Title: Texture and color enhancement imaging improves the visibility of gastric neoplasms:
Clinical trial with image catalogue assessment using conventional and newly developed
endoscopes
Version: 2 Date: 03 Oct 2023
Reviewer:  Jun-Hyung Cho
Reviewer's report:
The major concerns about this manuscript are as below;
First, the characteristics of enrolled lesions should be deleted in the result section of abstract. H.
pylori infection status, tumor morphology and so on are needed only in the manuscript body.
Second, the authors mentioned only LCI among the IEE in the background section of manuscript.
However, many studies using BLI and NBI were published in this field.
Third, the authors used two kinds of endoscopes including CE (GIF-H290Z) and NE (GIF-
XZ1200). Please explain about the difference between them, for example, resolution power and
image quality. Why did not authors use the magnification? The lesion characteristic can be
diagnosed by magnifying mode than non-magnification.
Fourth, I cannot understand the difference between the TXI-1 and TXI-2 in Figure 1. Were the
endoscopic images in Figue 1 captured by CE (GIF-H290Z) or NE (GIF-XZ1200)?
Fifth, the visibility scales between the expert and novice endoscopists were not described in the
result section.
Sixth, reference No 24 is not proper due to old publication. Lauren`s histological classification
is better than that.
Seventh, I think the number of total images was not 1,872 but 312 from 52 lesions.
Eighth, Table 2 is hard to be interpreted and more description is required for the readers.
Ninth, the degree of atrophy should be classified into close type and open type in Table 2.
Lastly, the degree of intestinal metaplasia may be associated with the endoscopic visibility.
Therefore, the authors should investigate the degree of intestinal metaplasia in baseline
characteristics.
Title: Texture and color enhancement imaging improves the visibility of gastric neoplasms:
Clinical trial with image catalogue assessment using conventional and newly developed
endoscopes
Version: 2 Date: 03 Oct 2023
Reviewer:  Jun-Hyung Cho
Reviewer's report:
The major concerns about this manuscript are as below;
First, the characteristics of enrolled lesions should be deleted in the result section of abstract. H.
pylori infection status, tumor morphology and so on are needed only in the manuscript body.
Second, the authors mentioned only LCI among the IEE in the background section of manuscript.
However, many studies using BLI and NBI were published in this field.
Third, the authors used two kinds of endoscopes including CE (GIF-H290Z) and NE (GIF-
XZ1200). Please explain about the difference between them, for example, resolution power and
image quality. Why did not authors use the magnification? The lesion characteristic can be
diagnosed by magnifying mode than non-magnification.
Fourth, I cannot understand the difference between the TXI-1 and TXI-2 in Figure 1. Were the
endoscopic images in Figue 1 captured by CE (GIF-H290Z) or NE (GIF-XZ1200)?
Fifth, the visibility scales between the expert and novice endoscopists were not described in the
result section.
Sixth, reference No 24 is not proper due to old publication. Lauren`s histological classification
is better than that.
Seventh, I think the number of total images was not 1,872 but 312 from 52 lesions.
Eighth, Table 2 is hard to be interpreted and more description is required for the readers.
Ninth, the degree of atrophy should be classified into close type and open type in Table 2.
Lastly, the degree of intestinal metaplasia may be associated with the endoscopic visibility.
Therefore, the authors should investigate the degree of intestinal metaplasia in baseline
characteristics.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Texture and color enhancement imaging improves the visibility of gastric neoplasms:
Clinical trial with image catalogue assessment using conventional and newly developed
endoscopes
Version: 2 Date: 03 Oct 2023
Reviewer:  Jun-Hyung Cho
Reviewer's report:
The major concerns about this manuscript are as below;
First, the characteristics of enrolled lesions should be deleted in the result section of abstract. H.
pylori infection status, tumor morphology and so on are needed only in the manuscript body.
Second, the authors mentioned only LCI among the IEE in the background section of manuscript.
However, many studies using BLI and NBI were published in this field.
Third, the authors used two kinds of endoscopes including CE (GIF-H290Z) and NE (GIF-
XZ1200). Please explain about the difference between them, for example, resolution power and
image quality. Why did not authors use the magnification? The lesion characteristic can be
diagnosed by magnifying mode than non-magnification.
Fourth, I cannot understand the difference between the TXI-1 and TXI-2 in Figure 1. Were the
endoscopic images in Figue 1 captured by CE (GIF-H290Z) or NE (GIF-XZ1200)?
Fifth, the visibility scales between the expert and novice endoscopists were not described in the
result section.
Sixth, reference No 24 is not proper due to old publication. Lauren`s histological classification
is better than that.
Seventh, I think the number of total images was not 1,872 but 312 from 52 lesions.
Eighth, Table 2 is hard to be interpreted and more description is required for the readers.
Ninth, the degree of atrophy should be classified into close type and open type in Table 2.
Lastly, the degree of intestinal metaplasia may be associated with the endoscopic visibility.
Therefore, the authors should investigate the degree of intestinal metaplasia in baseline
characteristics.
assistant