Title: Association Between Dietary Potassium Intake and the Prevalence of Gallstones in
American Adults: an Assessment of Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey#########################################
Version: 2 Date: 02 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
The authors aim to explore an interesting and relatively less-studied area in their work—the
impact of potassium intake on gallstone formation. The study is well-organized and structured,
with the statistical rigor being particularly commendable. However, several minor revisions are
required to unlock the full potential of this work, which is inherently present.
1. The most significant shortcoming is the modest presentation of the clinical applicability of the
findings. The manuscript should emphasize more strongly the potential therapeutic opportunities
that could arise in the future from rationalizing potassium intake. This would not only enhance
the impact of the results but also provide a clearer vision for the practical implications of the
study.
2. The authors' affiliations are unclear in the main text. Do they all belong to the same institution?
3. The types of gallstones are mentioned only tangentially; however, the listing and
categorization are unprofessional and difficult to understand. A more precise and clear execution
is necessary.
4. The overall incidence of gallbladder cancer is relatively low, even among those with
gallstones. If you're referencing this in a detailed or professional context, it may be helpful to
include specific data or more citations to strengthen the point.
5. The role of different ions and salts in gallstone formation? Such as calcium? It would be
noteworthy to include authors and references not connected to the aurhors.
6. Why is the limit set at 20 years?
7. How can be the two Figure 1 in the main text?
8. The patient's self-reported gallstone condition carries a high risk of bias. Although it is
mentioned tangentially in the limitations, this aspect needs to be emphasized much more
strongly.
9. The legend of Figure 2 mentions that only 98% of the data is represented in the figure, but
no explanation is provided. It is possible that this is addressed in the text; however, it should
also be clearly stated in the legend.
10. What specific mechanism could link potassium intake to the development of gallstones? The
text does not provide a concrete explanation for this, although several correlating factors, such
as T2DM are listed. Could the relaxation of the gallbladder wall play a role, or perhaps some
other process?
11. Additionally, is there a difference based on the type of gallstone? It is possible that the
process may have a stronger effect on one type of stone compared to another. This information
must be included for a comprehensive analysis.
12. A more detailed (and maybe separated) limitation section is required.
13. The draft is formally organized and cohesive; however, it contains numerous typographical
and grammatical errors (e.g., missing or double spaces, missing letters, compound word issues,
incorrect verb tenses). A thorough review by a language editor is necessary.
Title: Association Between Dietary Potassium Intake and the Prevalence of Gallstones in
American Adults: an Assessment of Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey#########################################
Version: 2 Date: 02 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
The authors aim to explore an interesting and relatively less-studied area in their work—the
impact of potassium intake on gallstone formation. The study is well-organized and structured,
with the statistical rigor being particularly commendable. However, several minor revisions are
required to unlock the full potential of this work, which is inherently present.
1. The most significant shortcoming is the modest presentation of the clinical applicability of the
findings. The manuscript should emphasize more strongly the potential therapeutic opportunities
that could arise in the future from rationalizing potassium intake. This would not only enhance
the impact of the results but also provide a clearer vision for the practical implications of the
study.
2. The authors' affiliations are unclear in the main text. Do they all belong to the same institution?
3. The types of gallstones are mentioned only tangentially; however, the listing and
categorization are unprofessional and difficult to understand. A more precise and clear execution
is necessary.
4. The overall incidence of gallbladder cancer is relatively low, even among those with
gallstones. If you're referencing this in a detailed or professional context, it may be helpful to
include specific data or more citations to strengthen the point.
5. The role of different ions and salts in gallstone formation? Such as calcium? It would be
noteworthy to include authors and references not connected to the aurhors.
6. Why is the limit set at 20 years?
7. How can be the two Figure 1 in the main text?
8. The patient's self-reported gallstone condition carries a high risk of bias. Although it is
mentioned tangentially in the limitations, this aspect needs to be emphasized much more
strongly.
9. The legend of Figure 2 mentions that only 98% of the data is represented in the figure, but
no explanation is provided. It is possible that this is addressed in the text; however, it should
also be clearly stated in the legend.
10. What specific mechanism could link potassium intake to the development of gallstones? The
text does not provide a concrete explanation for this, although several correlating factors, such
as T2DM are listed. Could the relaxation of the gallbladder wall play a role, or perhaps some
other process?
11. Additionally, is there a difference based on the type of gallstone? It is possible that the
process may have a stronger effect on one type of stone compared to another. This information
must be included for a comprehensive analysis.
12. A more detailed (and maybe separated) limitation section is required.
13. The draft is formally organized and cohesive; however, it contains numerous typographical
and grammatical errors (e.g., missing or double spaces, missing letters, compound word issues,
incorrect verb tenses). A thorough review by a language editor is necessary.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Association Between Dietary Potassium Intake and the Prevalence of Gallstones in
American Adults: an Assessment of Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey#########################################
Version: 2 Date: 02 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
The authors aim to explore an interesting and relatively less-studied area in their work—the
impact of potassium intake on gallstone formation. The study is well-organized and structured,
with the statistical rigor being particularly commendable. However, several minor revisions are
required to unlock the full potential of this work, which is inherently present.
1. The most significant shortcoming is the modest presentation of the clinical applicability of the
findings. The manuscript should emphasize more strongly the potential therapeutic opportunities
that could arise in the future from rationalizing potassium intake. This would not only enhance
the impact of the results but also provide a clearer vision for the practical implications of the
study.
2. The authors' affiliations are unclear in the main text. Do they all belong to the same institution?
3. The types of gallstones are mentioned only tangentially; however, the listing and
categorization are unprofessional and difficult to understand. A more precise and clear execution
is necessary.
4. The overall incidence of gallbladder cancer is relatively low, even among those with
gallstones. If you're referencing this in a detailed or professional context, it may be helpful to
include specific data or more citations to strengthen the point.
5. The role of different ions and salts in gallstone formation? Such as calcium? It would be
noteworthy to include authors and references not connected to the aurhors.
6. Why is the limit set at 20 years?
7. How can be the two Figure 1 in the main text?
8. The patient's self-reported gallstone condition carries a high risk of bias. Although it is
mentioned tangentially in the limitations, this aspect needs to be emphasized much more
strongly.
9. The legend of Figure 2 mentions that only 98% of the data is represented in the figure, but
no explanation is provided. It is possible that this is addressed in the text; however, it should
also be clearly stated in the legend.
10. What specific mechanism could link potassium intake to the development of gallstones? The
text does not provide a concrete explanation for this, although several correlating factors, such
as T2DM are listed. Could the relaxation of the gallbladder wall play a role, or perhaps some
other process?
11. Additionally, is there a difference based on the type of gallstone? It is possible that the
process may have a stronger effect on one type of stone compared to another. This information
must be included for a comprehensive analysis.
12. A more detailed (and maybe separated) limitation section is required.
13. The draft is formally organized and cohesive; however, it contains numerous typographical
and grammatical errors (e.g., missing or double spaces, missing letters, compound word issues,
incorrect verb tenses). A thorough review by a language editor is necessary.
assistant