tumors such as more aggressive chemo, radiation therapy, new focused biological agents for targeting the inflammatory state, etc How could other researchers ue the information presented in their own work This study will may provide a basis for other groups interested in ameliorating the inflammatory state of these patients s with anti-inflammatory biological agents addressing such things as TNF, genomic mutations in GISTS, anti TGF beta etc REQUESTED REVISIONS: Are there additional revisions the authors should make-consider 1. Line 6 please reserve the use of the word “significant” for statistical uses. Rather use words like substantial, extensive, substantive etc. eg also line 63,99 and elsewhere throughout the text 2.line 21 do you mean “and treatment response with imatinib” 3. Line 123 delete the phrase “The data revealed” 4. Line 39 do you mean preoperative or even neoadjuvant use of inatinab 5.add preoperative inflammatory markers and GIST to the key words 6. Line 50 and 121 and Table 1 change gender to sex. Gender is the phenotype while sex , the important variable, is the genotype 7. line 82. Don’t you mean “ Our hypothesis was that inflammatory factors affect survival in patients with high-risk GISTs. Our goal was to ••• “ it is always good to add a hypothesis and goal to any experimental paper 8. Line 89 second sentence can be deleted ;this is well described above 9. Line 95. Don’t you mean “other” malignant tumors? 10. Line 99 start a new paragraph after “failures).” 11. I do not see where you registered this study in a national or international database. You need to do this. 11.line 167 on did you consider looking at the Ki-67 values? 12. Line 132. Should you include a few references here 13.Line 123 were the patient data de-identified? If not why? 14. Line 144 please define PNI 15. concerning the results section- this is disappointing -you refer the reader to the Table 1 but make no summary or point out the important variables that reached statistical significance. Most authors would explicitly point out which variables were important and add the respective p. values or say something like “x, x, x , and e all were associated with a decrease in survival, while x, x, and x were associated with improved survival “. For instance, which variables were statistically significant for RFS and which for OS. Most readers will expect this and you are asking the readers to make their own conclusions cc the tables. 16. Table 1 it is impossible to have a p value of 0.000, similarly the percentages are only allowed to a tenth of a percentage with the total number of patients you have (145). When I looked for the threshold points, such as an age of 60, a preop NLR of 2.34 etc how were these chosen? When I look at lines 147-151 you do not explain what you mean by “enabling meaningful classification”. Also some of the values have too many significant figures. Like preop PLR to the hundredths of a point and so forth for many others 17. Discussion. While you say that this evaluation can be used to determine improvements in treatment, you do not suggest any- what about biological agents focused at inflammatory pathways? Are there any focused agents you think can be evaluated in any of your findings, should other agents than inatinab be considered? While I understand that several of these inflammatory biomarkers may suggest an increased risk of recurrent disease , this is good for outlining a more detailed follow up and giving patients potentially predictive survival expectations, but to what end? Do you have any suggestions cc therapeutic possibilities based on your study? For instance lines 310-312; this begs the question of “HOW? or what are the implications for clinical management? 18. Limitations. Your study does not point out how these data will or could be used clinically. What does the future hold in terms of treatment? 19 figure 1 and 2. How many patients are evaluated at each time point, this is quite important! Did all the patients have complete follow up? When I look at these figures, it looks like the threshold values you have chosen are quite good at separating the groups so how were these values chosen see #16 above 20. In summary it appears to this reviewer that ONLY preop NLR and mitotic index are predictive variables but not age as you stated on line 306. - why did you include age here? Were you surprised that treatment with inatinab was not predictive and if so why ? ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS: see above detailed suggestions"	BMC	12876_2025_3710_ReviewerReport_V1_R2.pdf	{ "criticism": 11, "example": 18, "importance_and_relevance": 4, "materials_and_methods": 32, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 14, "results_and_discussion": 12, "suggestion_and_solution": 15, "total": 67 }	{ "criticism": 0.16417910447761194, "example": 0.26865671641791045, "importance_and_relevance": 0.05970149253731343, "materials_and_methods": 0.47761194029850745, "praise": 0.014925373134328358, "presentation_and_reporting": 0.208955223880597, "results_and_discussion": 0.1791044776119403, "suggestion_and_solution": 0.22388059701492538 }	1.597015	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Inflammatory Biomarker Correlations and Prognosis in High-risk Gastrointestinal\nStromal Tumor Patients: A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis\nVersion: 1 Date: 13 Nov 2024\nReviewer's report:\n\"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:\nOBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research\nquestion(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?\nYes - there is a clear objective\nDESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for\nthe objective?\nNot sure - key details are missing from the manuscript\nEXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow\nconfidence in the results?\nNo - there are minor issues\nSTATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?\nNo - there are issues with the statistics in the study\nINTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not\noverstated?\nNo - there are major issues\nOVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically\nsound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?\nMaybe - with major revisions\nPEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:\nGENERAL COMMENTS: Overall Impression\nThis is a descriptive study of the association of preoperative inflammatory biomarkers and\npathological findings versus recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients\nwith high risk GIST tumors of the gut. On multivariate analysis, only two of the multiple\nvariables were found to be statistically significantly associated with decreased RFS and OS but\nnot treatment with inatinab. What is lacking is an explanation of how these findings will be of\ntherapeutic value to clinical treatment of GISTs.\nWhat have the authors done well\nThe detailed analysis of presumptive predictive values is well carried out\nIn what ways does it not meet best practice\nIn terms of best practice, the real questions that the readership will ask are\n1. How were the threshold values selected 2. How can we use these parameters to improve\ntreatment and 3. are there any focuses biological agents. Addressing the inflammatory state\nthat might be tried ? These are lacking\nI have seen these other questions asked on another AJE form so I am including these here\nWhat are the major findings\nThe major findings are that after a multivariate analysis, only two of the multiple variables were\nstatistically significantly associated with decreased RFS and OS but interestingly not treatment\nwith inatinab.\nWhat are the unusual or novel methods used if any\nNone are novel; these comparisons have been done by many others in other neoplasms and many\nof the variables that are not inflammatory markers have been evaluated before in patients with\nGISTs\nHow does this contribute to the field\nIn the current state, these findings may aid the physician I predicting the future outcome of such\npatients and providing patients with survival concerns, but the study does not add or address any\ntherapeutic implications in high risk GIST tumors such as more aggressive chemo, radiation\ntherapy, new focused biological agents for targeting the inflammatory state, etc\nHow could other researchers ue the information presented in their own work\nThis study will may provide a basis for other groups interested in ameliorating the inflammatory\nstate of these patients s with anti-inflammatory biological agents addressing such things as TNF,\ngenomic mutations in GISTS, anti TGF beta etc\nREQUESTED REVISIONS:\nAre there additional revisions the authors should make-consider\n1. Line 6 please reserve the use of the word “significant” for statistical uses. Rather use words\nlike substantial, extensive, substantive etc. eg also line 63,99 and elsewhere throughout the text\n2.line 21 do you mean “and treatment response with imatinib”\n3. Line 123 delete the phrase “The data revealed”\n4. Line 39 do you mean preoperative or even neoadjuvant use of inatinab\n5.add preoperative inflammatory markers and GIST to the key words\n6. Line 50 and 121 and Table 1 change gender to sex. Gender is the phenotype while sex , the\nimportant variable, is the genotype\n7. line 82. Don’t you mean “ Our hypothesis was that inflammatory factors affect survival in\npatients with high-risk GISTs. Our goal was to ••• “ it is always good to add a hypothesis and\ngoal to any experimental paper\n8. Line 89 second sentence can be deleted ;this is well described above\n9. Line 95. Don’t you mean “other” malignant tumors?\n10. Line 99 start a new paragraph after “failures).”\n11. I do not see where you registered this study in a national or international database. You\nneed to do this.\n11.line 167 on did you consider looking at the Ki-67 values?\n12. Line 132. Should you include a few references here\n13.Line 123 were the patient data de-identified? If not why?\n14. Line 144 please define PNI\n15. concerning the results section- this is disappointing -you refer the reader to the Table 1\nbut make no summary or point out the important variables that reached statistical significance.