Title: Effect of past extensive ulcers on fecal calprotectin in ulcerative colitis
Version: 0 Date: 03 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors evaluated the difference in biomarker values between UC patients with past
extensive ulcers and those without. I thought this is a very interesting topic that has not really
been highlighted before. I just have some minor comments.
1. Could you be more clear as to how you categorized PEUs and non-PEUs? If a patient had
one small scar, did you still group them into PEUs? Also how many polyps were needed to be
grouped into the “pseudopolyposis” group?
2. You have focused on subgrouping patients with pseudopolyposis but have not discussed this
in detail. Why did you think to subgroup these patients? Also what is your analysis on these
results?
3. For Figure 4, I would still be interested to see the ROC analysis and Kaplan meier curve for
the PEU group as well, presumably showing that there is no significant difference. This would
back up your conclusion.
4. From what I understand from your results, (1) PEUs showing absolute higher FC values
(Fig3), and (2) patients with PEUs who subsequently relapsed showing no difference in FC
values from the patients who didn’t (Table5), are two separate results. Perhaps (1) can be an
explanation for (2), but one cannot conclude this from your study. I would therefore suggest re-
wording the conclusion to something along the following; “UC patients with PEUs have higher
FC values compared to those without PEUs, even in remission. Additionally, FC values do not
predict relapse in PEU patients. Therefore, FC may not be a sufficiently accurate biomarker for
patients with PEUs.”
5. When you refer to “enteroscopic findings”, do you mean “endoscopic”? (line 53)
6. Line 108; I don’t believe the term “white moss” is one that is used in the English medical
literature, please review. (polyps covered in mucous, perhaps?)
7. Figure 1; non-polyposis group should be n=16?
8. Line 159 “Among the 60 patients in the non-PEU group”, do you mean to say ALL patients?
Title: Effect of past extensive ulcers on fecal calprotectin in ulcerative colitis
Version: 0 Date: 03 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors evaluated the difference in biomarker values between UC patients with past
extensive ulcers and those without. I thought this is a very interesting topic that has not really
been highlighted before. I just have some minor comments.
1. Could you be more clear as to how you categorized PEUs and non-PEUs? If a patient had
one small scar, did you still group them into PEUs? Also how many polyps were needed to be
grouped into the “pseudopolyposis” group?
2. You have focused on subgrouping patients with pseudopolyposis but have not discussed this
in detail. Why did you think to subgroup these patients? Also what is your analysis on these
results?
3. For Figure 4, I would still be interested to see the ROC analysis and Kaplan meier curve for
the PEU group as well, presumably showing that there is no significant difference. This would
back up your conclusion.
4. From what I understand from your results, (1) PEUs showing absolute higher FC values
(Fig3), and (2) patients with PEUs who subsequently relapsed showing no difference in FC
values from the patients who didn’t (Table5), are two separate results. Perhaps (1) can be an
explanation for (2), but one cannot conclude this from your study. I would therefore suggest re-
wording the conclusion to something along the following; “UC patients with PEUs have higher
FC values compared to those without PEUs, even in remission. Additionally, FC values do not
predict relapse in PEU patients. Therefore, FC may not be a sufficiently accurate biomarker for
patients with PEUs.”
5. When you refer to “enteroscopic findings”, do you mean “endoscopic”? (line 53)
6. Line 108; I don’t believe the term “white moss” is one that is used in the English medical
literature, please review. (polyps covered in mucous, perhaps?)
7. Figure 1; non-polyposis group should be n=16?
8. Line 159 “Among the 60 patients in the non-PEU group”, do you mean to say ALL patients?
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Effect of past extensive ulcers on fecal calprotectin in ulcerative colitis
Version: 0 Date: 03 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors evaluated the difference in biomarker values between UC patients with past
extensive ulcers and those without. I thought this is a very interesting topic that has not really
been highlighted before. I just have some minor comments.
1. Could you be more clear as to how you categorized PEUs and non-PEUs? If a patient had
one small scar, did you still group them into PEUs? Also how many polyps were needed to be
grouped into the “pseudopolyposis” group?
2. You have focused on subgrouping patients with pseudopolyposis but have not discussed this
in detail. Why did you think to subgroup these patients? Also what is your analysis on these
results?
3. For Figure 4, I would still be interested to see the ROC analysis and Kaplan meier curve for
the PEU group as well, presumably showing that there is no significant difference. This would
back up your conclusion.
4. From what I understand from your results, (1) PEUs showing absolute higher FC values
(Fig3), and (2) patients with PEUs who subsequently relapsed showing no difference in FC
values from the patients who didn’t (Table5), are two separate results. Perhaps (1) can be an
explanation for (2), but one cannot conclude this from your study. I would therefore suggest re-
wording the conclusion to something along the following; “UC patients with PEUs have higher
FC values compared to those without PEUs, even in remission. Additionally, FC values do not
predict relapse in PEU patients. Therefore, FC may not be a sufficiently accurate biomarker for
patients with PEUs.”
5. When you refer to “enteroscopic findings”, do you mean “endoscopic”? (line 53)
6. Line 108; I don’t believe the term “white moss” is one that is used in the English medical
literature, please review. (polyps covered in mucous, perhaps?)
7. Figure 1; non-polyposis group should be n=16?
8. Line 159 “Among the 60 patients in the non-PEU group”, do you mean to say ALL patients?
assistant