Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Analysis of β-catenin Association with Obesity in African America ns with Premalignant 
and Malignant Colorectal Lesions  
 
Version: 0 Date: 14 Jun 2020  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
In this study the authors analyzed the association of β -catenin with obesity in African Americans 
with premalignant and malignant colorectal lesions . Given the fact that etiological factors of 
colorectal cancer development are still unclear, this study significantly contributes to the 
research area.  
My comments are related to the Results section, as follows:  
Results:  
The Table 1 is difficult to interp ret. It is entitled as „Association of BMI with normal, advanced 
adenoma and CRC", however the presented results do not correspond with the title. Which 
statistical analysis is performed? If it is Kruskal -Wallis or Chi -square test (as stated in Material 
and methods), than these results don't represent associations of BMI with colorectal cancer. It is 
more likely that they represent differences in age, sex, BMI and prevalence of 
overweight/obesity between the examined subgroups of patients. Please clarify th is issue.  
Table 2: please explain in the table legend how C% and N% values are presented.  
The authors should reconsider the interpretation of AUC=0.63 as good diagnostic ability for 
CRC. Namely, AUC between 0.5 -0.7 indicates low diagnostic accuracy (Mandre kar JN. 
Biostatistics for Clinicians. Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve in Diagnostic Test 
Assessment. J Thorac Oncol, 5 (2010), pp. 1315 -1316; Akobeng AK. Understanding diagnostic 
tests 3: Receiver operating characteristic curves. Acta Paediatr. 200 7;96(5):644 ‐647. 
doi:10.1111/j.1651 -2227.2006.00178.x). Also, the obtained results for AUC should be further 
discussed.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is requir ed in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please e xplain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing in terests, considering the following questions:  
 
1.  Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, f ees, funding, or salary 
from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the 
publication of this manuscript, either now or in t he future?  
 
2.  Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or 
lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the 
future?  
 
3.  Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to th e content 
of the manuscript?  
 
4.  Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization 
that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5.  Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6.  Do y ou have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have  no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests.  
 
Reviewer Publication Consent. I agree for my report to be made  available under an Open 
Access Creative Commons CC -BY License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 ) if this 
manuscript  is accepted for publication. Any comments that  I do not wish to be included in the 
published  report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not be 
published.  If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the editorial office 
before completing  the review.  If you wish, you can include your name in your published report. 
Please note you must  decide whether to include your name at the start of the process and confirm 
this decision whenever  prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to 
publish your name.  
 
I agree to the terms of the CC -BY 4.0 license; please do not publish my name with my report. 
(default)  
 
Publons Reviewer Recognition . Springer Nature can send verifica tion of this review directly to 
Publons (a subsidiary of Clariv ate Analytics). If you would like to take advantage of this service, 
please click on the “Yes” option below. Your name, email  address, title of the reviewed 
manuscript, name of the journal, and date of your review submission (the “Review Data ”) will 
then be transmitted to Publons upon publication of the manuscript.  If you have already registered 
at Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review and update your profile as per your 
settings and their policy. If you are not registered with P ublons,  you will receive an email from 
them asking you to register in order for them to be able to re cognize your review on your new 
profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivat ive metadata for the benefit of 
Publons and you as a revie wer, carefully considering the sensi tivity of such information. For 
example, Publons may verify your record as a reviewer by updatin g your profile published on its 
webservice if you have registered for such service or help editors to identify candidate rev iewers. 
Please find the details of processing in Publons ’ privacy policy https://publons.com/about/terms  
 
Yes 
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Analysis of β-catenin Association with Obesity in African America ns with Premalignant 
and Malignant Colorectal Lesions  
 
Version: 0 Date: 14 Jun 2020  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
In this study the authors analyzed the association of β -catenin with obesity in African Americans 
with premalignant and malignant colorectal lesions . Given the fact that etiological factors of 
colorectal cancer development are still unclear, this study significantly contributes to the 
research area.  
My comments are related to the Results section, as follows:  
Results:  
The Table 1 is difficult to interp ret. It is entitled as „Association of BMI with normal, advanced 
adenoma and CRC", however the presented results do not correspond with the title. Which 
statistical analysis is performed? If it is Kruskal -Wallis or Chi -square test (as stated in Material 
and methods), than these results don't represent associations of BMI with colorectal cancer. It is 
more likely that they represent differences in age, sex, BMI and prevalence of 
overweight/obesity between the examined subgroups of patients. Please clarify th is issue.  
Table 2: please explain in the table legend how C% and N% values are presented.  
The authors should reconsider the interpretation of AUC=0.63 as good diagnostic ability for 
CRC. Namely, AUC between 0.5 -0.7 indicates low diagnostic accuracy (Mandre kar JN. 
Biostatistics for Clinicians. Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve in Diagnostic Test 
Assessment. J Thorac Oncol, 5 (2010), pp. 1315 -1316; Akobeng AK. Understanding diagnostic 
tests 3: Receiver operating characteristic curves. Acta Paediatr. 200 7;96(5):644 ‐647. 
doi:10.1111/j.1651 -2227.2006.00178.x). Also, the obtained results for AUC should be further 
discussed.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is requir ed in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please e xplain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing in terests, considering the following questions:  
 
1.  Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, f ees, funding, or salary 
from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the 
publication of this manuscript, either now or in t he future?  
 
