Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Development and validation of three machine -learning models for predicting multiple 
organ  failure in moderately severe and severe acute pancreatitis  
 
Version: 0 Date: 14 Jan 2019  
 
Reviewer: Reviewer 2  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:  
 
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research 
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?  
Yes - there is a clear objective  
 
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for the 
objective?  
Yes - the approach is appropriate  
 
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow  
confidence in the results?  
No - there are minor issues  
 
Statistics - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?  
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study  
 
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results r easonable and not 
overstated?  
No - there are minor issues  
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically 
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?  
Probably - with minor revisions  
 
PEER REVIEWE R COMMENTS:  
 
GENERAL COMMENTS: Overall, this study was well done with appropriate analyses, 
literature review, and design. However, some results are not clearly labeled to be consistent with 
the statistical analyses.  
 
REQUESTED REVISIONS:  
1. The authors  said that " Descriptive data were presented as median and interquartile ranges for 
skewed 5 distribution variables or mean ± standard deviation for variables with a normal  
distribution." However, in the results section,such as Table 1,  it was difficult t o see statistics.   2. 
In Table 5, How these statistics were compared? Were multiple comparisons conducted? The p -
value was overall?  
 
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:  
See comments above.  
 
Note: This reviewer report can be downloaded - see attached pdf file.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the au thors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the  authors.  
 
No 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the  editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questi ons: 
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or s hares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing inter ests in relation to this paper?  
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with  
declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for these reviews. This rev iewer has  
agreed to publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribution License  
attributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review within 
a specified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this a re paid regardless of the reviewer  
recommendation.  
 
I agree to the open  peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the a uthors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be inc luded as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open pe er review policy of the journal  
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Development and validation of three machine -learning models for predicting multiple 
organ  failure in moderately severe and severe acute pancreatitis  
 
Version: 0 Date: 14 Jan 2019  
 
Reviewer: Reviewer 2  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:  
 
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research 
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?  
Yes - there is a clear objective  
 
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for the 
objective?  
Yes - the approach is appropriate  
 
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow  
confidence in the results?  
No - there are minor issues  
 
Statistics - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?  
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study  
 
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results r easonable and not 
overstated?  
No - there are minor issues  
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically 
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?  
Probably - with minor revisions  
 
PEER REVIEWE R COMMENTS:  
 
GENERAL COMMENTS: Overall, this study was well done with appropriate analyses, 
literature review, and design. However, some results are not clearly labeled to be consistent with 
the statistical analyses.  
 
REQUESTED REVISIONS:  
1. The authors  said that " Descriptive data were presented as median and interquartile ranges for 
skewed 5 distribution variables or mean ± standard deviation for variables with a normal  
distribution." However, in the results section,such as Table 1,  it was difficult t o see statistics.   2. 
In Table 5, How these statistics were compared? Were multiple comparisons conducted? The p -
value was overall?  
 
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:  
See comments above.  
 
Note: This reviewer report can be downloaded - see attached pdf file.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the au thors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the  authors.  
 
No 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the  editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questi ons: 
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or s hares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing inter ests in relation to this paper?  
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with  
declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for these reviews. This rev iewer has  
agreed to publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribution License  
attributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review within 
a specified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this a re paid regardless of the reviewer  
recommendation.  
 
I agree to the open  peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the a uthors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be inc luded as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open pe er review policy of the journal  
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Development and validation of three machine -learning models for predicting multiple 
organ  failure in moderately severe and severe acute pancreatitis  
 
Version: 0 Date: 14 Jan 2019  
 
Reviewer: Reviewer 2  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:  
 
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research 
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?  
Yes - there is a clear objective  
 
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for the 
objective?  
Yes - the approach is appropriate  
 
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow  
confidence in the results?  
No - there are minor issues  
 
Statistics - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?  
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study  
 
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results r easonable and not 
overstated?  
No - there are minor issues  
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically 
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?  
Probably - with minor revisions  
 
PEER REVIEWE R COMMENTS:  
 
GENERAL COMMENTS: Overall, this study was well done with appropriate analyses, 
literature review, and design. However, some results are not clearly labeled to be consistent with 
the statistical analyses.  
 
REQUESTED REVISIONS:  
1. The authors  said that " Descriptive data were presented as median and interquartile ranges for 
skewed 5 distribution variables or mean ± standard deviation for variables with a normal  
distribution." However, in the results section,such as Table 1,  it was difficult t o see statistics.   2. 
In Table 5, How these statistics were compared? Were multiple comparisons conducted? The p -
value was overall?  
 
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:  
See comments above.  
 
Note: This reviewer report can be downloaded - see attached pdf file.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the au thors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the  authors.  
 
No 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the  editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questi ons: 
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or s hares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing inter ests in relation to this paper?  
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with  
declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for these reviews. This rev iewer has  
agreed to publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribution License  
attributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review within 
a specified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this a re paid regardless of the reviewer  
recommendation.  
 
I agree to the open  peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the a uthors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be inc luded as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open pe er review policy of the journal  
assistant