\nMost authors would explicitly point out which variables were important and add the respective\np. values or say something like “x, x, x , and e all were associated with a decrease in survival,\nwhile x, x, and x were associated with improved survival “. For instance, which variables were\nstatistically significant for RFS and which for OS. Most readers will expect this and you are\nasking the readers to make their own conclusions cc the tables.\n16. Table 1 it is impossible to have a p value of 0.000, similarly the percentages are only allowed\nto a tenth of a percentage with the total number of patients you have (145). When I looked for the\nthreshold points, such as an age of 60, a preop NLR of 2.34 etc how were these chosen? When I\nlook at lines 147-151 you do not explain what you mean by “enabling meaningful classification”.\nAlso some of the values have too many significant figures. Like preop PLR to the hundredths\nof a point and so forth for many others\n17. Discussion. While you say that this evaluation can be used to determine improvements\nin treatment, you do not suggest any- what about biological agents focused at inflammatory\npathways? Are there any focused agents you think can be evaluated in any of your findings,\nshould other agents than inatinab be considered? While I understand that several of these\ninflammatory biomarkers may suggest an increased risk of recurrent disease , this is good\nfor outlining a more detailed follow up and giving patients potentially predictive survival\nexpectations, but to what end? Do you have any suggestions cc therapeutic possibilities based\non your study? For instance lines 310-312; this begs the question of “HOW? or what are the\nimplications for clinical management?\n18. Limitations. Your study does not point out how these data will or could be used clinically.\nWhat does the future hold in terms of treatment?\n19 figure 1 and 2. How many patients are evaluated at each time point, this is quite important!\nDid all the patients have complete follow up? When I look at these figures, it looks like the\nthreshold values you have chosen are quite good at separating the groups so how were these\nvalues chosen see #16 above\n20. In summary it appears to this reviewer that ONLY preop NLR and mitotic index are\npredictive variables but not age as you stated on line 306. - why did you include age here? Were\nyou surprised that treatment with inatinab was not predictive and if so why ?\nADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:\nsee above detailed suggestions\"", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03710-8	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Inflammatory Biomarker Correlations and Prognosis in High-risk Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor Patients: A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis Version: 4 Date: 06 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: HAVE THE AUTHORS RESPONDED ADEQUATELY TO EACH OF THE QUESTIONS YOU RAISED IN YOUR COMMENTS I want to very strongly and respectfully compliment the authors on such an erudite, comprehensive (and polite) complete response to all the comments made to improve this excellent paper. This is exactly how the review system should work. Very nice job authors!!!!! Also your use of the English language is to be envied! CONGRATULATIONS HAVE THEY MADE THE APPROPRIATE CHANGES IN THE MANUSCRIPT Yes WHAT IS YOUR OVERALL IMPRESSION OF THE REVISED MANUSCRIPT This is a beautifully designed and carried out study addressing whether inflammatory markers in specifically the high risk GIST population . In fortunately they are of no prognostic important in treatment unlike other malignant neoplasms. Preoperatively nutritional index was important and this offers a potential role for an aggressive preoperative nutritional rescue that needs to be designed and studied ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS: ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL REVISIONS THE AUTHORS SHOULD MAKE AUTHORS MY COMENTS ARE MINOR AND CAN EASILY BE INCORP0RATED WONDERFUL CAREFUL STUDY Again have re-read the entire manuscript 1. Line 44 please add the phrase “ lack of IM treatment had” after the second word on that line of “and” and delete “ whether or not IM and” 2. Line 54, 63, and elsewhere when referring to true neoplasms I would change “tumors” to “neoplasms”. Off the record GIST really should be GISN but unfortunately even in one of my publications of GISTS I could. It convince my coauthors to say GISN! A good example of what I am saying is IPMN which originally was called IPMT( I lost that battle as well! And 2 years later it was called IPMN! 3. Line 108 I would add the grass “that might limit postoperative survival “ after the word “failures” 4. Line 101. Shouldn’t you add a reference in the literature defining the classification of GISTs into extremely low, low, intermediate, and high risk categories based on postoperative evaluations and pathologic findings Did you use the classification you describe on line 169 if so best to add a reference here 5. You have stressed the importance of inflammatory markers and indexes in building treatment of several malignant neoplasms. But with GISTs, you really only looked at high risk GISTs. Do these markers have importance in patients with low and intermediate risk patients; are these markers of import in their treatment like in say gastric cancer? 6. In lines 277-335 you do not say that unfortunately the inflammatory factors we evaluated in these high risk patients had any positive correlation with RFS or OS. I think you should say that because one of your hypotheses (and even the title) was that inflammatory factors do play a role in prognosis; you found other markers but not inflammatory ones. Also this needs to be added to the conclusions saying on line 340 that "but unfortunately not the inflammatory markers that have proven to be important in other gastrointestinal malignancies" and that your hypothesis was not proven correct. No one will criticize you for not proving your hypothesis indeed that is why hypothesis driven research is the standard approach.	Title: Inflammatory Biomarker Correlations and Prognosis in High-risk Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor Patients: A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis Version: 4 Date: 06 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: HAVE THE AUTHORS RESPONDED ADEQUATELY TO EACH OF THE QUESTIONS YOU RAISED IN YOUR COMMENTS I want to very strongly and respectfully compliment the authors on such an erudite, comprehensive (and polite) complete response to all the comments made to improve this excellent paper. This is exactly how the review system should work. Very nice job authors!!!!! Also your use of the English language is to be envied! CONGRATULATIONS HAVE THEY MADE THE APPROPRIATE CHANGES IN THE MANUSCRIPT Yes WHAT IS YOUR OVERALL IMPRESSION OF THE REVISED MANUSCRIPT This is a beautifully designed and carried out study addressing whether inflammatory markers in specifically the high risk GIST population . In fortunately they are of no prognostic important in treatment unlike other malignant neoplasms. Preoperatively nutritional index was important and this offers a potential role for an aggressive preoperative nutritional rescue that needs to be designed and studied ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS: ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL REVISIONS THE AUTHORS SHOULD MAKE AUTHORS MY COMENTS ARE MINOR AND CAN EASILY BE INCORP0RATED WONDERFUL CAREFUL STUDY Again have re-read the entire manuscript 1. Line 44 please add the phrase “ lack of IM treatment had” after the second word on that line of “and” and delete “ whether or not IM and” 2. Line 54, 63, and elsewhere when referring to true neoplasms I would change “tumors” to “neoplasms”. Off the record GIST really should be GISN but unfortunately even in one of my publications of GISTS I could. It convince my coauthors to say GISN! A good example of what I am saying is IPMN which originally was called IPMT( I lost that battle as well! And 2 years later it was called IPMN! 3. Line 108 I would add the grass “that might limit postoperative survival “ after the word “failures” 4. Line 101. Shouldn’t you add a reference in the literature defining the classification of GISTs into extremely low, low, intermediate, and high risk categories based on postoperative evaluations and pathologic findings Did you use the classification you describe on line 169 if so best to add a reference here 5. You have stressed the importance of inflammatory markers and indexes in building treatment of several malignant neoplasms. But with GISTs, you really only looked at high risk GISTs. Do these markers have importance in patients with low and intermediate risk patients; are these markers of import in their treatment like in say gastric cancer? 6. In lines 277-335 you do not say that unfortunately the inflammatory factors we evaluated in these high risk patients had any positive correlation with RFS or OS. I think you should say that because one of your hypotheses (and even the title) was that inflammatory factors do play a role in prognosis; you found other markers but not inflammatory ones. Also this needs to be added to the conclusions saying on line 340 that "but unfortunately not the inflammatory markers that have proven to be important in other gastrointestinal malignancies" and that your hypothesis was not proven correct. No one will criticize you for not proving your hypothesis indeed that is why hypothesis driven research is the standard approach.	