Title: Variations in TM6SF2, PCSK9 and PCSK7 genes and risk of hepatic steatosis after liver
transplantation: a cross-sectional study
Version: 3 Date: 08 Apr 2021
Reviewer's report:
Title: Variations in TM6SF2, PCSK9 and PCSK7 genes and risk of hepatic steatosis after liver
transplantation
Although the authors met the need for the suggested corrections in their revised manuscript,
there are still few concerns to be addressed.
Comments_Revision_2
1) Authors should describe in “Methods” section that the statistically significant parameters
in the univariate analyses were subsequently included in the multivariate model in order to be
clearer for the readers.
2) The statistical analysis of the presence of TT genotype of TM6SF2 rs58542926 is correlated
to Figure 1 according to the authors. However the authors declared that 2 patients were included
in one group, in the Figure 1 there are no participants at all (0%) in the Steatosis (-) group. How
many patients per group were included in the statistical test? Zero participants in one group?
That needs to be totally explained.
3) In the first revision, only few examples of the grammatical and syntactical errors that need
to be corrected have been mentioned. The authors delivered to those suggested corrections,
but they focused only on these. However, authors should really carefully red and revised the
whole manuscript for the remaining grammatical or syntactical errors (e.g. “The cutoff scores
for CAP estimation of hepatic steatosis were as follows: The cutoff scores for CAP estimation
of hepatic steatosis were as follows”, “freezed blood tubes”, “and percents” ), provide units of
measurements for each variable included in the Tables (e.g. CAP, Steatosis in TE (%)) and unify
the abbreviations throughout the text (e.g. “P-value” / “P”, “Alk.Phos” / “Alk.phos”).
Title: Variations in TM6SF2, PCSK9 and PCSK7 genes and risk of hepatic steatosis after liver
transplantation: a cross-sectional study
Version: 3 Date: 08 Apr 2021
Reviewer's report:
Title: Variations in TM6SF2, PCSK9 and PCSK7 genes and risk of hepatic steatosis after liver
transplantation
Although the authors met the need for the suggested corrections in their revised manuscript,
there are still few concerns to be addressed.
Comments_Revision_2
1) Authors should describe in “Methods” section that the statistically significant parameters
in the univariate analyses were subsequently included in the multivariate model in order to be
clearer for the readers.
2) The statistical analysis of the presence of TT genotype of TM6SF2 rs58542926 is correlated
to Figure 1 according to the authors. However the authors declared that 2 patients were included
in one group, in the Figure 1 there are no participants at all (0%) in the Steatosis (-) group. How
many patients per group were included in the statistical test? Zero participants in one group?
That needs to be totally explained.
3) In the first revision, only few examples of the grammatical and syntactical errors that need
to be corrected have been mentioned. The authors delivered to those suggested corrections,
but they focused only on these. However, authors should really carefully red and revised the
whole manuscript for the remaining grammatical or syntactical errors (e.g. “The cutoff scores
for CAP estimation of hepatic steatosis were as follows: The cutoff scores for CAP estimation
of hepatic steatosis were as follows”, “freezed blood tubes”, “and percents” ), provide units of
measurements for each variable included in the Tables (e.g. CAP, Steatosis in TE (%)) and unify
the abbreviations throughout the text (e.g. “P-value” / “P”, “Alk.Phos” / “Alk.phos”).
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Variations in TM6SF2, PCSK9 and PCSK7 genes and risk of hepatic steatosis after liver
transplantation: a cross-sectional study
Version: 3 Date: 08 Apr 2021
Reviewer's report:
Title: Variations in TM6SF2, PCSK9 and PCSK7 genes and risk of hepatic steatosis after liver
transplantation
Although the authors met the need for the suggested corrections in their revised manuscript,
there are still few concerns to be addressed.
Comments_Revision_2
1) Authors should describe in “Methods” section that the statistically significant parameters
in the univariate analyses were subsequently included in the multivariate model in order to be
clearer for the readers.
2) The statistical analysis of the presence of TT genotype of TM6SF2 rs58542926 is correlated
to Figure 1 according to the authors. However the authors declared that 2 patients were included
in one group, in the Figure 1 there are no participants at all (0%) in the Steatosis (-) group. How
many patients per group were included in the statistical test? Zero participants in one group?
That needs to be totally explained.
3) In the first revision, only few examples of the grammatical and syntactical errors that need
to be corrected have been mentioned. The authors delivered to those suggested corrections,
but they focused only on these. However, authors should really carefully red and revised the
whole manuscript for the remaining grammatical or syntactical errors (e.g. “The cutoff scores
for CAP estimation of hepatic steatosis were as follows: The cutoff scores for CAP estimation
of hepatic steatosis were as follows”, “freezed blood tubes”, “and percents” ), provide units of
measurements for each variable included in the Tables (e.g. CAP, Steatosis in TE (%)) and unify
the abbreviations throughout the text (e.g. “P-value” / “P”, “Alk.Phos” / “Alk.phos”).
assistant