Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Potential utility of a multi-component coagulation factor panel to calculate
MELD scores and assess the risk of portal vein thrombosis in chronic liver
disease
Version: 
0 
Date: 
25 Oct 2022
Reviewer's report:
In this manuscript, the authors hope to construct a new scoring system based on
the correlation between the specified coagulation factors and chronic liver
disease (CLD), and then predict the occurrence of portal vein thrombosis (PVT)
and the severity of CLD. The amount of work in this article is small and the
experimental results are not convincing enough. It will not be published
according to my following comments:
Major comments:
1.The main problem of this manuscript is the lack of innovation and low
workload. The logical framework of the manuscript's lines is to demonstrate the
correlation between the specified coagulation factors and the severity of CLD,
followed by the construction of novel scoring systems for FVIII, FV, and PS to
predict the occurrence of PVT, and the construction of novel scoring criteria for
the assessment of CLD severity by FV and PC. However, according to the
background described, the relationships between coagulation factors and CLD
specified in the manuscript were demonstrated in previous experiments, and no
innovative findings were made. In addition, the two scoring prediction models
lacked sufficient sample size and validation experiments to demonstrate their
clinical utility.
2. Another major problem of this manuscript is the lack of convincing analysis
results. The authors obtained new equations to predict the PVT incidence.
However, the equations established by this experiment is unconvincing because
of the small PVT sample size (n=3).
3. Please provide a full explanation of the process used to create the equation
that can be used to forecast the severity of CLD and the occurrence of PVT.
4. The correlation analysis of PVT incidence with FVIII, FV, and PS showed a
significant inverse correlation in the third part of the manuscript results. It is
suggested that relevant charts be included to make the results more visually
appealing.
5. In Figure 3A 3B, the pink dots were not very distinguishable and it is
suggested to adjust it.
6. To compare the area under the curve in Figure 4D, it is advised to list several
ROC time curves. Additionally, the new MELD scoring formula's ROC curve
does not significantly outperform the traditional MELD-Na method.
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this
review directly to Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would
like to take advantage of this service, please click on the “Yes” option below.
Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal,
and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted
to Publons after the final decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have
already registered at Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review
and update your profile 
as per your settings and their policy. If you are not
registered with Publons, you will receive an email from them asking you to
register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new
profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivative metadata
for the benefit of Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the
sensitivity of such information. For example, Publons may verify your record as
a reviewer by updating your profile published on its webservice if you have
registered for such service or help editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please
find the details of processing in Publons’ privacy policy
https://publons.com/about/terms
No
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing
interests, considering the following questions:
1
. 
Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or
salary from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially
from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
2
. 
Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way
gain or lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now
or in the future?
3
. 
Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the
content of the manuscript?
4
. 
Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organization that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of
the manuscript?
5
. 
Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6
. 
Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this
paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing
interests' below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.

Reviewer Publication Consent.
 I agree for my report to be made available
under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY License (
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the
editorial office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your
name in your published report. Please note you must decide whether to include
your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision whenever
prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your
name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please 
do not
 publish my name
with my report. (default)
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
No
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
No
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
No
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes
Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Potential utility of a multi-component coagulation factor panel to calculate
MELD scores and assess the risk of portal vein thrombosis in chronic liver
disease
Version: 
0 
Date: 
25 Oct 2022
Reviewer's report:
In this manuscript, the authors hope to construct a new scoring system based on
the correlation between the specified coagulation factors and chronic liver
disease (CLD), and then predict the occurrence of portal vein thrombosis (PVT)
and the severity of CLD. The amount of work in this article is small and the
experimental results are not convincing enough. It will not be published
according to my following comments:
Major comments:
1.The main problem of this manuscript is the lack of innovation and low
workload. The logical framework of the manuscript's lines is to demonstrate the
correlation between the specified coagulation factors and the severity of CLD,
followed by the construction of novel scoring systems for FVIII, FV, and PS to
predict the occurrence of PVT, and the construction of novel scoring criteria for
the assessment of CLD severity by FV and PC. However, according to the
background described, the relationships between coagulation factors and CLD
specified in the manuscript were demonstrated in previous experiments, and no
innovative findings were made. In addition, the two scoring prediction models
lacked sufficient sample size and validation experiments to demonstrate their
clinical utility.
2. Another major problem of this manuscript is the lack of convincing analysis
results. The authors obtained new equations to predict the PVT incidence.
However, the equations established by this experiment is unconvincing because
of the small PVT sample size (n=3).
3. Please provide a full explanation of the process used to create the equation
that can be used to forecast the severity of CLD and the occurrence of PVT.
4. The correlation analysis of PVT incidence with FVIII, FV, and PS showed a
significant inverse correlation in the third part of the manuscript results. It is
suggested that relevant charts be included to make the results more visually
appealing.
5. In Figure 3A 3B, the pink dots were not very distinguishable and it is
suggested to adjust it.
6. To compare the area under the curve in Figure 4D, it is advised to list several
ROC time curves. Additionally, the new MELD scoring formula's ROC curve
does not significantly outperform the traditional MELD-Na method.
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this
review directly to Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would
like to take advantage of this service, please click on the “Yes” option below.
Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal,
and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted
to Publons after the final decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have
already registered at Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review
and update your profile 
as per your settings and their policy. If you are not
registered with Publons, you will receive an email from them asking you to
register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new
profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivative metadata
for the benefit of Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the
sensitivity of such information. For example, Publons may verify your record as
a reviewer by updating your profile published on its webservice if you have
registered for such service or help editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please
find the details of processing in Publons’ privacy policy
https://publons.com/about/terms
No
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing
interests, considering the following questions:
1
. 
Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or
salary from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially
from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
2
. 
Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way
gain or lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now
or in the future?
3
. 
Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the
content of the manuscript?
4
. 
Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organization that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of
the manuscript?
5
. 
Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6
. 
Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this
paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing
interests' below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.

