Title: Prognostic impact of systemic inflammation indicators on all-cause and CVD mortality
in adults with MASLD
Version: 3 Date: 12 May 2025
Reviewer's report:
First and foremost, the authors are highly commended for the thorough and in-depth analysis
and revision of the manuscript (from version 1 to version 2). They have not only diligently
addressed the specific issues but, more importantly, have seized this opportunity to significantly
expand the breadth and depth of their research. The shift from an initial primary focus on NLR
to a comprehensive assessment of a range of systemic inflammatory indicators is a notable
improvement. Manuscript 2 represents a substantial leap forward in terms of scientific rigor and
completeness.
I have two further suggestions for the authors' consideration:
It is recommended that the authors briefly elaborate in the "Introduction" or "Discussion"
section on the rationale for selecting the current panel of specific inflammatory markers.This
could highlight factors like their availability in large epidemiological datasets (e.g., NHANES),
their established clinical significance, and their capacity to reflect systemic inflammation both
comprehensively and economically.
This study utilized NHANES data spanning from 1999 to 2018, a period of nearly two decades.
Given such an extended time-frame, potential heterogeneity may exist in the data across different
survey cycles. It is recommended that the authors consider detailing further in the "Methods"
section whether any specific measures, were contemplated or undertaken to assess or control
for such potential heterogeneity introduced by the long study duration. Additionally, a brief
mention of this issue in the "Limitations" subsection of the "Discussion," along with its potential
implications for the interpretation of the results, would be well.
Title: Prognostic impact of systemic inflammation indicators on all-cause and CVD mortality
in adults with MASLD
Version: 3 Date: 12 May 2025
Reviewer's report:
First and foremost, the authors are highly commended for the thorough and in-depth analysis
and revision of the manuscript (from version 1 to version 2). They have not only diligently
addressed the specific issues but, more importantly, have seized this opportunity to significantly
expand the breadth and depth of their research. The shift from an initial primary focus on NLR
to a comprehensive assessment of a range of systemic inflammatory indicators is a notable
improvement. Manuscript 2 represents a substantial leap forward in terms of scientific rigor and
completeness.
I have two further suggestions for the authors' consideration:
It is recommended that the authors briefly elaborate in the "Introduction" or "Discussion"
section on the rationale for selecting the current panel of specific inflammatory markers.This
could highlight factors like their availability in large epidemiological datasets (e.g., NHANES),
their established clinical significance, and their capacity to reflect systemic inflammation both
comprehensively and economically.
This study utilized NHANES data spanning from 1999 to 2018, a period of nearly two decades.
Given such an extended time-frame, potential heterogeneity may exist in the data across different
survey cycles. It is recommended that the authors consider detailing further in the "Methods"
section whether any specific measures, were contemplated or undertaken to assess or control
for such potential heterogeneity introduced by the long study duration. Additionally, a brief
mention of this issue in the "Limitations" subsection of the "Discussion," along with its potential
implications for the interpretation of the results, would be well.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Prognostic impact of systemic inflammation indicators on all-cause and CVD mortality
in adults with MASLD
Version: 3 Date: 12 May 2025
Reviewer's report:
First and foremost, the authors are highly commended for the thorough and in-depth analysis
and revision of the manuscript (from version 1 to version 2). They have not only diligently
addressed the specific issues but, more importantly, have seized this opportunity to significantly
expand the breadth and depth of their research. The shift from an initial primary focus on NLR
to a comprehensive assessment of a range of systemic inflammatory indicators is a notable
improvement. Manuscript 2 represents a substantial leap forward in terms of scientific rigor and
completeness.
I have two further suggestions for the authors' consideration:
It is recommended that the authors briefly elaborate in the "Introduction" or "Discussion"
section on the rationale for selecting the current panel of specific inflammatory markers.This
could highlight factors like their availability in large epidemiological datasets (e.g., NHANES),
their established clinical significance, and their capacity to reflect systemic inflammation both
comprehensively and economically.
This study utilized NHANES data spanning from 1999 to 2018, a period of nearly two decades.
Given such an extended time-frame, potential heterogeneity may exist in the data across different
survey cycles. It is recommended that the authors consider detailing further in the "Methods"
section whether any specific measures, were contemplated or undertaken to assess or control
for such potential heterogeneity introduced by the long study duration. Additionally, a brief
mention of this issue in the "Limitations" subsection of the "Discussion," along with its potential
implications for the interpretation of the results, would be well.
assistant