BMC	12876_2025_3710_ReviewerReport_V4_R2.pdf	{ "criticism": 2, "example": 7, "importance_and_relevance": 3, "materials_and_methods": 13, "praise": 7, "presentation_and_reporting": 6, "results_and_discussion": 4, "suggestion_and_solution": 8, "total": 33 }	{ "criticism": 0.06060606060606061, "example": 0.21212121212121213, "importance_and_relevance": 0.09090909090909091, "materials_and_methods": 0.3939393939393939, "praise": 0.21212121212121213, "presentation_and_reporting": 0.18181818181818182, "results_and_discussion": 0.12121212121212122, "suggestion_and_solution": 0.24242424242424243 }	1.515152	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Inflammatory Biomarker Correlations and Prognosis in High-risk Gastrointestinal\nStromal Tumor Patients: A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis\nVersion: 4 Date: 06 Dec 2024\nReviewer's report:\nPEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:\nOBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several\ntestable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)\nYes - there is a clear objective\nDESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for\nthe objective?\nYes - the approach is appropriate\nEXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to\nallow confidence in the results?\nYes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately\nSTATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?\nYes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study\nINTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not\noverstated?\nYes - the author's interpretation is reasonable\nOVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently\nfor you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further\nrevisions be made to make the work technically sound?\nYes - current version is technically sound\nPEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:\nGENERAL COMMENTS: HAVE THE AUTHORS RESPONDED ADEQUATELY TO\nEACH OF THE QUESTIONS YOU RAISED IN YOUR COMMENTS\nI want to very strongly and respectfully compliment the authors on such an erudite,\ncomprehensive (and polite) complete response to all the comments made to improve this\nexcellent paper. This is exactly how the review system should work. Very nice job authors!!!!!\nAlso your use of the English language is to be envied! CONGRATULATIONS\nHAVE THEY MADE THE APPROPRIATE CHANGES IN THE MANUSCRIPT\nYes\nWHAT IS YOUR OVERALL IMPRESSION OF THE REVISED MANUSCRIPT\nThis is a beautifully designed and carried out study addressing whether inflammatory markers\nin specifically the high risk GIST population . In fortunately they are of no prognostic important\nin treatment unlike other malignant neoplasms. Preoperatively nutritional index was important\nand this offers a potential role for an aggressive preoperative nutritional rescue that needs to be\ndesigned and studied\nADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:\nARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL REVISIONS THE AUTHORS SHOULD MAKE\nAUTHORS MY COMENTS ARE MINOR AND CAN EASILY BE INCORP0RATED\nWONDERFUL CAREFUL STUDY\nAgain have re-read the entire manuscript\n1. Line 44 please add the phrase “ lack of IM treatment had” after the second word on that line\nof “and” and delete “ whether or not IM and”\n2. Line 54, 63, and elsewhere when referring to true neoplasms I would change “tumors” to\n“neoplasms”. Off the record GIST really should be GISN but unfortunately even in one of my\npublications of GISTS I could. It convince my coauthors to say GISN! A good example of what\nI am saying is IPMN which originally was called IPMT( I lost that battle as well! And 2 years\nlater it was called IPMN!\n3. Line 108 I would add the grass “that might limit postoperative survival “ after the word\n“failures”\n4. Line 101. Shouldn’t you add a reference in the literature defining the classification of\nGISTs into extremely low, low, intermediate, and high risk categories based on postoperative\nevaluations and pathologic findings Did you use the classification you describe on line 169 if\nso best to add a reference here\n5. You have stressed the importance of inflammatory markers and indexes in building treatment\nof several malignant neoplasms. But with GISTs, you really only looked at high risk GISTs. Do\nthese markers have importance in patients with low and intermediate risk patients; are these\nmarkers of import in their treatment like in say gastric cancer?\n6. In lines 277-335 you do not say that unfortunately the inflammatory factors we evaluated in\nthese high risk patients had any positive correlation with RFS or OS. I think you should say that\nbecause one of your hypotheses (and even the title) was that inflammatory factors do play a role\nin prognosis; you found other markers but not inflammatory ones. Also this needs to be added\nto the conclusions saying on line 340 that \"but unfortunately not the inflammatory markers that\nhave proven to be important in other gastrointestinal malignancies\" and that your hypothesis\nwas not proven correct. No one will criticize you for not proving your hypothesis indeed that\nis why hypothesis driven research is the standard approach.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03710-8	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Inflammatory Biomarker Correlations and Prognosis in High-risk Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor Patients: A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis Version: 4 Date: 27 Dec 2024 Reviewer: Tsunehiko Maruyama Reviewer's report: The authors changed the method for determining the cut-off value from the median to using the ROC curve, and reported preoperative PNI and postoperative imatinib administration as independent prognostic factors. It is not a new finding that preoperative PNI is a prognostic factor in various cancers, but it is worth evaluating that this study only included high-risk GIST cases. Therefore, it is necessary to describe in detail the criteria used to select cases that received postoperative imatinib and those that did not. Preoperative PNI is said to reflect inflammatory conditions rather than just the patient's nutritional status. This point should be mentioned in the discussion.	Title: Inflammatory Biomarker Correlations and Prognosis in High-risk Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor Patients: A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis Version: 4 Date: 27 Dec 2024 Reviewer: Tsunehiko Maruyama Reviewer's report: The authors changed the method for determining the cut-off value from the median to using the ROC curve, and reported preoperative PNI and postoperative imatinib administration as independent prognostic factors. It is not a new finding that preoperative PNI is a prognostic factor in various cancers, but it is worth evaluating that this study only included high-risk GIST cases. Therefore, it is necessary to describe in detail the criteria used to select cases that received postoperative imatinib and those that did not. Preoperative PNI is said to reflect inflammatory conditions rather than just the patient's nutritional status. This point should be mentioned in the discussion.	BMC	12876_2025_3710_ReviewerReport_V4_R1.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 1, "materials_and_methods": 3, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 2, "results_and_discussion": 1, "suggestion_and_solution": 3, "total": 5 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0.2, "materials_and_methods": 0.6, "praise": 0, "presentation_and_reporting": 0.4, "results_and_discussion": 0.2, "suggestion_and_solution": 0.6 }	2	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Inflammatory Biomarker Correlations and Prognosis in High-risk Gastrointestinal\nStromal Tumor Patients: A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis\nVersion: 4 Date: 27 Dec 2024\nReviewer: Tsunehiko Maruyama\nReviewer's report:\nThe authors changed the method for determining the cut-off value from the median to using\nthe ROC curve, and reported preoperative PNI and postoperative imatinib administration as\nindependent prognostic factors.\nIt is not a new finding that preoperative PNI is a prognostic factor in various cancers, but it is\nworth evaluating that this study only included high-risk GIST cases.\nTherefore, it is necessary to describe in detail the criteria used to select cases that received\npostoperative imatinib and those that did not.\nPreoperative PNI is said to reflect inflammatory conditions rather than just the patient's\nnutritional status. This point should be mentioned in the discussion.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03710-8	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Inflammatory Biomarker Correlations and Prognosis in High-risk Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor Patients: A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis Version: 5 Date: 10 Jan 2025 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? Probably - with minor revisions PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS: GENERAL COMMENTS: HAVE THE AUTHORS RESPONDED ADEQUATELY TO EACH OF THE QUESTIONS YOU RAISED IN YOUR COMMENTS Yes thank you authors HAVE THEY MADE THE APPROPRIATE CHANGES IN THE MANUSCRIPT These changes will further improve the manuscript’s WHAT IS YOUR OVERALL IMPRESSION OF THE REVISED MANUSCRIPT This study shows the importance of the PNI in prognosis and may outline an aggressive approach postoperatively to reverse the malnutrition. Unfortunately many of the inflammatory parameters did not seem to influence prognosis the study does reinforce the prognostic benefit of age, mitotic index, PNI, and importantly the very important doable benefit of adjuvant treatment with IM ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS: ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL REVISIONS THE AUTHORS SHOULD MAKE I have re-read the entire manuscript and will make any suggestions that will aid the readers 1.line 44. Why not add the word "increasing” before “age”, “low” before the word “PNI”, and “high” before the word “mitotic” that really will clarify these parameters 2. Line 53 it might read and sound better if you say “neoplasms arising in the interstitial space of the “ 3. Line 65. Instead of comprehensive do you really mean complete R0 resection”? 