Title: Fatty liver index relationship with bio markers and lifestyle: Result from RaNCD cohort
study
Version: 2 Date: 08 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
I believe that the authors have sufficiently addressed the previously mentioned concerns and
questions. However, there are still a few issues that I would like to discuss.
1. English needs to be revised. Particularly, in the abstract and discussion of the manuscript..
2. Abstract: In my opinion, the way the results are expressed in the abstract makes them difficult
to understand. For example "The probability of NAFLD in men with high physical activity was
significantly 56% and in women 46% lower than in men and women with low physical activity
(P<0.001)". Could the sentence be rephrased?
For example: " An adjusted logistic regression model showed a significantly negative association
between high physical activity and fatty liver index in both men and women. (OR: 0.44, p-
value<0.001 and OR: 0.54, p-value<0.001, respectively)".
3. Abstract: "The present study showed that high SES, increased energy intake, dyslipidaemia,
physical inactivity, high VFA and depression in female are associated with an increased risk
of NAFLD." The conclusions expressed in this way seem to mean that these results were only
observed in female. Could the authors please rephrase the conclusions trying to state them as
clearly as possible?
4. Discussion: “Our findings showed a statistically significant link between the incidence of
NAFLD and blood biomarkers such as TG, TC, LDL-C, HDL-C, and FBG”. I would suggest
changing link to differences." Our findings showed statistically significant differences between
the incidence of NAFLD and blood biomarkers such as TG, TC, LDL-C, HDL-C and FBG,
when comparing subjects with an FLI<60 vs. FLI #60.".
5. Discussion: “Insulin resistance is sometimes referred to as prediabetes with baseline FBG
readings between 110 and 126 mg/dl. indicated that this individual would be very likely
to acquire NAFLD (25).” This sentence does not flow. I suggest either to add some more
information related to the results obtained in the manuscript or to rephrase it in a different way.
6. Discussion “A decreased risk of NAFLD was linked to higher HEI-2015 scores”. The authors’
state this. However, in the logistic regression model provided, the association between HEI-2015
scores and NAFLD risk is not assessed.
7. Please reformulate and clarify general conclusions.
Title: Fatty liver index relationship with bio markers and lifestyle: Result from RaNCD cohort
study
Version: 2 Date: 08 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
I believe that the authors have sufficiently addressed the previously mentioned concerns and
questions. However, there are still a few issues that I would like to discuss.
1. English needs to be revised. Particularly, in the abstract and discussion of the manuscript..
2. Abstract: In my opinion, the way the results are expressed in the abstract makes them difficult
to understand. For example "The probability of NAFLD in men with high physical activity was
significantly 56% and in women 46% lower than in men and women with low physical activity
(P<0.001)". Could the sentence be rephrased?
For example: " An adjusted logistic regression model showed a significantly negative association
between high physical activity and fatty liver index in both men and women. (OR: 0.44, p-
value<0.001 and OR: 0.54, p-value<0.001, respectively)".
3. Abstract: "The present study showed that high SES, increased energy intake, dyslipidaemia,
physical inactivity, high VFA and depression in female are associated with an increased risk
of NAFLD." The conclusions expressed in this way seem to mean that these results were only
observed in female. Could the authors please rephrase the conclusions trying to state them as
clearly as possible?
4. Discussion: “Our findings showed a statistically significant link between the incidence of
NAFLD and blood biomarkers such as TG, TC, LDL-C, HDL-C, and FBG”. I would suggest
changing link to differences." Our findings showed statistically significant differences between
the incidence of NAFLD and blood biomarkers such as TG, TC, LDL-C, HDL-C and FBG,
when comparing subjects with an FLI<60 vs. FLI #60.".
5. Discussion: “Insulin resistance is sometimes referred to as prediabetes with baseline FBG
readings between 110 and 126 mg/dl. indicated that this individual would be very likely
to acquire NAFLD (25).” This sentence does not flow. I suggest either to add some more
information related to the results obtained in the manuscript or to rephrase it in a different way.
6. Discussion “A decreased risk of NAFLD was linked to higher HEI-2015 scores”. The authors’
state this. However, in the logistic regression model provided, the association between HEI-2015
scores and NAFLD risk is not assessed.
7. Please reformulate and clarify general conclusions.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Fatty liver index relationship with bio markers and lifestyle: Result from RaNCD cohort
study
Version: 2 Date: 08 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
I believe that the authors have sufficiently addressed the previously mentioned concerns and
questions. However, there are still a few issues that I would like to discuss.
1. English needs to be revised. Particularly, in the abstract and discussion of the manuscript..
2. Abstract: In my opinion, the way the results are expressed in the abstract makes them difficult
to understand. For example "The probability of NAFLD in men with high physical activity was
significantly 56% and in women 46% lower than in men and women with low physical activity
(P<0.001)". Could the sentence be rephrased?
For example: " An adjusted logistic regression model showed a significantly negative association
between high physical activity and fatty liver index in both men and women. (OR: 0.44, p-
value<0.001 and OR: 0.54, p-value<0.001, respectively)".
3. Abstract: "The present study showed that high SES, increased energy intake, dyslipidaemia,
physical inactivity, high VFA and depression in female are associated with an increased risk
of NAFLD." The conclusions expressed in this way seem to mean that these results were only
observed in female. Could the authors please rephrase the conclusions trying to state them as
clearly as possible?
4. Discussion: “Our findings showed a statistically significant link between the incidence of
NAFLD and blood biomarkers such as TG, TC, LDL-C, HDL-C, and FBG”. I would suggest
changing link to differences." Our findings showed statistically significant differences between
the incidence of NAFLD and blood biomarkers such as TG, TC, LDL-C, HDL-C and FBG,
when comparing subjects with an FLI<60 vs. FLI #60.".
5. Discussion: “Insulin resistance is sometimes referred to as prediabetes with baseline FBG
readings between 110 and 126 mg/dl. indicated that this individual would be very likely
to acquire NAFLD (25).” This sentence does not flow. I suggest either to add some more
information related to the results obtained in the manuscript or to rephrase it in a different way.
6. Discussion “A decreased risk of NAFLD was linked to higher HEI-2015 scores”. The authors’
state this. However, in the logistic regression model provided, the association between HEI-2015
scores and NAFLD risk is not assessed.
7. Please reformulate and clarify general conclusions.
assistant