Reviewer's report
Title:Correlation between depression, anxiety, and polymorphonuclear cells'
resilience in ulcerative colitis. The mediating role of heat shock protein 70.
Version: 2Date:27 July 2013
Reviewer: Ashwin Ananthakrishnan
Reviewer's report:
I appreciate the authors considering my previous comments and making
changes. However, while they have provided responses to the questions raised, I
find that several of my concerns remain unaddressed. The major ones that
persist are listed below.
1. Please check the numbering of your citations. The first listed citation is
numbered 31.
2. I am not sure I understand the rationale for the dichotomous HsP70 category
between the PMN’s and the other tissue sites. It seems like this decision on HsP
classification (as positive or negative) was made a posteriori, after the data was
available and analyzed. I would favor using a consistent scoring pattern across
all tissue sites as there is no biological reason to use different strata.
3. The lack of information on medication use at the time of HsP measurement is
also an important limitation. Even if this parameter did not influence HsP
expression, this data should be available to the authors and included in the
manuscript.
4. I am not sure I agree with the author’s rationale of only a bivariate analysis
between depression/anxiety state and HSP expression, particularly if all the
patients had psychometric scores within the range of normal values as
suggested by the authors. Please adjust for biologically relevant variables (age,
sex, disease activity, treatment) – or at the very least, show that the above
variables do not correlate with HSP status. Otherwise, there is a strong possibility
of confounding.
5. I also continue to be concerned about the likelihood of false discovery given
the lack of a clear hypothesis and the number of comparisons being made with
the multiple psychometric scales and biopsy sites. Please provide a strong
rationale for why false discovery is not an issue.
6. Overall the manuscript remains quite hard to follow and doesn’t clearly flow
from the results to the conclusions and subsequent implications.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Correlation between depression, anxiety, and polymorphonuclear cells'
resilience in ulcerative colitis. The mediating role of heat shock protein 70.
Version: 2Date:27 July 2013
Reviewer: Ashwin Ananthakrishnan
Reviewer's report:
I appreciate the authors considering my previous comments and making
changes. However, while they have provided responses to the questions raised, I
find that several of my concerns remain unaddressed. The major ones that
persist are listed below.
1. Please check the numbering of your citations. The first listed citation is
numbered 31.
2. I am not sure I understand the rationale for the dichotomous HsP70 category
between the PMN’s and the other tissue sites. It seems like this decision on HsP
classification (as positive or negative) was made a posteriori, after the data was
available and analyzed. I would favor using a consistent scoring pattern across
all tissue sites as there is no biological reason to use different strata.
3. The lack of information on medication use at the time of HsP measurement is
also an important limitation. Even if this parameter did not influence HsP
expression, this data should be available to the authors and included in the
manuscript.
4. I am not sure I agree with the author’s rationale of only a bivariate analysis
between depression/anxiety state and HSP expression, particularly if all the
patients had psychometric scores within the range of normal values as
suggested by the authors. Please adjust for biologically relevant variables (age,
sex, disease activity, treatment) – or at the very least, show that the above
variables do not correlate with HSP status. Otherwise, there is a strong possibility
of confounding.
5. I also continue to be concerned about the likelihood of false discovery given
the lack of a clear hypothesis and the number of comparisons being made with
the multiple psychometric scales and biopsy sites. Please provide a strong
rationale for why false discovery is not an issue.
6. Overall the manuscript remains quite hard to follow and doesn’t clearly flow
from the results to the conclusions and subsequent implications.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Correlation between depression, anxiety, and polymorphonuclear cells'
resilience in ulcerative colitis. The mediating role of heat shock protein 70.
Version: 2Date:27 July 2013
Reviewer: Ashwin Ananthakrishnan
Reviewer's report:
I appreciate the authors considering my previous comments and making
changes. However, while they have provided responses to the questions raised, I
find that several of my concerns remain unaddressed. The major ones that
persist are listed below.
1. Please check the numbering of your citations. The first listed citation is
numbered 31.
2. I am not sure I understand the rationale for the dichotomous HsP70 category
between the PMN’s and the other tissue sites. It seems like this decision on HsP
classification (as positive or negative) was made a posteriori, after the data was
available and analyzed. I would favor using a consistent scoring pattern across
all tissue sites as there is no biological reason to use different strata.
3. The lack of information on medication use at the time of HsP measurement is
also an important limitation. Even if this parameter did not influence HsP
expression, this data should be available to the authors and included in the
manuscript.
4. I am not sure I agree with the author’s rationale of only a bivariate analysis
between depression/anxiety state and HSP expression, particularly if all the
patients had psychometric scores within the range of normal values as
suggested by the authors. Please adjust for biologically relevant variables (age,
sex, disease activity, treatment) – or at the very least, show that the above
variables do not correlate with HSP status. Otherwise, there is a strong possibility
of confounding.
5. I also continue to be concerned about the likelihood of false discovery given
the lack of a clear hypothesis and the number of comparisons being made with
the multiple psychometric scales and biopsy sites. Please provide a strong
rationale for why false discovery is not an issue.
6. Overall the manuscript remains quite hard to follow and doesn’t clearly flow
from the results to the conclusions and subsequent implications.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
assistant