4. Change line 87 to “to poorer outcomes in patients with GISTS(19) and patients with breast cancer (20)”. Reference 20 unlike 17,18, and 19 refers to breast cancer 5. Line 102. I would change the word “diagnosis” to “finding in pathological review” 6. Line 104 as written this makes no sense. I think you mean "no clinical symptoms were indicative of the lack of any associated infection”. Is that what you mean? 7. Authors were the data on the patients collected “prospectively” with the goal of determining the importance of these markers? If so then you really need to register this study in a national or international database like for instance Clinical Trials.gov or a Chinese national registry so that other investigators know that you have done or are doing this. If indeed you had so planned it, ideally. You would have registered it before starting the study. In contract, if the idea to study this potential association was made after the patients were operate on and had this duration of follow up and the data were collected RETROSPECTIVELY, the there is no need to register it. And if so then on li e 130 you should say “The data were collected retrospectively and encompassed•••” Authors when I look at lines 180-182 and 194-196 . This really sounds like you had planned on this study and collected the data prospectively. If so the. Yes you need to register it. Most current journals will not publish a prospective study in humans unless the study is registered. You can do this after completing the study but that is not the best way to rather to register the study before starting so others will. It also do the same study 8. Line 228. If I am not mistaken this is the first time you mention RFS and OS in the text so you need to define these abbreviations. Defining them in the abstract is not sufficient for using them in the text, because many readers may not have read the abstract 9. Line 231 and 307 . Add the word “statistically” before the word “significant” 10. Line 283. Change “significance” to “importance” 11. Line 303 change “prove” to “strongly suggest 12. “line 329. Do you mean to say that 15-40% of caner patients have malnutrition at diagnosis” -I think so 13. Line 33- here you use the word “retrospective” you will really need to point out as described above #7 whether this was a prospective or retrospective design 24. Line 346-347. Should you add the phrase “ as well as a possible focus of postoperative treatment” after the word “ prognosis” Authors. Virtually all my comments are constructive and supportive of this excellent study and should be easy to incorporate, however you do need to be clear about whether this was a prospective design or whether it was a retrospective review and I if prospective register it.	Title: Inflammatory Biomarker Correlations and Prognosis in High-risk Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor Patients: A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis Version: 5 Date: 10 Jan 2025 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? Probably - with minor revisions PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS: GENERAL COMMENTS: HAVE THE AUTHORS RESPONDED ADEQUATELY TO EACH OF THE QUESTIONS YOU RAISED IN YOUR COMMENTS Yes thank you authors HAVE THEY MADE THE APPROPRIATE CHANGES IN THE MANUSCRIPT These changes will further improve the manuscript’s WHAT IS YOUR OVERALL IMPRESSION OF THE REVISED MANUSCRIPT This study shows the importance of the PNI in prognosis and may outline an aggressive approach postoperatively to reverse the malnutrition. Unfortunately many of the inflammatory parameters did not seem to influence prognosis the study does reinforce the prognostic benefit of age, mitotic index, PNI, and importantly the very important doable benefit of adjuvant treatment with IM ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS: ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL REVISIONS THE AUTHORS SHOULD MAKE I have re-read the entire manuscript and will make any suggestions that will aid the readers 1.line 44. Why not add the word "increasing” before “age”, “low” before the word “PNI”, and “high” before the word “mitotic” that really will clarify these parameters 2. Line 53 it might read and sound better if you say “neoplasms arising in the interstitial space of the “ 3. Line 65. Instead of comprehensive do you really mean complete R0 resection”? 4. Change line 87 to “to poorer outcomes in patients with GISTS(19) and patients with breast cancer (20)”. Reference 20 unlike 17,18, and 19 refers to breast cancer 5. Line 102. I would change the word “diagnosis” to “finding in pathological review” 6. Line 104 as written this makes no sense. I think you mean "no clinical symptoms were indicative of the lack of any associated infection”. Is that what you mean? 7. Authors were the data on the patients collected “prospectively” with the goal of determining the importance of these markers? If so then you really need to register this study in a national or international database like for instance Clinical Trials.gov or a Chinese national registry so that other investigators know that you have done or are doing this. If indeed you had so planned it, ideally. You would have registered it before starting the study. In contract, if the idea to study this potential association was made after the patients were operate on and had this duration of follow up and the data were collected RETROSPECTIVELY, the there is no need to register it. And if so then on li e 130 you should say “The data were collected retrospectively and encompassed•••” Authors when I look at lines 180-182 and 194-196 . This really sounds like you had planned on this study and collected the data prospectively. If so the. Yes you need to register it. Most current journals will not publish a prospective study in humans unless the study is registered. You can do this after completing the study but that is not the best way to rather to register the study before starting so others will. It also do the same study 8. Line 228. If I am not mistaken this is the first time you mention RFS and OS in the text so you need to define these abbreviations. Defining them in the abstract is not sufficient for using them in the text, because many readers may not have read the abstract 9. Line 231 and 307 . Add the word “statistically” before the word “significant” 10. Line 283. Change “significance” to “importance” 11. Line 303 change “prove” to “strongly suggest 12. “line 329. Do you mean to say that 15-40% of caner patients have malnutrition at diagnosis” -I think so 13. Line 33- here you use the word “retrospective” you will really need to point out as described above #7 whether this was a prospective or retrospective design 24. Line 346-347. Should you add the phrase “ as well as a possible focus of postoperative treatment” after the word “ prognosis” Authors. Virtually all my comments are constructive and supportive of this excellent study and should be easy to incorporate, however you do need to be clear about whether this was a prospective design or whether it was a retrospective review and I if prospective register it.	BMC	12876_2025_3710_ReviewerReport_V5_R2.pdf	{ "criticism": 2, "example": 18, "importance_and_relevance": 3, "materials_and_methods": 15, "praise": 4, "presentation_and_reporting": 13, "results_and_discussion": 3, "suggestion_and_solution": 18, "total": 49 }	{ "criticism": 0.04081632653061224, "example": 0.3673469387755102, "importance_and_relevance": 0.061224489795918366, "materials_and_methods": 0.30612244897959184, "praise": 0.08163265306122448, "presentation_and_reporting": 0.2653061224489796, "results_and_discussion": 0.061224489795918366, "suggestion_and_solution": 0.3673469387755102 }	1.55102	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Inflammatory Biomarker Correlations and Prognosis in High-risk Gastrointestinal\nStromal Tumor Patients: A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis\nVersion: 5 Date: 10 Jan 2025\nReviewer's report:\nPEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:\nOBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several\ntestable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)\nYes - there is a clear objective\nDESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for\nthe objective?\nYes - the approach is appropriate\nEXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to\nallow confidence in the results?\nYes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately\nSTATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?\nYes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study\nINTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not\noverstated?\nYes - the author's interpretation is reasonable\nOVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently\nfor you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further\nrevisions be made to make the work technically sound?\nProbably - with minor revisions\nPEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:\nGENERAL COMMENTS: HAVE THE AUTHORS RESPONDED ADEQUATELY TO\nEACH OF THE QUESTIONS YOU RAISED IN YOUR COMMENTS\nYes thank you authors\nHAVE THEY MADE THE APPROPRIATE CHANGES IN THE MANUSCRIPT\nThese changes will further improve the manuscript’s\nWHAT IS YOUR OVERALL IMPRESSION OF THE REVISED MANUSCRIPT\nThis study shows the importance of the\nPNI in prognosis and may outline an aggressive approach postoperatively to reverse the\nmalnutrition.\nUnfortunately many of the inflammatory parameters did not seem to influence prognosis the\nstudy does reinforce the prognostic benefit of age, mitotic index, PNI, and importantly the very\nimportant doable benefit of adjuvant treatment with IM\nADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:\nARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL REVISIONS THE AUTHORS SHOULD MAKE\nI have re-read the entire manuscript and will make any suggestions that will aid the readers\n1.line 44. Why not add the word \"increasing” before “age”, “low” before the word “PNI”, and\n“high” before the word “mitotic” that really will clarify these parameters\n2. Line 53 it might read and sound better if you say “neoplasms arising in the interstitial space\nof the “\n3. Line 65. Instead of comprehensive do you really mean complete R0 resection”?