Title: Determining the sensitivity and specificity of the calculated fatty liver index in
comparison with ultrasound
Version: 1 Date: 19 Jun 2024
Reviewer's report:
1. Since all the ultrasound (US) results were double-checked by another radiologist, was any
inter-observer variation analysis performed? How did the authors address discrepancies between
observers?
2. The authors should explain all abbreviations when they are first used in the paper to ensure
better understanding.
3. The cut-off points (COPs) of the Fatty Liver Index (FLI) at 30 and 60 are from a reference
paper. The authors need to mention this in the Methods section; otherwise, readers might be
confused by the multiple COPs.
4. In Table 2, Body Mass Index (BMI) showed a significant difference between NAFLD and
non-NAFLD with a COP at 30, but no significant difference with a COP at 60. Is there any
possible explanation for this? The same question applies to diabetes mellitus (DM).
5. On Page 8, Line 146, the statement "no significant differences in the area under the curve
(AUC) between genders, NAFLD grades, or the total population" should be supported by
statistical analysis. If such an analysis was performed, please include the details in the Methods
section.
6. On Page 11, second paragraph of the Discussion, please clarify whether the COPs of FLI in
males and females agree or disagree with the references. The current result, 33.4 for males and
27.8 for females, does not align with References 40 and 41, which show higher FLI in females
than males, but is consistent with Reference 20, which states that "females were less than in
males." Please double-check this information.
Title: Determining the sensitivity and specificity of the calculated fatty liver index in
comparison with ultrasound
Version: 1 Date: 19 Jun 2024
Reviewer's report:
1. Since all the ultrasound (US) results were double-checked by another radiologist, was any
inter-observer variation analysis performed? How did the authors address discrepancies between
observers?
2. The authors should explain all abbreviations when they are first used in the paper to ensure
better understanding.
3. The cut-off points (COPs) of the Fatty Liver Index (FLI) at 30 and 60 are from a reference
paper. The authors need to mention this in the Methods section; otherwise, readers might be
confused by the multiple COPs.
4. In Table 2, Body Mass Index (BMI) showed a significant difference between NAFLD and
non-NAFLD with a COP at 30, but no significant difference with a COP at 60. Is there any
possible explanation for this? The same question applies to diabetes mellitus (DM).
5. On Page 8, Line 146, the statement "no significant differences in the area under the curve
(AUC) between genders, NAFLD grades, or the total population" should be supported by
statistical analysis. If such an analysis was performed, please include the details in the Methods
section.
6. On Page 11, second paragraph of the Discussion, please clarify whether the COPs of FLI in
males and females agree or disagree with the references. The current result, 33.4 for males and
27.8 for females, does not align with References 40 and 41, which show higher FLI in females
than males, but is consistent with Reference 20, which states that "females were less than in
males." Please double-check this information.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Determining the sensitivity and specificity of the calculated fatty liver index in
comparison with ultrasound
Version: 1 Date: 19 Jun 2024
Reviewer's report:
1. Since all the ultrasound (US) results were double-checked by another radiologist, was any
inter-observer variation analysis performed? How did the authors address discrepancies between
observers?
2. The authors should explain all abbreviations when they are first used in the paper to ensure
better understanding.
3. The cut-off points (COPs) of the Fatty Liver Index (FLI) at 30 and 60 are from a reference
paper. The authors need to mention this in the Methods section; otherwise, readers might be
confused by the multiple COPs.
4. In Table 2, Body Mass Index (BMI) showed a significant difference between NAFLD and
non-NAFLD with a COP at 30, but no significant difference with a COP at 60. Is there any
possible explanation for this? The same question applies to diabetes mellitus (DM).
5. On Page 8, Line 146, the statement "no significant differences in the area under the curve
(AUC) between genders, NAFLD grades, or the total population" should be supported by
statistical analysis. If such an analysis was performed, please include the details in the Methods
section.
6. On Page 11, second paragraph of the Discussion, please clarify whether the COPs of FLI in
males and females agree or disagree with the references. The current result, 33.4 for males and
27.8 for females, does not align with References 40 and 41, which show higher FLI in females
than males, but is consistent with Reference 20, which states that "females were less than in
males." Please double-check this information.
assistant