Title: Cholesterol-modified prognostic nutritional index as an independent prognostic
biomarker in primary biliary cholangitis patients
Version: 1 Date: 29 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
Cholesterol-modified prognostic nutritional index as an independent prognostic biomarker in
primary biliary cholangitis patients
Comments for Transmission to the Authors
This paper used four models to define malnutrition and assesses the impact of co-malnutrition on
the outcome of patients with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC), addressing a key gap. However,
there are many places to improve.
1 The background section of the abstract was too long, simply describe the scientific questions
to be solved and the purpose of the research.
2 The results section of the abstract was too brief, please objectively describe the important
results in the order in which the study was conducted, and label the P value, area under the ROC
curve, etc.
3 The Inclusion criteria should be removed from the flowchart in Fig. 1, which is repeated with
patients who were diagnosed with PBC on admission from 2013 to 2023 (n = 262). The 30
patients excluded should be standard cleared of the reasons for each patient's exclusion.
4 The authors need to show the etiology of the patients who died and clarify the use of second-
line drugs in the patients included in this study.
5 What was the significance and reason of gender grouping in Table 1? I think it's enough just
to show the general population characteristics.
6 Please explain why Logistic regression was used instead of time-dependent COX regression
for risk factor analysis.
7 In the results section (CPNI is an independent risk factor for prognosis in PBC patients:
binary logistic regression model results), the authors should add additional tables to show the
differences in the presence or absence of malnutrition patients according to different definition
criteria (CPNI, COUNT, etc).
8 After the discussion section has explained the limitations of the research, there should be a
brief description and summary of the main research conclusions of this paper.
Title: Cholesterol-modified prognostic nutritional index as an independent prognostic
biomarker in primary biliary cholangitis patients
Version: 1 Date: 29 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
Cholesterol-modified prognostic nutritional index as an independent prognostic biomarker in
primary biliary cholangitis patients
Comments for Transmission to the Authors
This paper used four models to define malnutrition and assesses the impact of co-malnutrition on
the outcome of patients with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC), addressing a key gap. However,
there are many places to improve.
1 The background section of the abstract was too long, simply describe the scientific questions
to be solved and the purpose of the research.
2 The results section of the abstract was too brief, please objectively describe the important
results in the order in which the study was conducted, and label the P value, area under the ROC
curve, etc.
3 The Inclusion criteria should be removed from the flowchart in Fig. 1, which is repeated with
patients who were diagnosed with PBC on admission from 2013 to 2023 (n = 262). The 30
patients excluded should be standard cleared of the reasons for each patient's exclusion.
4 The authors need to show the etiology of the patients who died and clarify the use of second-
line drugs in the patients included in this study.
5 What was the significance and reason of gender grouping in Table 1? I think it's enough just
to show the general population characteristics.
6 Please explain why Logistic regression was used instead of time-dependent COX regression
for risk factor analysis.
7 In the results section (CPNI is an independent risk factor for prognosis in PBC patients:
binary logistic regression model results), the authors should add additional tables to show the
differences in the presence or absence of malnutrition patients according to different definition
criteria (CPNI, COUNT, etc).
8 After the discussion section has explained the limitations of the research, there should be a
brief description and summary of the main research conclusions of this paper.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Cholesterol-modified prognostic nutritional index as an independent prognostic
biomarker in primary biliary cholangitis patients
Version: 1 Date: 29 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
Cholesterol-modified prognostic nutritional index as an independent prognostic biomarker in
primary biliary cholangitis patients
Comments for Transmission to the Authors
This paper used four models to define malnutrition and assesses the impact of co-malnutrition on
the outcome of patients with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC), addressing a key gap. However,
there are many places to improve.
1 The background section of the abstract was too long, simply describe the scientific questions
to be solved and the purpose of the research.
2 The results section of the abstract was too brief, please objectively describe the important
results in the order in which the study was conducted, and label the P value, area under the ROC
curve, etc.
3 The Inclusion criteria should be removed from the flowchart in Fig. 1, which is repeated with
patients who were diagnosed with PBC on admission from 2013 to 2023 (n = 262). The 30
patients excluded should be standard cleared of the reasons for each patient's exclusion.
4 The authors need to show the etiology of the patients who died and clarify the use of second-
line drugs in the patients included in this study.
5 What was the significance and reason of gender grouping in Table 1? I think it's enough just
to show the general population characteristics.
6 Please explain why Logistic regression was used instead of time-dependent COX regression
for risk factor analysis.
7 In the results section (CPNI is an independent risk factor for prognosis in PBC patients:
binary logistic regression model results), the authors should add additional tables to show the
differences in the presence or absence of malnutrition patients according to different definition
criteria (CPNI, COUNT, etc).
8 After the discussion section has explained the limitations of the research, there should be a
brief description and summary of the main research conclusions of this paper.
assistant