\n4. Change line 87 to “to poorer outcomes in patients with GISTS(19) and patients with breast\ncancer (20)”. Reference 20 unlike 17,18, and 19 refers to breast cancer\n5. Line 102. I would change the word “diagnosis” to “finding in pathological review”\n6. Line 104 as written this makes no sense. I think you mean \"no clinical symptoms were\nindicative of the lack of any associated infection”. Is that what you mean?\n7. Authors were the data on the patients collected “prospectively” with the goal of determining\nthe importance of these markers? If so then you really need to register this study in a national\nor international database like for instance Clinical Trials.gov or a Chinese national registry\nso that other investigators know that you have done or are doing this. If indeed you had so\nplanned it, ideally. You would have registered it before starting the study. In contract, if the\nidea to study this potential association was made after the patients were operate on and had this\nduration of follow up and the data were collected RETROSPECTIVELY, the there is no need\nto register it. And if so then on li e 130 you should say “The data were collected retrospectively\nand encompassed•••”\nAuthors when I look at lines 180-182 and 194-196 . This really sounds like you had planned\non this study and collected the data prospectively. If so the. Yes you need to register it. Most\ncurrent journals will not publish a prospective study in humans unless the study is registered.\nYou can do this after completing the study but that is not the best way to rather to register the\nstudy before starting so others will. It also do the same study\n8. Line 228. If I am not mistaken this is the first time you mention RFS and OS in the text so\nyou need to define these abbreviations. Defining them in the abstract is not sufficient for using\nthem in the text, because many readers may not have read the abstract\n9. Line 231 and 307 . Add the word “statistically” before the word “significant”\n10. Line 283. Change “significance” to “importance”\n11. Line 303 change “prove” to “strongly suggest\n12. “line 329. Do you mean to say that 15-40% of caner patients have malnutrition at diagnosis”\n-I think so\n13. Line 33- here you use the word “retrospective” you will really need to point out as described\nabove #7 whether this was a prospective or retrospective design\n24. Line 346-347. Should you add the phrase “ as well as a possible focus of postoperative\ntreatment” after the word “ prognosis”\nAuthors. Virtually all my comments are constructive and supportive of this excellent study\nand should be easy to incorporate, however you do need to be clear about whether this was a\nprospective design or whether it was a retrospective review and I if prospective register it.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03710-8	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Inflammatory Biomarker Correlations and Prognosis in High-risk Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor Patients: A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis Version: 5 Date: 19 Jan 2025 Reviewer: Tsunehiko Maruyama Reviewer's report: Thank you for your sincere response to my inquiry.	Title: Inflammatory Biomarker Correlations and Prognosis in High-risk Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor Patients: A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis Version: 5 Date: 19 Jan 2025 Reviewer: Tsunehiko Maruyama Reviewer's report: Thank you for your sincere response to my inquiry.	BMC	12876_2025_3710_ReviewerReport_V5_R1.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0, "total": 1 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 1, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0 }	2	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Inflammatory Biomarker Correlations and Prognosis in High-risk Gastrointestinal\nStromal Tumor Patients: A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis\nVersion: 5 Date: 19 Jan 2025\nReviewer: Tsunehiko Maruyama\nReviewer's report:\nThank you for your sincere response to my inquiry.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03710-8	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Inflammatory Biomarker Correlations and Prognosis in High-risk Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor Patients: A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis Version: 6 Date: 05 Feb 2025 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: HAVE THE AUTHORS RESPONDED ADEQUATELY TO EACH OF THE QUESTIONS YOU RAISED IN YOUR COMMENTS Yes thank you authors! HAVE THEY MADE THE APPROPRIATE CHANGES IN THE MANUSCRIPT Yes well done WHAT IS YOUR OVERALL IMPRESSION OF THE REVISED MANUSCRIPT Nicely revised. Too bad that the nutritional and inflammatory markers that have been identified I. Other neoplasms were not predictive in this study. That may actually shed light on appropriate treatment options. Nice very carefully carried out study. ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS: ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL REVISIONS THE AUTHORS SHOULD MAKE Again I have read the entire manuscript 1. Line 15 change intricate to accurate 2. Line 34 add the word “these” before the word “other” 3. Line 38 change “are” to “were” 4. Line 41 change reduces to “reduced” 5. Line 40 Change “is” to “was 6. Line 56 I looked up the phrase “Interstitial source neoplasms” and that is not an appropriate phrase (actually I had never heard it before) I would delete the phrase “interstitial source” it still reads well, and I would use the word “intramural “ to differentiate it from a mucosal origin 7. line 105 change to “indicates” to ”indicate” 8. Line 117 I am not familiar with the geologic terms in line 24 you only say Ningxia Should that be expanded to this term on line 117 and 133? 9. Line 231 change to groups 10. Line 326. I would suggest that you soften the claim of malnutrition by saying “varying degrees of malnutrition”. This I would suggest is more accurate than saying 40% have malnutrition and all its implications and saying that cases will develop some aspects of malnutrition during treatment•••” this describes the poor leg a d a kids a reviewer (like me) or a reader criticizing the too-broad a use of the word "malnutrition”. You decide 11. Line 321 add the word “is” after “also” 12. All these comments are really minor and easily made. Yes writing in another language is difficult and much of the grammar takes years (like 75 for me) to learn. This is a beautifully carried out extremely detailed analysis and even though some of the inflammatory markers did not prove as useful as your hypothesis hoped, nevertheless, you have identified a treatment that does affect t survival in these patients well done. You should be proud of this study lots of work !	Title: Inflammatory Biomarker Correlations and Prognosis in High-risk Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor Patients: A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis Version: 6 Date: 05 Feb 2025 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: HAVE THE AUTHORS RESPONDED ADEQUATELY TO EACH OF THE QUESTIONS YOU RAISED IN YOUR COMMENTS Yes thank you authors! HAVE THEY MADE THE APPROPRIATE CHANGES IN THE MANUSCRIPT Yes well done WHAT IS YOUR OVERALL IMPRESSION OF THE REVISED MANUSCRIPT Nicely revised. Too bad that the nutritional and inflammatory markers that have been identified I. Other neoplasms were not predictive in this study. That may actually shed light on appropriate treatment options. Nice very carefully carried out study. ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS: ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL REVISIONS THE AUTHORS SHOULD MAKE Again I have read the entire manuscript 1. Line 15 change intricate to accurate 2. Line 34 add the word “these” before the word “other” 3. Line 38 change “are” to “were” 4. Line 41 change reduces to “reduced” 5. Line 40 Change “is” to “was 6. Line 56 I looked up the phrase “Interstitial source neoplasms” and that is not an appropriate phrase (actually I had never heard it before) I would delete the phrase “interstitial source” it still reads well, and I would use the word “intramural “ to differentiate it from a mucosal origin 7. line 105 change to “indicates” to ”indicate” 8. Line 117 I am not familiar with the geologic terms in line 24 you only say Ningxia Should that be expanded to this term on line 117 and 133? 9. Line 231 change to groups 10. Line 326. I would suggest that you soften the claim of malnutrition by saying “varying degrees of malnutrition”. This I would suggest is more accurate than saying 40% have malnutrition and all its implications and saying that cases will develop some aspects of malnutrition during treatment•••” this describes the poor leg a d a kids a reviewer (like me) or a reader criticizing the too-broad a use of the word "malnutrition”. You decide 11. Line 321 add the word “is” after “also” 12. All these comments are really minor and easily made. Yes writing in another language is difficult and much of the grammar takes years (like 75 for me) to learn. This is a beautifully carried out extremely detailed analysis and even though some of the inflammatory markers did not prove as useful as your hypothesis hoped, nevertheless, you have identified a treatment that does affect t survival in these patients well done. You should be proud of this study lots of work !	BMC	12876_2025_3710_ReviewerReport_V6_R2.pdf	{ "criticism": 5, "example": 10, "importance_and_relevance": 2, "materials_and_methods": 9, "praise": 7, "presentation_and_reporting": 11, "results_and_discussion": 2, "suggestion_and_solution": 12, "total": 33 }	{ "criticism": 0.15151515151515152, "example": 0.30303030303030304, "importance_and_relevance": 0.06060606060606061, "materials_and_methods": 0.2727272727272727, "praise": 0.21212121212121213, "presentation_and_reporting": 0.3333333333333333, "results_and_discussion": 0.06060606060606061, "suggestion_and_solution": 0.36363636363636365 }	1.757576	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Inflammatory Biomarker Correlations and Prognosis in High-risk Gastrointestinal\nStromal Tumor Patients: A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis\nVersion: 6 Date: 05 Feb 2025\nReviewer's report:\nPEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:\nOBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several\ntestable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)\nYes - there is a clear objective\nDESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for\nthe objective?