Reviewer's report
Title:Non-Invasive Index of Liver Fibrosis induced by Alcohol, Thioacetamide
and Schistosomal Infection in Mice
Version: 4Date:15 March 2010
Reviewer: James Fung
Reviewer's report:
The changes have been noted.
Major Comments:
1. Despite the re-submission and the initial concerns, there are still numerous
spelling and grammatical errors throughout the entire manuscript which needs to
be addressed
2. The abstract has been extensively re-written. In the results section - the
sentence 'highly (or moderately high)' needs to be changed. Also in the
conclusion it was stated that the index was 'liver-specific' - however this
conclusion cannot be drawn in the current study
3. The previous comments on using F0-F4 (rather than S1-S3) still stands.
Although the authors have changed one section, the remainder of the manuscript
remains unchanged
4. Under results section on Page 7 - there is a reference to Table 3 panel C
showing the correlation between the score and MDA/collagen/GSH. Panel C
cannot be found under table 3
5. The P values should be provided for the correlations in table 3
6. In table 5 I note that tha AUROC ranges for the training set all exceeded 1.0,
can the authors provide an explanation for this
7. The authors should provide the AUROC for the validation set for each of the
histological stages of fibrosis. In the discussion on page 12 it was stated that the
validation sets 'matched the pathological stages and grades, which was
independently assessed'
8. Under page 9 Validation Group, the figures provided for the correlation is from
the training set and not the validation set
9. Under discussion in page 11 - 'bilirubin and albumin are traditionally invested
to monitor liver histology' - is not true - we use the Child Pugh score and these
parameters to monitor the liver function and clinical status of the patient - not to
monitor liver histology.
10. The conclusion needs to be re-written
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:Non-Invasive Index of Liver Fibrosis induced by Alcohol, Thioacetamide
and Schistosomal Infection in Mice
Version: 4Date:15 March 2010
Reviewer: James Fung
Reviewer's report:
The changes have been noted.
Major Comments:
1. Despite the re-submission and the initial concerns, there are still numerous
spelling and grammatical errors throughout the entire manuscript which needs to
be addressed
2. The abstract has been extensively re-written. In the results section - the
sentence 'highly (or moderately high)' needs to be changed. Also in the
conclusion it was stated that the index was 'liver-specific' - however this
conclusion cannot be drawn in the current study
3. The previous comments on using F0-F4 (rather than S1-S3) still stands.
Although the authors have changed one section, the remainder of the manuscript
remains unchanged
4. Under results section on Page 7 - there is a reference to Table 3 panel C
showing the correlation between the score and MDA/collagen/GSH. Panel C
cannot be found under table 3
5. The P values should be provided for the correlations in table 3
6. In table 5 I note that tha AUROC ranges for the training set all exceeded 1.0,
can the authors provide an explanation for this
7. The authors should provide the AUROC for the validation set for each of the
histological stages of fibrosis. In the discussion on page 12 it was stated that the
validation sets 'matched the pathological stages and grades, which was
independently assessed'
8. Under page 9 Validation Group, the figures provided for the correlation is from
the training set and not the validation set
9. Under discussion in page 11 - 'bilirubin and albumin are traditionally invested
to monitor liver histology' - is not true - we use the Child Pugh score and these
parameters to monitor the liver function and clinical status of the patient - not to
monitor liver histology.
10. The conclusion needs to be re-written
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:Non-Invasive Index of Liver Fibrosis induced by Alcohol, Thioacetamide
and Schistosomal Infection in Mice
Version: 4Date:15 March 2010
Reviewer: James Fung
Reviewer's report:
The changes have been noted.
Major Comments:
1. Despite the re-submission and the initial concerns, there are still numerous
spelling and grammatical errors throughout the entire manuscript which needs to
be addressed
2. The abstract has been extensively re-written. In the results section - the
sentence 'highly (or moderately high)' needs to be changed. Also in the
conclusion it was stated that the index was 'liver-specific' - however this
conclusion cannot be drawn in the current study
3. The previous comments on using F0-F4 (rather than S1-S3) still stands.
Although the authors have changed one section, the remainder of the manuscript
remains unchanged
4. Under results section on Page 7 - there is a reference to Table 3 panel C
showing the correlation between the score and MDA/collagen/GSH. Panel C
cannot be found under table 3
5. The P values should be provided for the correlations in table 3
6. In table 5 I note that tha AUROC ranges for the training set all exceeded 1.0,
can the authors provide an explanation for this
7. The authors should provide the AUROC for the validation set for each of the
histological stages of fibrosis. In the discussion on page 12 it was stated that the
validation sets 'matched the pathological stages and grades, which was
independently assessed'
8. Under page 9 Validation Group, the figures provided for the correlation is from
the training set and not the validation set
9. Under discussion in page 11 - 'bilirubin and albumin are traditionally invested
to monitor liver histology' - is not true - we use the Child Pugh score and these
parameters to monitor the liver function and clinical status of the patient - not to
monitor liver histology.
10. The conclusion needs to be re-written
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