2.  Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or 
lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the 
future?  
 
3.  Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to th e content 
of the manuscript?  
 
4.  Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization 
that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5.  Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6.  Do y ou have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have  no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests.  
 
Reviewer Publication Consent. I agree for my report to be made  available under an Open 
Access Creative Commons CC -BY License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 ) if this 
manuscript  is accepted for publication. Any comments that  I do not wish to be included in the 
published  report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not be 
published.  If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the editorial office 
before completing  the review.  If you wish, you can include your name in your published report. 
Please note you must  decide whether to include your name at the start of the process and confirm 
this decision whenever  prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to 
publish your name.  
 
I agree to the terms of the CC -BY 4.0 license; please do not publish my name with my report. 
(default)  
 
Publons Reviewer Recognition . Springer Nature can send verifica tion of this review directly to 
Publons (a subsidiary of Clariv ate Analytics). If you would like to take advantage of this service, 
please click on the “Yes” option below. Your name, email  address, title of the reviewed 
manuscript, name of the journal, and date of your review submission (the “Review Data ”) will 
then be transmitted to Publons upon publication of the manuscript.  If you have already registered 
at Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review and update your profile as per your 
settings and their policy. If you are not registered with P ublons,  you will receive an email from 
them asking you to register in order for them to be able to re cognize your review on your new 
profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivat ive metadata for the benefit of 
Publons and you as a revie wer, carefully considering the sensi tivity of such information. For 
example, Publons may verify your record as a reviewer by updatin g your profile published on its 
webservice if you have registered for such service or help editors to identify candidate rev iewers. 
Please find the details of processing in Publons ’ privacy policy https://publons.com/about/terms  
 
Yes 
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Analysis of β-catenin Association with Obesity in African America ns with Premalignant 
and Malignant Colorectal Lesions  
 
Version: 0 Date: 14 Jun 2020  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
In this study the authors analyzed the association of β -catenin with obesity in African Americans 
with premalignant and malignant colorectal lesions . Given the fact that etiological factors of 
colorectal cancer development are still unclear, this study significantly contributes to the 
research area.  
My comments are related to the Results section, as follows:  
Results:  
The Table 1 is difficult to interp ret. It is entitled as „Association of BMI with normal, advanced 
adenoma and CRC", however the presented results do not correspond with the title. Which 
statistical analysis is performed? If it is Kruskal -Wallis or Chi -square test (as stated in Material 
and methods), than these results don't represent associations of BMI with colorectal cancer. It is 
more likely that they represent differences in age, sex, BMI and prevalence of 
overweight/obesity between the examined subgroups of patients. Please clarify th is issue.  
Table 2: please explain in the table legend how C% and N% values are presented.  
The authors should reconsider the interpretation of AUC=0.63 as good diagnostic ability for 
CRC. Namely, AUC between 0.5 -0.7 indicates low diagnostic accuracy (Mandre kar JN. 
Biostatistics for Clinicians. Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve in Diagnostic Test 
Assessment. J Thorac Oncol, 5 (2010), pp. 1315 -1316; Akobeng AK. Understanding diagnostic 
tests 3: Receiver operating characteristic curves. Acta Paediatr. 200 7;96(5):644 ‐647. 
doi:10.1111/j.1651 -2227.2006.00178.x). Also, the obtained results for AUC should be further 
discussed.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is requir ed in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please e xplain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing in terests, considering the following questions:  
 
1.  Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, f ees, funding, or salary 
from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the 
publication of this manuscript, either now or in t he future?  
 
2.  Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or 
lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the 
future?  
 
3.  Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to th e content 
of the manuscript?  
 
4.  Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization 
that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5.  Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6.  Do y ou have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have  no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests.  
 
Reviewer Publication Consent. I agree for my report to be made  available under an Open 
Access Creative Commons CC -BY License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 ) if this 
manuscript  is accepted for publication. Any comments that  I do not wish to be included in the 
published  report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not be 
published.  If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the editorial office 
before completing  the review.  If you wish, you can include your name in your published report. 
Please note you must  decide whether to include your name at the start of the process and confirm 
this decision whenever  prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to 
publish your name.  
 
I agree to the terms of the CC -BY 4.0 license; please do not publish my name with my report. 
(default)  
 
Publons Reviewer Recognition . Springer Nature can send verifica tion of this review directly to 
Publons (a subsidiary of Clariv ate Analytics). If you would like to take advantage of this service, 
please click on the “Yes” option below. Your name, email  address, title of the reviewed 
manuscript, name of the journal, and date of your review submission (the “Review Data ”) will 
then be transmitted to Publons upon publication of the manuscript.  If you have already registered 
at Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review and update your profile as per your 
settings and their policy. If you are not registered with P ublons,  you will receive an email from 
them asking you to register in order for them to be able to re cognize your review on your new 
profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivat ive metadata for the benefit of 
Publons and you as a revie wer, carefully considering the sensi tivity of such information. For 
example, Publons may verify your record as a reviewer by updatin g your profile published on its 
webservice if you have registered for such service or help editors to identify candidate rev iewers. 
Please find the details of processing in Publons ’ privacy policy https://publons.com/about/terms  
 
Yes 
assistant