\nYes - the approach is appropriate\nEXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to\nallow confidence in the results?\nYes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately\nSTATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?\nYes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study\nINTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not\noverstated?\nYes - the author's interpretation is reasonable\nOVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently\nfor you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further\nrevisions be made to make the work technically sound?\nYes - current version is technically sound\nPEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:\nGENERAL COMMENTS: HAVE THE AUTHORS RESPONDED ADEQUATELY TO\nEACH OF THE QUESTIONS YOU RAISED IN YOUR COMMENTS\nYes thank you authors!\nHAVE THEY MADE THE APPROPRIATE CHANGES IN THE MANUSCRIPT\nYes well done\nWHAT IS YOUR OVERALL IMPRESSION OF THE REVISED MANUSCRIPT\nNicely revised. Too bad that the nutritional and inflammatory markers that have been identified\nI. Other neoplasms were not predictive in this study. That may actually shed light on appropriate\ntreatment options. Nice very carefully carried out study.\nADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:\nARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL REVISIONS THE AUTHORS SHOULD MAKE\nAgain I have read the entire manuscript\n1. Line 15 change intricate to accurate\n2. Line 34 add the word “these” before the word “other”\n3. Line 38 change “are” to “were”\n4. Line 41 change reduces to “reduced”\n5. Line 40 Change “is” to “was\n6. Line 56 I looked up the phrase “Interstitial source neoplasms” and that is not an appropriate\nphrase (actually I had never heard it before) I would delete the phrase “interstitial source” it still\nreads well, and I would use the word “intramural “ to differentiate it from a mucosal origin\n7. line 105 change to “indicates” to ”indicate”\n8. Line 117 I am not familiar with the geologic terms in line 24 you only say Ningxia Should\nthat be expanded to this term on line 117 and 133?\n9. Line 231 change to groups\n10. Line 326. I would suggest that you soften the claim of malnutrition by saying “varying\ndegrees of malnutrition”. This I would suggest is more accurate than saying 40% have\nmalnutrition and all its implications and saying that cases will develop some aspects of\nmalnutrition during treatment•••” this describes the poor leg a d a kids a reviewer (like me) or a\nreader criticizing the too-broad a use of the word \"malnutrition”. You decide\n11. Line 321 add the word “is” after “also”\n12. All these comments are really minor and easily made. Yes writing in another language is\ndifficult and much of the grammar takes years (like 75 for me) to learn. This is a beautifully\ncarried out extremely detailed analysis and even though some of the inflammatory markers did\nnot prove as useful as your hypothesis hoped, nevertheless, you have identified a treatment that\ndoes affect t survival in these patients well done. You should be proud of this study lots of work !", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03675-8	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Investigation of Subpopulations in Crohn Inflammatory bowel disease Patients Version: 3 Date: 04 Dec 2024 Reviewer: Amira A A Othman Reviewer's report: The manuscript titled "Investigation of Subpopulations in Crohn Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients" provides a well-structured analysis of patient subpopulations using finite Poisson mixture models. While the study has merit, certain areas require revision for clarity, scientific rigor, and adherence to standard academic practices. Below are specific comments and directions: 1. Title and Abstract - Revise the title to something like: "Application of Finite Mixture Models to Identify Subpopulations in Crohn's Disease Patients." - Include key statistical findings in the abstract, such as the proportion of patients in each component and any significant p-values. 2. Introduction - Condense the clinical descriptions of UC and CD to a single paragraph. - Expand on the rationale for using finite mixture models, linking it explicitly to the heterogeneity observed in Crohn’s disease patient outcomes. 3. Methodology - The presentation of equations lacks clarity, and the transition between statistical concepts and their application is abrupt. - Key terms like "NPMLE" and "posterior probabilities" are mentioned but not adequately explained. - Define all statistical terms and notations clearly before presenting equations. - Provide a flow diagram or schematic summarizing the modeling steps (optional but helpful). - Add a justification for using a Poisson model initially and then transitioning to finite mixture modeling. 4. Results - The results are challenging to follow due to the lack of visual aids and the overly technical presentation; Include more figures or tables to visually represent: - Distribution of weeks across treatment groups. - Comparison of model fits for one-component vs. two-component models. - Proportions of patients in each subpopulation. - Explicitly state whether the observed overdispersion (variance > mean) and multimodality justify the use of finite mixture models. 5. Discussion - The discussion is repetitive and does not sufficiently link results to clinical implications or existing literature; Avoid repeating results; focus instead on interpreting their significance. - Discuss why treatment effects were insignificant in the context of Crohn’s disease management and potential heterogeneity. - Highlight the clinical relevance of ibdsc0 as a predictor and suggest further research directions. 6. References - The reference section is incomplete, and sources like "Verbeke and Muhlenberg" lack full publication details. - Ensure all references are formatted consistently in the chosen citation style (e.g., APA, AMA, etc.). Verify and complete bibliographic details for all citations. 7. Language and Formatting - Several grammatical errors and typos exist (e.g., "in contrary" should be "in contrast"); Perform a thorough grammatical review or use a professional editing service. - Equations and tables are not formatted consistently; Ensure all tables, figures, and equations follow journal submission guidelines (e.g., numbering, captions, references in text).	Title: Investigation of Subpopulations in Crohn Inflammatory bowel disease Patients Version: 3 Date: 04 Dec 2024 Reviewer: Amira A A Othman Reviewer's report: The manuscript titled "Investigation of Subpopulations in Crohn Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients" provides a well-structured analysis of patient subpopulations using finite Poisson mixture models. While the study has merit, certain areas require revision for clarity, scientific rigor, and adherence to standard academic practices. Below are specific comments and directions: 1. Title and Abstract - Revise the title to something like: "Application of Finite Mixture Models to Identify Subpopulations in Crohn's Disease Patients." - Include key statistical findings in the abstract, such as the proportion of patients in each component and any significant p-values. 2. Introduction - Condense the clinical descriptions of UC and CD to a single paragraph. - Expand on the rationale for using finite mixture models, linking it explicitly to the heterogeneity observed in Crohn’s disease patient outcomes. 3. Methodology - The presentation of equations lacks clarity, and the transition between statistical concepts and their application is abrupt. - Key terms like "NPMLE" and "posterior probabilities" are mentioned but not adequately explained. - Define all statistical terms and notations clearly before presenting equations. - Provide a flow diagram or schematic summarizing the modeling steps (optional but helpful). - Add a justification for using a Poisson model initially and then transitioning to finite mixture modeling. 4. Results - The results are challenging to follow due to the lack of visual aids and the overly technical presentation; Include more figures or tables to visually represent: - Distribution of weeks across treatment groups. - Comparison of model fits for one-component vs. two-component models. - Proportions of patients in each subpopulation. - Explicitly state whether the observed overdispersion (variance > mean) and multimodality justify the use of finite mixture models. 5. Discussion - The discussion is repetitive and does not sufficiently link results to clinical implications or existing literature; Avoid repeating results; focus instead on interpreting their significance. - Discuss why treatment effects were insignificant in the context of Crohn’s disease management and potential heterogeneity. - Highlight the clinical relevance of ibdsc0 as a predictor and suggest further research directions. 6. References - The reference section is incomplete, and sources like "Verbeke and Muhlenberg" lack full publication details. - Ensure all references are formatted consistently in the chosen citation style (e.g., APA, AMA, etc.). Verify and complete bibliographic details for all citations. 7. Language and Formatting - Several grammatical errors and typos exist (e.g., "in contrary" should be "in contrast"); Perform a thorough grammatical review or use a professional editing service. - Equations and tables are not formatted consistently; Ensure all tables, figures, and equations follow journal submission guidelines (e.g., numbering, captions, references in text).	