Title: MAFLD Mediates the Association Between CHR and Gallstones in the U.S. Adults:
Evidence from NHANES 2021-2023
Version: 1 Date: 07 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
The sentence "After counting for potential confounding variables, the risk of having gallstones
increased by 165% with each unit increase in the CHR" should be revised to focus solely on
numerical results. Interpretations should be avoided in the results section—only odds ratios
(OR), 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values should be reported.
The statement "RCS curve demonstrated a nonlinear association" should include the
corresponding p-value for nonlinearity.
The Results section of the abstract should be rewritten to present only numerical findings,
including means, odds ratios, confidence intervals, and p-values, without interpretation.
Regarding CHR ratio, clarification is needed on whether higher or lower values were considered
favorable in previous studies. Please provide supporting evidence and references explaining the
physiological or clinical implications of CHR in this context.
The reported CHR values appear quite small (e.g., >0.08 for the 4th quartile). The authors'
choice to describe risk per 1-unit increase in CHR may not be appropriate. A more meaningful
interpretation might be per 0.01 increase in CHR to improve clarity and relevance.
The rationale behind Table 4 needs to be explicitly stated. Given that this study focuses on
gallstones, it is important to clarify what specific relationships or comparisons the authors
intended to examine in this table.
Title: MAFLD Mediates the Association Between CHR and Gallstones in the U.S. Adults:
Evidence from NHANES 2021-2023
Version: 1 Date: 07 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
The sentence "After counting for potential confounding variables, the risk of having gallstones
increased by 165% with each unit increase in the CHR" should be revised to focus solely on
numerical results. Interpretations should be avoided in the results section—only odds ratios
(OR), 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values should be reported.
The statement "RCS curve demonstrated a nonlinear association" should include the
corresponding p-value for nonlinearity.
The Results section of the abstract should be rewritten to present only numerical findings,
including means, odds ratios, confidence intervals, and p-values, without interpretation.
Regarding CHR ratio, clarification is needed on whether higher or lower values were considered
favorable in previous studies. Please provide supporting evidence and references explaining the
physiological or clinical implications of CHR in this context.
The reported CHR values appear quite small (e.g., >0.08 for the 4th quartile). The authors'
choice to describe risk per 1-unit increase in CHR may not be appropriate. A more meaningful
interpretation might be per 0.01 increase in CHR to improve clarity and relevance.
The rationale behind Table 4 needs to be explicitly stated. Given that this study focuses on
gallstones, it is important to clarify what specific relationships or comparisons the authors
intended to examine in this table.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: MAFLD Mediates the Association Between CHR and Gallstones in the U.S. Adults:
Evidence from NHANES 2021-2023
Version: 1 Date: 07 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
The sentence "After counting for potential confounding variables, the risk of having gallstones
increased by 165% with each unit increase in the CHR" should be revised to focus solely on
numerical results. Interpretations should be avoided in the results section—only odds ratios
(OR), 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values should be reported.
The statement "RCS curve demonstrated a nonlinear association" should include the
corresponding p-value for nonlinearity.
The Results section of the abstract should be rewritten to present only numerical findings,
including means, odds ratios, confidence intervals, and p-values, without interpretation.
Regarding CHR ratio, clarification is needed on whether higher or lower values were considered
favorable in previous studies. Please provide supporting evidence and references explaining the
physiological or clinical implications of CHR in this context.
The reported CHR values appear quite small (e.g., >0.08 for the 4th quartile). The authors'
choice to describe risk per 1-unit increase in CHR may not be appropriate. A more meaningful
interpretation might be per 0.01 increase in CHR to improve clarity and relevance.
The rationale behind Table 4 needs to be explicitly stated. Given that this study focuses on
gallstones, it is important to clarify what specific relationships or comparisons the authors
intended to examine in this table.
assistant