Title: Diagnostic performance of the normal range of gastrin calculated using strict criteria
based on a combination of serum markers and pathological evaluation for detecting gastritis: a
retrospective study
Version: 1 Date: 29 Nov 2022
Reviewer's report:
This is a study investigating normal range of serum gastrin based on the strict criteria of
non-gastritis normal subjects. The study design, methods, results, and interpretation are good.
Authors revised the manuscript as I pointed out at the previous review. Unfortunately, Englich
sentences, word selection and grammar are not good. The sentences are too complicated to
understand, and redundant. Simple is the best. Shorter is better. You should make simple
sentences in shorter manuscript for scientific paper. I recommend you ask an English editing
service to improve the sentences. You should read the manuscript again and again, and improve
the manuscript before re-submission.
Points for revision (Just examples)
1. Discussion looks better. On the other hand, Introduction is still bad. Sentences are not simple.
The sentences in the other parts are also bad. Authors should ask an English editing service
to improve the whole manuscript including the Figures. The sentences in the boxes in the
Supplementary figure are also bad.
2. Example, Line 78-83: Sentences are so complicated. I do not want to read such difficult
sentences. I would propose an example for the sentences: “When group A subjects were
endoscopically divided into two groups, the true-A group without endoscopic atrophy showed
extremely low carcinogenicity whereas the pseudo-A group with endoscopic atrophy showed
high carcinogenicity. So, it is important to take endoscopic findings into account in ABC
methods to discriminate true-A subjects from pseudo-A subjects in the assessment of gastric
cancer risk.”
3. I would delete most of the sentences in the line 84-93.
4. Line 94: What is GastroPanel? Authors should explain what it is.
5. The sentences in line 99-102 would be better deleted.
6. Line 135: ‘level’ is not adequate, I think. ‘concentration’ is better.
7. Line 140: ‘level’ is not needed. Unit has already been written.
8. Line 146-148: Explanation of ABC method should be written in Introduction because authors
have already described about ABC method in Introduction.
9. Line 187-194. There are a lot of uncomfortable words and sentences. These sentences should
be revised by English editing services. G0 should not be used in the manuscript. Grade 0 is
comfortable.
10. Above list is just an example. There are still a lot of uncomfortable parts.
Title: Diagnostic performance of the normal range of gastrin calculated using strict criteria
based on a combination of serum markers and pathological evaluation for detecting gastritis: a
retrospective study
Version: 1 Date: 29 Nov 2022
Reviewer's report:
This is a study investigating normal range of serum gastrin based on the strict criteria of
non-gastritis normal subjects. The study design, methods, results, and interpretation are good.
Authors revised the manuscript as I pointed out at the previous review. Unfortunately, Englich
sentences, word selection and grammar are not good. The sentences are too complicated to
understand, and redundant. Simple is the best. Shorter is better. You should make simple
sentences in shorter manuscript for scientific paper. I recommend you ask an English editing
service to improve the sentences. You should read the manuscript again and again, and improve
the manuscript before re-submission.
Points for revision (Just examples)
1. Discussion looks better. On the other hand, Introduction is still bad. Sentences are not simple.
The sentences in the other parts are also bad. Authors should ask an English editing service
to improve the whole manuscript including the Figures. The sentences in the boxes in the
Supplementary figure are also bad.
2. Example, Line 78-83: Sentences are so complicated. I do not want to read such difficult
sentences. I would propose an example for the sentences: “When group A subjects were
endoscopically divided into two groups, the true-A group without endoscopic atrophy showed
extremely low carcinogenicity whereas the pseudo-A group with endoscopic atrophy showed
high carcinogenicity. So, it is important to take endoscopic findings into account in ABC
methods to discriminate true-A subjects from pseudo-A subjects in the assessment of gastric
cancer risk.”
3. I would delete most of the sentences in the line 84-93.
4. Line 94: What is GastroPanel? Authors should explain what it is.
5. The sentences in line 99-102 would be better deleted.
6. Line 135: ‘level’ is not adequate, I think. ‘concentration’ is better.
7. Line 140: ‘level’ is not needed. Unit has already been written.
8. Line 146-148: Explanation of ABC method should be written in Introduction because authors
have already described about ABC method in Introduction.
9. Line 187-194. There are a lot of uncomfortable words and sentences. These sentences should
be revised by English editing services. G0 should not be used in the manuscript. Grade 0 is
comfortable.
10. Above list is just an example. There are still a lot of uncomfortable parts.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Diagnostic performance of the normal range of gastrin calculated using strict criteria
based on a combination of serum markers and pathological evaluation for detecting gastritis: a
retrospective study
Version: 1 Date: 29 Nov 2022
Reviewer's report:
This is a study investigating normal range of serum gastrin based on the strict criteria of
non-gastritis normal subjects. The study design, methods, results, and interpretation are good.
Authors revised the manuscript as I pointed out at the previous review. Unfortunately, Englich
sentences, word selection and grammar are not good. The sentences are too complicated to
understand, and redundant. Simple is the best. Shorter is better. You should make simple
sentences in shorter manuscript for scientific paper. I recommend you ask an English editing
service to improve the sentences. You should read the manuscript again and again, and improve
the manuscript before re-submission.
Points for revision (Just examples)
1. Discussion looks better. On the other hand, Introduction is still bad. Sentences are not simple.
The sentences in the other parts are also bad. Authors should ask an English editing service
to improve the whole manuscript including the Figures. The sentences in the boxes in the
Supplementary figure are also bad.
2. Example, Line 78-83: Sentences are so complicated. I do not want to read such difficult
sentences. I would propose an example for the sentences: “When group A subjects were
endoscopically divided into two groups, the true-A group without endoscopic atrophy showed
extremely low carcinogenicity whereas the pseudo-A group with endoscopic atrophy showed
high carcinogenicity. So, it is important to take endoscopic findings into account in ABC
methods to discriminate true-A subjects from pseudo-A subjects in the assessment of gastric
cancer risk.”
3. I would delete most of the sentences in the line 84-93.
4. Line 94: What is GastroPanel? Authors should explain what it is.
5. The sentences in line 99-102 would be better deleted.
6. Line 135: ‘level’ is not adequate, I think. ‘concentration’ is better.
7. Line 140: ‘level’ is not needed. Unit has already been written.
8. Line 146-148: Explanation of ABC method should be written in Introduction because authors
have already described about ABC method in Introduction.
9. Line 187-194. There are a lot of uncomfortable words and sentences. These sentences should
be revised by English editing services. G0 should not be used in the manuscript. Grade 0 is
comfortable.
10. Above list is just an example. There are still a lot of uncomfortable parts.
assistant