BMC	12876_2025_3675_ReviewerReport_V3_R2.pdf	{ "criticism": 4, "example": 2, "importance_and_relevance": 2, "materials_and_methods": 12, "praise": 2, "presentation_and_reporting": 12, "results_and_discussion": 4, "suggestion_and_solution": 17, "total": 30 }	{ "criticism": 0.13333333333333333, "example": 0.06666666666666667, "importance_and_relevance": 0.06666666666666667, "materials_and_methods": 0.4, "praise": 0.06666666666666667, "presentation_and_reporting": 0.4, "results_and_discussion": 0.13333333333333333, "suggestion_and_solution": 0.5666666666666667 }	1.833333	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Investigation of Subpopulations in Crohn Inflammatory bowel disease Patients\nVersion: 3 Date: 04 Dec 2024\nReviewer: Amira A A Othman\nReviewer's report:\nThe manuscript titled \"Investigation of Subpopulations in Crohn Inflammatory Bowel Disease\nPatients\" provides a well-structured analysis of patient subpopulations using finite Poisson\nmixture models.\nWhile the study has merit, certain areas require revision for clarity, scientific rigor, and\nadherence to standard academic practices. Below are specific comments and directions:\n1. Title and Abstract\n- Revise the title to something like: \"Application of Finite Mixture Models to Identify\nSubpopulations in Crohn's Disease Patients.\"\n- Include key statistical findings in the abstract, such as the proportion of patients in each\ncomponent and any significant p-values.\n2. Introduction\n- Condense the clinical descriptions of UC and CD to a single paragraph.\n- Expand on the rationale for using finite mixture models, linking it explicitly to the heterogeneity\nobserved in Crohn’s disease patient outcomes.\n3. Methodology\n- The presentation of equations lacks clarity, and the transition between statistical concepts and\ntheir application is abrupt.\n- Key terms like \"NPMLE\" and \"posterior probabilities\" are mentioned but not adequately\nexplained.\n- Define all statistical terms and notations clearly before presenting equations.\n- Provide a flow diagram or schematic summarizing the modeling steps (optional but helpful).\n- Add a justification for using a Poisson model initially and then transitioning to finite mixture\nmodeling.\n4. Results\n- The results are challenging to follow due to the lack of visual aids and the overly technical\npresentation; Include more figures or tables to visually represent:\n- Distribution of weeks across treatment groups.\n- Comparison of model fits for one-component vs. two-component models.\n- Proportions of patients in each subpopulation.\n- Explicitly state whether the observed overdispersion (variance > mean) and multimodality\njustify the use of finite mixture models.\n5. Discussion\n- The discussion is repetitive and does not sufficiently link results to clinical implications or\nexisting literature; Avoid repeating results; focus instead on interpreting their significance.\n- Discuss why treatment effects were insignificant in the context of Crohn’s disease management\nand potential heterogeneity.\n- Highlight the clinical relevance of ibdsc0 as a predictor and suggest further research directions.\n6. References\n- The reference section is incomplete, and sources like \"Verbeke and Muhlenberg\" lack full\npublication details.\n- Ensure all references are formatted consistently in the chosen citation style (e.g., APA, AMA,\netc.).\nVerify and complete bibliographic details for all citations.\n7. Language and Formatting\n- Several grammatical errors and typos exist (e.g., \"in contrary\" should be \"in contrast\"); Perform\na thorough grammatical review or use a professional editing service.\n- Equations and tables are not formatted consistently; Ensure all tables, figures, and equations\nfollow journal submission guidelines (e.g., numbering, captions, references in text).", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03675-8	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Investigation of Subpopulations in Crohn Inflammatory bowel disease Patients Version: 3 Date: 09 Dec 2024 Reviewer: Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr Reviewer's report: Dear Authors, please address the following points below -While the methodology mentions that the study includes treatment as a covariate, it would benefit from more detail on the specific characteristics of the patient population. For example, how were patients selected for this study? What were the baseline characteristics (age, sex, disease duration, comorbidities) of the patients, and were these factors adjusted for in the analysis? More information on the patient demographics and inclusion criteria would help readers assess the generalizability of the findings. -The concept of "mixture components" is central to the study, yet it could be explained more clearly in the text. While it is stated that two subpopulations were identified, the specific characteristics of these subpopulations (e.g., differences in disease severity, response to treatment, etc.) are not fully explored. A deeper interpretation of what the two components represent in terms of clinical outcomes would help make the results more meaningful. How do these components differ in terms of patient behavior or clinical response? -The finding that treatment was not significant in explaining the subpopulations is intriguing but underexplained. Why was treatment not significant in either component? It would be helpful to explore this result more thoroughly, particularly considering that treatment is often expected to have a measurable effect in IBD patients. Are there other variables or treatment-related factors that might better explain this lack of significance? While the use of statistical models is appropriate, the presentation of results could be more detailed. For example, when discussing the Poisson regression models (Equations 3* and 4*), it would be helpful to include p-values or confidence intervals for the regression coefficients. -This would allow readers to better assess the strength of the effects observed. Additionally, the explanation of the deviance values and the significance of the change in deviance between the single and two-component models is useful but could be expanded to better highlight the statistical significance and practical implications of these results. -There is no mention of model validation or checking for model assumptions, such as overdispersion or residual analysis. While the finite mixture model is appropriate, it would be useful to provide more evidence that the model fits well to the data (e.g., through residual plots or diagnostic checks). Did the authors test the model’s goodness of fit, and if so, how did the model perform?	Title: Investigation of Subpopulations in Crohn Inflammatory bowel disease Patients Version: 3 Date: 09 Dec 2024 Reviewer: Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr Reviewer's report: Dear Authors, please address the following points below -While the methodology mentions that the study includes treatment as a covariate, it would benefit from more detail on the specific characteristics of the patient population. For example, how were patients selected for this study? What were the baseline characteristics (age, sex, disease duration, comorbidities) of the patients, and were these factors adjusted for in the analysis? More information on the patient demographics and inclusion criteria would help readers assess the generalizability of the findings. -The concept of "mixture components" is central to the study, yet it could be explained more clearly in the text. While it is stated that two subpopulations were identified, the specific characteristics of these subpopulations (e.g., differences in disease severity, response to treatment, etc.) are not fully explored. A deeper interpretation of what the two components represent in terms of clinical outcomes would help make the results more meaningful. How do these components differ in terms of patient behavior or clinical response? -The finding that treatment was not significant in explaining the subpopulations is intriguing but underexplained. Why was treatment not significant in either component? It would be helpful to explore this result more thoroughly, particularly considering that treatment is often expected to have a measurable effect in IBD patients. Are there other variables or treatment-related factors that might better explain this lack of significance? While the use of statistical models is appropriate, the presentation of results could be more detailed. For example, when discussing the Poisson regression models (Equations 3* and 4*), it would be helpful to include p-values or confidence intervals for the regression coefficients. -This would allow readers to better assess the strength of the effects observed. Additionally, the explanation of the deviance values and the significance of the change in deviance between the single and two-component models is useful but could be expanded to better highlight the statistical significance and practical implications of these results. -There is no mention of model validation or checking for model assumptions, such as overdispersion or residual analysis. While the finite mixture model is appropriate, it would be useful to provide more evidence that the model fits well to the data (e.g., through residual plots or diagnostic checks). Did the authors test the model’s goodness of fit, and if so, how did the model perform?	BMC	12876_2025_3675_ReviewerReport_V3_R3.pdf	{ "criticism": 3, "example": 1, "importance_and_relevance": 2, "materials_and_methods": 16, "praise": 2, "presentation_and_reporting": 8, "results_and_discussion": 11, "suggestion_and_solution": 11, "total": 20 }	{ "criticism": 0.15, "example": 0.05, "importance_and_relevance": 0.1, "materials_and_methods": 0.8, "praise": 0.1, "presentation_and_reporting": 0.4, "results_and_discussion": 0.55, "suggestion_and_solution": 0.55 }	2.7	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Investigation of Subpopulations in Crohn Inflammatory bowel disease Patients\nVersion: 3 Date: 09 Dec 2024\nReviewer: Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr\nReviewer's report:\nDear Authors, please address the following points below\n-While the methodology mentions that the study includes treatment as a covariate, it would\nbenefit from more detail on the specific characteristics of the patient population. For example,\nhow were patients selected for this study? What were the baseline characteristics (age, sex,\ndisease duration, comorbidities) of the patients, and were these factors adjusted for in the\nanalysis? More information on the patient demographics and inclusion criteria would help\nreaders assess the generalizability of the findings.