Title: A Novel Nomogram to Predict 90-Day Mortality in Patients with Hepatitis B Virus-
Related Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure: A Single-Center Retrospective Study
Version: 3 Date: 20 Jan 2023
Reviewer's report:
1. In the Comparison of Predictive Abilities Between the Nomogram and Other Scoring
Systems part of the Results section, the sentence “The predictive ability of the nomogram
was approximately comparable to that of the COSSH-ACLFs (AUC 0.866 vs. 0.872), and
significantly better than that of the CLIF-C ACLF (AUC 0.866 vs. 0.825), CLIF-OFs (AUC
0.866 vs. 0.835), and MELD score (AUC 0.866 vs. 0.665)” is inappropriately expressed
due to the absence of statistical comparison. P value should be given. When there is no
statistically significant difference (P > 0.05) between the AUC of this nomogram and the AUC
of the COSSH-ACLFs, the authors can say that “The predictive ability of the nomogram was
approximately comparable to that of the COSSH-ACLFs”.
The issue is an essential one that I have repeatedly referred to but the authors didn’t revise
properly. If the authors cannot resolve this issue, many sentences of this paper are unreasonable,
such as “As observed, the areas under the ROCs of the nomogram and COSSH-ACLFs were
very similar. Hence, it could be considered that the predictive abilities of the nomogram and
COSSH-ACLFs are comparable”, “The nomogram is more accurate than the MELD score,
CLIF-C ACLFs, and CLIF-C OFs...”. Besides, the issue may affect the clinical significance of
this paper. The authors should carefully address this and related issues.
2. In the Discussion section, the sentence “The possible mechanism underlying mechanism
involves the binding of HDL-C particles to lipopolysaccharides” is inaccurate, where the words
“The possible mechanism underlying mechanism” should be revised as “The possible underlying
mechanism”.
3. The authors should check the grammar throughout this paper earnestly.
Title: A Novel Nomogram to Predict 90-Day Mortality in Patients with Hepatitis B Virus-
Related Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure: A Single-Center Retrospective Study
Version: 3 Date: 20 Jan 2023
Reviewer's report:
1. In the Comparison of Predictive Abilities Between the Nomogram and Other Scoring
Systems part of the Results section, the sentence “The predictive ability of the nomogram
was approximately comparable to that of the COSSH-ACLFs (AUC 0.866 vs. 0.872), and
significantly better than that of the CLIF-C ACLF (AUC 0.866 vs. 0.825), CLIF-OFs (AUC
0.866 vs. 0.835), and MELD score (AUC 0.866 vs. 0.665)” is inappropriately expressed
due to the absence of statistical comparison. P value should be given. When there is no
statistically significant difference (P > 0.05) between the AUC of this nomogram and the AUC
of the COSSH-ACLFs, the authors can say that “The predictive ability of the nomogram was
approximately comparable to that of the COSSH-ACLFs”.
The issue is an essential one that I have repeatedly referred to but the authors didn’t revise
properly. If the authors cannot resolve this issue, many sentences of this paper are unreasonable,
such as “As observed, the areas under the ROCs of the nomogram and COSSH-ACLFs were
very similar. Hence, it could be considered that the predictive abilities of the nomogram and
COSSH-ACLFs are comparable”, “The nomogram is more accurate than the MELD score,
CLIF-C ACLFs, and CLIF-C OFs...”. Besides, the issue may affect the clinical significance of
this paper. The authors should carefully address this and related issues.
2. In the Discussion section, the sentence “The possible mechanism underlying mechanism
involves the binding of HDL-C particles to lipopolysaccharides” is inaccurate, where the words
“The possible mechanism underlying mechanism” should be revised as “The possible underlying
mechanism”.
3. The authors should check the grammar throughout this paper earnestly.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: A Novel Nomogram to Predict 90-Day Mortality in Patients with Hepatitis B Virus-
Related Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure: A Single-Center Retrospective Study
Version: 3 Date: 20 Jan 2023
Reviewer's report:
1. In the Comparison of Predictive Abilities Between the Nomogram and Other Scoring
Systems part of the Results section, the sentence “The predictive ability of the nomogram
was approximately comparable to that of the COSSH-ACLFs (AUC 0.866 vs. 0.872), and
significantly better than that of the CLIF-C ACLF (AUC 0.866 vs. 0.825), CLIF-OFs (AUC
0.866 vs. 0.835), and MELD score (AUC 0.866 vs. 0.665)” is inappropriately expressed
due to the absence of statistical comparison. P value should be given. When there is no
statistically significant difference (P > 0.05) between the AUC of this nomogram and the AUC
of the COSSH-ACLFs, the authors can say that “The predictive ability of the nomogram was
approximately comparable to that of the COSSH-ACLFs”.
The issue is an essential one that I have repeatedly referred to but the authors didn’t revise
properly. If the authors cannot resolve this issue, many sentences of this paper are unreasonable,
such as “As observed, the areas under the ROCs of the nomogram and COSSH-ACLFs were
very similar. Hence, it could be considered that the predictive abilities of the nomogram and
COSSH-ACLFs are comparable”, “The nomogram is more accurate than the MELD score,
CLIF-C ACLFs, and CLIF-C OFs...”. Besides, the issue may affect the clinical significance of
this paper. The authors should carefully address this and related issues.
2. In the Discussion section, the sentence “The possible mechanism underlying mechanism
involves the binding of HDL-C particles to lipopolysaccharides” is inaccurate, where the words
“The possible mechanism underlying mechanism” should be revised as “The possible underlying
mechanism”.
3. The authors should check the grammar throughout this paper earnestly.
assistant