Reviewer Publication Consent.
 I agree for my report to be made available
under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY License (
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the
editorial office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your
name in your published report. Please note you must decide whether to include
your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision whenever
prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your
name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please 
do not
 publish my name
with my report. (default)
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
No
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
No
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
No
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Potential utility of a multi-component coagulation factor panel to calculate
MELD scores and assess the risk of portal vein thrombosis in chronic liver
disease
Version: 
0 
Date: 
25 Oct 2022
Reviewer's report:
In this manuscript, the authors hope to construct a new scoring system based on
the correlation between the specified coagulation factors and chronic liver
disease (CLD), and then predict the occurrence of portal vein thrombosis (PVT)
and the severity of CLD. The amount of work in this article is small and the
experimental results are not convincing enough. It will not be published
according to my following comments:
Major comments:
1.The main problem of this manuscript is the lack of innovation and low
workload. The logical framework of the manuscript's lines is to demonstrate the
correlation between the specified coagulation factors and the severity of CLD,
followed by the construction of novel scoring systems for FVIII, FV, and PS to
predict the occurrence of PVT, and the construction of novel scoring criteria for
the assessment of CLD severity by FV and PC. However, according to the
background described, the relationships between coagulation factors and CLD
specified in the manuscript were demonstrated in previous experiments, and no
innovative findings were made. In addition, the two scoring prediction models
lacked sufficient sample size and validation experiments to demonstrate their
clinical utility.
2. Another major problem of this manuscript is the lack of convincing analysis
results. The authors obtained new equations to predict the PVT incidence.
However, the equations established by this experiment is unconvincing because
of the small PVT sample size (n=3).
3. Please provide a full explanation of the process used to create the equation
that can be used to forecast the severity of CLD and the occurrence of PVT.
4. The correlation analysis of PVT incidence with FVIII, FV, and PS showed a
significant inverse correlation in the third part of the manuscript results. It is
suggested that relevant charts be included to make the results more visually
appealing.
5. In Figure 3A 3B, the pink dots were not very distinguishable and it is
suggested to adjust it.
6. To compare the area under the curve in Figure 4D, it is advised to list several
ROC time curves. Additionally, the new MELD scoring formula's ROC curve
does not significantly outperform the traditional MELD-Na method.
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this
review directly to Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would
like to take advantage of this service, please click on the “Yes” option below.
Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal,
and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted
to Publons after the final decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have
already registered at Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review
and update your profile 
as per your settings and their policy. If you are not
registered with Publons, you will receive an email from them asking you to
register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new
profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivative metadata
for the benefit of Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the
sensitivity of such information. For example, Publons may verify your record as
a reviewer by updating your profile published on its webservice if you have
registered for such service or help editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please
find the details of processing in Publons’ privacy policy
https://publons.com/about/terms
No
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing
interests, considering the following questions:
1
. 
Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or
salary from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially
from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
2
. 
Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way
gain or lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now
or in the future?
3
. 
Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the
content of the manuscript?
4
. 
Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organization that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of
the manuscript?
5
. 
Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6
. 
Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this
paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing
interests' below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.

Reviewer Publication Consent.
 I agree for my report to be made available
under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY License (
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the
editorial office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your
name in your published report. Please note you must decide whether to include
your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision whenever
prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your
name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please 
do not
 publish my name
with my report. (default)
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
No
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
No
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
No
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes
assistant