\n-The concept of \"mixture components\" is central to the study, yet it could be explained\nmore clearly in the text. While it is stated that two subpopulations were identified, the\nspecific characteristics of these subpopulations (e.g., differences in disease severity, response\nto treatment, etc.) are not fully explored. A deeper interpretation of what the two components\nrepresent in terms of clinical outcomes would help make the results more meaningful. How do\nthese components differ in terms of patient behavior or clinical response?\n-The finding that treatment was not significant in explaining the subpopulations is intriguing but\nunderexplained. Why was treatment not significant in either component? It would be helpful to\nexplore this result more thoroughly, particularly considering that treatment is often expected to\nhave a measurable effect in IBD patients. Are there other variables or treatment-related factors\nthat might better explain this lack of significance?\nWhile the use of statistical models is appropriate, the presentation of results could be more\ndetailed. For example, when discussing the Poisson regression models (Equations 3* and 4*),\nit would be helpful to include p-values or confidence intervals for the regression coefficients.\n-This would allow readers to better assess the strength of the effects observed. Additionally,\nthe explanation of the deviance values and the significance of the change in deviance between\nthe single and two-component models is useful but could be expanded to better highlight the\nstatistical significance and practical implications of these results.\n-There is no mention of model validation or checking for model assumptions, such as\noverdispersion or residual analysis. While the finite mixture model is appropriate, it would be\nuseful to provide more evidence that the model fits well to the data (e.g., through residual plots\nor diagnostic checks). Did the authors test the model’s goodness of fit, and if so, how did the\nmodel perform?", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03675-8	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Investigation of Subpopulations in Crohn Inflammatory bowel disease Patients Version: 4 Date: 14 Jan 2025 Reviewer: Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr Reviewer's report: The responses are satisfactory but it doesn’t add to literature.	Title: Investigation of Subpopulations in Crohn Inflammatory bowel disease Patients Version: 4 Date: 14 Jan 2025 Reviewer: Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr Reviewer's report: The responses are satisfactory but it doesn’t add to literature.	BMC	12876_2025_3675_ReviewerReport_V4_R3.pdf	{ "criticism": 1, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 0, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0, "total": 1 }	{ "criticism": 1, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 0, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0 }	2	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Investigation of Subpopulations in Crohn Inflammatory bowel disease Patients\nVersion: 4 Date: 14 Jan 2025\nReviewer: Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr\nReviewer's report:\nThe responses are satisfactory but it doesn’t add to literature.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03675-8	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Investigation of Subpopulations in Crohn Inflammatory bowel disease Patients Version: 4 Date: 16 Jan 2025 Reviewer: Amira A A Othman Reviewer's report: The authors have addressed the reviewers' comments satisfactorily, with many of the suggested revisions being incorporated effectively into the revised manuscript. while the authors have effectively addressed most of the reviewers' comments, there are a few areas where further clarification or additional emphasis could improve the manuscript: 1. A more explicit mention of the rationale for finite mixture models in the introduction. 2. Further explanation of the clinical implications of the results, particularly regarding ibdsc0 and treatment effects. 3. A final review for any lingering grammatical or formatting issues. These minor adjustments would help strengthen the manuscript and ensure that it aligns fully with the reviewers' expectations.	Title: Investigation of Subpopulations in Crohn Inflammatory bowel disease Patients Version: 4 Date: 16 Jan 2025 Reviewer: Amira A A Othman Reviewer's report: The authors have addressed the reviewers' comments satisfactorily, with many of the suggested revisions being incorporated effectively into the revised manuscript. while the authors have effectively addressed most of the reviewers' comments, there are a few areas where further clarification or additional emphasis could improve the manuscript: 1. A more explicit mention of the rationale for finite mixture models in the introduction. 2. Further explanation of the clinical implications of the results, particularly regarding ibdsc0 and treatment effects. 3. A final review for any lingering grammatical or formatting issues. These minor adjustments would help strengthen the manuscript and ensure that it aligns fully with the reviewers' expectations.	BMC	12876_2025_3675_ReviewerReport_V4_R2.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 2, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 2, "results_and_discussion": 1, "suggestion_and_solution": 3, "total": 8 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 0.25, "praise": 0.125, "presentation_and_reporting": 0.25, "results_and_discussion": 0.125, "suggestion_and_solution": 0.375 }	1.125	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Investigation of Subpopulations in Crohn Inflammatory bowel disease Patients\nVersion: 4 Date: 16 Jan 2025\nReviewer: Amira A A Othman\nReviewer's report:\nThe authors have addressed the reviewers' comments satisfactorily, with many of the suggested\nrevisions being incorporated effectively into the revised manuscript. while the authors have\neffectively addressed most of the reviewers' comments, there are a few areas where further\nclarification or additional emphasis could improve the manuscript:\n1. A more explicit mention of the rationale for finite mixture models in the introduction.\n2. Further explanation of the clinical implications of the results, particularly regarding ibdsc0\nand treatment effects.\n3. A final review for any lingering grammatical or formatting issues.\nThese minor adjustments would help strengthen the manuscript and ensure that it aligns fully\nwith the reviewers' expectations.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03675-8	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Investigation of Subpopulations in Crohn Inflammatory bowel disease Patients Version: 5 Date: 21 Jan 2025 Reviewer: Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr Reviewer's report: the responses are satisfactory.	Title: Investigation of Subpopulations in Crohn Inflammatory bowel disease Patients Version: 5 Date: 21 Jan 2025 Reviewer: Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr Reviewer's report: the responses are satisfactory.	BMC	12876_2025_3675_ReviewerReport_V5_R3.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 0, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0, "total": 1 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 0, "praise": 1, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0 }	1	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Investigation of Subpopulations in Crohn Inflammatory bowel disease Patients\nVersion: 5 Date: 21 Jan 2025\nReviewer: Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr\nReviewer's report:\nthe responses are satisfactory.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03675-8	Reviewed - bmc_gastroenterology	Title: Investigation of Subpopulations in Crohn Inflammatory bowel disease Patients Version: 5 Date: 22 Jan 2025 Reviewer: Amira A A Othman Reviewer's report: I want to extend my congratulations to all those involved in this work. All the required amendments have already been made carefully and satisfactorily. I hope that the research will be presented to science.	Title: Investigation of Subpopulations in Crohn Inflammatory bowel disease Patients Version: 5 Date: 22 Jan 2025 Reviewer: Amira A A Othman Reviewer's report: I want to extend my congratulations to all those involved in this work. All the required amendments have already been made carefully and satisfactorily. I hope that the research will be presented to science.	BMC	12876_2025_3675_ReviewerReport_V5_R2.pdf	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 0, "praise": 2, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 1, "total": 3 }	{ "criticism": 0, "example": 0, "importance_and_relevance": 0, "materials_and_methods": 0, "praise": 0.6666666666666666, "presentation_and_reporting": 0, "results_and_discussion": 0, "suggestion_and_solution": 0.3333333333333333 }	1	[ { "content": "Please review this paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Investigation of Subpopulations in Crohn Inflammatory bowel disease Patients\nVersion: 5 Date: 22 Jan 2025\nReviewer: Amira A A Othman\nReviewer's report:\nI want to extend my congratulations to all those involved in this work. All the required\namendments have already been made carefully and satisfactorily. I hope that the research will\nbe presented to science.", "role": "assistant" } ]	2,025

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.