Title: Diagnosis model for gastric submucosal tumor based on multiple decision trees
comprising endoscopic and endoscopic ultrasonography features
Version: 0 Date: 29 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the article titled “Diagnosis model for gastric submucosal tumor based
on multiple decision trees comprising endoscopic and endoscopic ultrasonography features” by
Shen Su et al. The authors have analysed 469 sub-epithelial lesions based on a hierarchical model
to aid in pre-operative decision making. I have the following comments to be made:
1. Introduction: line 46-47: authors need to correct the statement that diagnosis of SEL is by
EUS-FNA as majority studies, including recent meta-analysis have mentioned EUS-FNB to be
the procedure of choice (PMID: 37591258; PMID: 35264310). Mention the 2 studies as the
references.
2. Please provide the ethical committee number for the study.
3. Figure 1c: should mention decision model 2/3 to differentiate between GIST/schwannoma
versus lipoma; instead of only mentioning decision model 3.
4. The authors need to mention the figures 1,3-7 in the manuscript in the result section.
5. Table 1 does not show 13 variables, as highlighted by authors in results section. Please check
and rectify.
6. As per results section, those with p<0.001 were chosen as 13 variables: then as per results
of table 1 and 2, why wasn’t sex, age, mixed echo on EUS, submucosal level of origin, broad
based shape not chosen in the decision tree (all have p values <0.001). please clarify this aspect
in the manuscript.
7. Is it possible to combine figure 4-7 into a single line flow chart for better understanding?
Title: Diagnosis model for gastric submucosal tumor based on multiple decision trees
comprising endoscopic and endoscopic ultrasonography features
Version: 0 Date: 29 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the article titled “Diagnosis model for gastric submucosal tumor based
on multiple decision trees comprising endoscopic and endoscopic ultrasonography features” by
Shen Su et al. The authors have analysed 469 sub-epithelial lesions based on a hierarchical model
to aid in pre-operative decision making. I have the following comments to be made:
1. Introduction: line 46-47: authors need to correct the statement that diagnosis of SEL is by
EUS-FNA as majority studies, including recent meta-analysis have mentioned EUS-FNB to be
the procedure of choice (PMID: 37591258; PMID: 35264310). Mention the 2 studies as the
references.
2. Please provide the ethical committee number for the study.
3. Figure 1c: should mention decision model 2/3 to differentiate between GIST/schwannoma
versus lipoma; instead of only mentioning decision model 3.
4. The authors need to mention the figures 1,3-7 in the manuscript in the result section.
5. Table 1 does not show 13 variables, as highlighted by authors in results section. Please check
and rectify.
6. As per results section, those with p<0.001 were chosen as 13 variables: then as per results
of table 1 and 2, why wasn’t sex, age, mixed echo on EUS, submucosal level of origin, broad
based shape not chosen in the decision tree (all have p values <0.001). please clarify this aspect
in the manuscript.
7. Is it possible to combine figure 4-7 into a single line flow chart for better understanding?
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Diagnosis model for gastric submucosal tumor based on multiple decision trees
comprising endoscopic and endoscopic ultrasonography features
Version: 0 Date: 29 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the article titled “Diagnosis model for gastric submucosal tumor based
on multiple decision trees comprising endoscopic and endoscopic ultrasonography features” by
Shen Su et al. The authors have analysed 469 sub-epithelial lesions based on a hierarchical model
to aid in pre-operative decision making. I have the following comments to be made:
1. Introduction: line 46-47: authors need to correct the statement that diagnosis of SEL is by
EUS-FNA as majority studies, including recent meta-analysis have mentioned EUS-FNB to be
the procedure of choice (PMID: 37591258; PMID: 35264310). Mention the 2 studies as the
references.
2. Please provide the ethical committee number for the study.
3. Figure 1c: should mention decision model 2/3 to differentiate between GIST/schwannoma
versus lipoma; instead of only mentioning decision model 3.
4. The authors need to mention the figures 1,3-7 in the manuscript in the result section.
5. Table 1 does not show 13 variables, as highlighted by authors in results section. Please check
and rectify.
6. As per results section, those with p<0.001 were chosen as 13 variables: then as per results
of table 1 and 2, why wasn’t sex, age, mixed echo on EUS, submucosal level of origin, broad
based shape not chosen in the decision tree (all have p values <0.001). please clarify this aspect
in the manuscript.
7. Is it possible to combine figure 4-7 into a single line flow chart for better understanding?
assistant