Title: BODY COMPOSITION AND MUSCLE COMPOSITION PHENOTYPES IN
PATIENTS ON WAITLIST AND SHORTLY AFTER LIVER TRANSPLANT – RESULTS
FROM A PILOT STUDY
Version: 0 Date: 09 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
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?
No - there are minor 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?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: This is an interesting study on how body composition changes in
patients with liver failure in transplant waitlist and after liver transplant. The study is well-
performed and has results with the potential of benefiting these patients. Despite the good work,
there are some details still needed to fully understand what was actually done, the manuscript
in its current form has some areas to be improved.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The objective is clearly stated and consistent with the work presented. It is not clear why the
so-called functional status was included, it doesnt add information to the work. The authors
state that this is a pilot study, but there is no information on which is the main study, please
add this data. The main issue is about the MRI measurements, it is not clear if there were
only two measurements or more measurements were done. Please clarify and detail hoy these
measurements were done. The discussion lacks a limitations section and the arguments on
cardiovascular diseases is far-fetched.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Statistical description is poor. Please review this section and add more details, even discuss
briefly why these models were chosen over other available.
Title: BODY COMPOSITION AND MUSCLE COMPOSITION PHENOTYPES IN
PATIENTS ON WAITLIST AND SHORTLY AFTER LIVER TRANSPLANT – RESULTS
FROM A PILOT STUDY
Version: 0 Date: 09 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
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?
No - there are minor 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?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: This is an interesting study on how body composition changes in
patients with liver failure in transplant waitlist and after liver transplant. The study is well-
performed and has results with the potential of benefiting these patients. Despite the good work,
there are some details still needed to fully understand what was actually done, the manuscript
in its current form has some areas to be improved.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The objective is clearly stated and consistent with the work presented. It is not clear why the
so-called functional status was included, it doesnt add information to the work. The authors
state that this is a pilot study, but there is no information on which is the main study, please
add this data. The main issue is about the MRI measurements, it is not clear if there were
only two measurements or more measurements were done. Please clarify and detail hoy these
measurements were done. The discussion lacks a limitations section and the arguments on
cardiovascular diseases is far-fetched.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Statistical description is poor. Please review this section and add more details, even discuss
briefly why these models were chosen over other available.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: BODY COMPOSITION AND MUSCLE COMPOSITION PHENOTYPES IN
PATIENTS ON WAITLIST AND SHORTLY AFTER LIVER TRANSPLANT – RESULTS
FROM A PILOT STUDY
Version: 0 Date: 09 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
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?
No - there are minor 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?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: This is an interesting study on how body composition changes in
patients with liver failure in transplant waitlist and after liver transplant. The study is well-
performed and has results with the potential of benefiting these patients. Despite the good work,
there are some details still needed to fully understand what was actually done, the manuscript
in its current form has some areas to be improved.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The objective is clearly stated and consistent with the work presented. It is not clear why the
so-called functional status was included, it doesnt add information to the work. The authors
state that this is a pilot study, but there is no information on which is the main study, please
add this data. The main issue is about the MRI measurements, it is not clear if there were
only two measurements or more measurements were done. Please clarify and detail hoy these
measurements were done. The discussion lacks a limitations section and the arguments on
cardiovascular diseases is far-fetched.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Statistical description is poor. Please review this section and add more details, even discuss
briefly why these models were chosen over other available.
assistant