Title: Novel beagle model of gastric local fibrotic target lesions for the evaluation and training
of endoscopic techniques
Version: 3 Date: 11 Oct 2023
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 they have done so and very politely
HAVE THEY MADE THE APPROPRIATE CHANGES IN THE MANUSCRIPT
Yes well done authors
WHAT IS YOUR OVERALL IMPRESSION OF THE REVISED MANUSCRIPT
This manuscript reports a very useful teaching technique to reproduce the difficulty of an ESD
in lesions that have substantial submucosal fibrosis and this this technique is quite good for
teaching the less advanced interventional endoscopist in dealing with these more difficult lesions
with submucosal fibrosis.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL REVISIONS THE AUTHORS SHOULD MAKE
I have read the entire manuscript again
1. Line 88 why not add the word “currently” before the word “suitable”
2. Line 143. Reverse the order of “we’re analyzed” to “analyzed were”
3. Lines151 I would suggest that you reword it as “ “was defined as bleeding requiring control
by electrical coagulation or closure of the bleeding site by the application of a hemostatic clip
during the ESD procedure” this is better wording
4. Line 156 most people say “hematoxylin&eosin”
5. Line 196  I would suggest hat you add the phrase  “required to safely perform the resection”
before  the word “injection” and then change the word “injection” to “injectate”
6. Lines 205-207 well done much better understood by the reader!!!!!!
7. Lines 209 and 210. Start the se fence with “There was a striking difference in submucosal
fibrosis/proliferation between the experimental tissues and the normal gastric mucosa”
8. Line add the phrase  “most endoscopically respectable “ after the word “treat”
9. Line 242 change to “Faller et A” then add the reference number
10. Line 247 I think hanging the word “beagle” to “dog” would be better
11. Line 262. Add the word “with” after the word “cells”  it will be less confusing
12. Line 271. See # 9 above
13. Line 306   Delete the comma
14. Line 308 change “cover” to “ reproduce”
15. Line 314. Be more strong and change the words” may be”  to “ strongly appears to
be” . Remember this is a good study and offers a viable new training technique for younger
interventional endoscopists!
All my suggestions are constructive and should be very easy to incorporate there are no serious
concerns on my part well ----done authors
Title: Novel beagle model of gastric local fibrotic target lesions for the evaluation and training
of endoscopic techniques
Version: 3 Date: 11 Oct 2023
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 they have done so and very politely
HAVE THEY MADE THE APPROPRIATE CHANGES IN THE MANUSCRIPT
Yes well done authors
WHAT IS YOUR OVERALL IMPRESSION OF THE REVISED MANUSCRIPT
This manuscript reports a very useful teaching technique to reproduce the difficulty of an ESD
in lesions that have substantial submucosal fibrosis and this this technique is quite good for
teaching the less advanced interventional endoscopist in dealing with these more difficult lesions
with submucosal fibrosis.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL REVISIONS THE AUTHORS SHOULD MAKE
I have read the entire manuscript again
1. Line 88 why not add the word “currently” before the word “suitable”
2. Line 143. Reverse the order of “we’re analyzed” to “analyzed were”
3. Lines151 I would suggest that you reword it as “ “was defined as bleeding requiring control
by electrical coagulation or closure of the bleeding site by the application of a hemostatic clip
during the ESD procedure” this is better wording
4. Line 156 most people say “hematoxylin&eosin”
5. Line 196  I would suggest hat you add the phrase  “required to safely perform the resection”
before  the word “injection” and then change the word “injection” to “injectate”
6. Lines 205-207 well done much better understood by the reader!!!!!!
7. Lines 209 and 210. Start the se fence with “There was a striking difference in submucosal
fibrosis/proliferation between the experimental tissues and the normal gastric mucosa”
8. Line add the phrase  “most endoscopically respectable “ after the word “treat”
9. Line 242 change to “Faller et A” then add the reference number
10. Line 247 I think hanging the word “beagle” to “dog” would be better
11. Line 262. Add the word “with” after the word “cells”  it will be less confusing
12. Line 271. See # 9 above
13. Line 306   Delete the comma
14. Line 308 change “cover” to “ reproduce”
15. Line 314. Be more strong and change the words” may be”  to “ strongly appears to
be” . Remember this is a good study and offers a viable new training technique for younger
interventional endoscopists!
All my suggestions are constructive and should be very easy to incorporate there are no serious
concerns on my part well ----done authors
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Novel beagle model of gastric local fibrotic target lesions for the evaluation and training
of endoscopic techniques
Version: 3 Date: 11 Oct 2023
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 they have done so and very politely
HAVE THEY MADE THE APPROPRIATE CHANGES IN THE MANUSCRIPT
Yes well done authors
WHAT IS YOUR OVERALL IMPRESSION OF THE REVISED MANUSCRIPT
This manuscript reports a very useful teaching technique to reproduce the difficulty of an ESD
in lesions that have substantial submucosal fibrosis and this this technique is quite good for
teaching the less advanced interventional endoscopist in dealing with these more difficult lesions
with submucosal fibrosis.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL REVISIONS THE AUTHORS SHOULD MAKE
I have read the entire manuscript again
1. Line 88 why not add the word “currently” before the word “suitable”
2. Line 143. Reverse the order of “we’re analyzed” to “analyzed were”
3. Lines151 I would suggest that you reword it as “ “was defined as bleeding requiring control
by electrical coagulation or closure of the bleeding site by the application of a hemostatic clip
during the ESD procedure” this is better wording
4. Line 156 most people say “hematoxylin&eosin”
5. Line 196  I would suggest hat you add the phrase  “required to safely perform the resection”
before  the word “injection” and then change the word “injection” to “injectate”
6. Lines 205-207 well done much better understood by the reader!!!!!!
7. Lines 209 and 210. Start the se fence with “There was a striking difference in submucosal
fibrosis/proliferation between the experimental tissues and the normal gastric mucosa”
8. Line add the phrase  “most endoscopically respectable “ after the word “treat”
9. Line 242 change to “Faller et A” then add the reference number
10. Line 247 I think hanging the word “beagle” to “dog” would be better
11. Line 262. Add the word “with” after the word “cells”  it will be less confusing
12. Line 271. See # 9 above
13. Line 306   Delete the comma
14. Line 308 change “cover” to “ reproduce”
15. Line 314. Be more strong and change the words” may be”  to “ strongly appears to
be” . Remember this is a good study and offers a viable new training technique for younger
interventional endoscopists!
All my suggestions are constructive and should be very easy to incorporate there are no serious
concerns on my part well ----done authors
assistant