Title: The potential value of serum pepsinogen and gastrin-17 for the diagnosis of chronic
atrophic gastritis at different stages of severity: a clinical diagnostic study
Version: 0 Date: 24 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
1. In lines 132, 198.  You write “NCAG group”. I think this means the non-atrophic gastritis
group. Maybe this is a misspelling. Please correct this word.
2. In Table 1, does it need to write the proportions of female and HP-negative groups? I think that
they are visible from the male and HP-positive groups' proportions. Please discuss the authors
and revise if you agree.
3. I recommend that Figure 2, named “PGI, PGII, PGR, and G-17 are among the different
histology status groups”, be more suitable in the subtitle “Serum PG and G-17 differences among
the various groups”. Because this figure describes the differences in serum biomarkers among
the groups. Please discuss this with the authors. If you agree with this, you should change the
figure number (Figure 1).
4. Findings in the subtitle “Analysis of Serum PG and Gastric Cancer Risk Determination” do
not describe the risk determination of serum biomarkers. There are no analyzed risk assessment
indicators, including Odds ratio or Relative risk. So, I recommend combining the first two
subtitles of the Results under the name “Serum PG and G-17 differences among the various
groups”. Please discuss this with the authors and revise if you agree.
5. In lines 153-157, paragraphs may be related to Figure 3a-c and Figure 3d-f. Please correct
the Figure number.
6. In Table 4, is there the first group CAG (chronic atrophic gastritis) or NAG (non-atrophic
gastritis)? Please review this.
Title: The potential value of serum pepsinogen and gastrin-17 for the diagnosis of chronic
atrophic gastritis at different stages of severity: a clinical diagnostic study
Version: 0 Date: 24 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
1. In lines 132, 198.  You write “NCAG group”. I think this means the non-atrophic gastritis
group. Maybe this is a misspelling. Please correct this word.
2. In Table 1, does it need to write the proportions of female and HP-negative groups? I think that
they are visible from the male and HP-positive groups' proportions. Please discuss the authors
and revise if you agree.
3. I recommend that Figure 2, named “PGI, PGII, PGR, and G-17 are among the different
histology status groups”, be more suitable in the subtitle “Serum PG and G-17 differences among
the various groups”. Because this figure describes the differences in serum biomarkers among
the groups. Please discuss this with the authors. If you agree with this, you should change the
figure number (Figure 1).
4. Findings in the subtitle “Analysis of Serum PG and Gastric Cancer Risk Determination” do
not describe the risk determination of serum biomarkers. There are no analyzed risk assessment
indicators, including Odds ratio or Relative risk. So, I recommend combining the first two
subtitles of the Results under the name “Serum PG and G-17 differences among the various
groups”. Please discuss this with the authors and revise if you agree.
5. In lines 153-157, paragraphs may be related to Figure 3a-c and Figure 3d-f. Please correct
the Figure number.
6. In Table 4, is there the first group CAG (chronic atrophic gastritis) or NAG (non-atrophic
gastritis)? Please review this.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: The potential value of serum pepsinogen and gastrin-17 for the diagnosis of chronic
atrophic gastritis at different stages of severity: a clinical diagnostic study
Version: 0 Date: 24 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
1. In lines 132, 198.  You write “NCAG group”. I think this means the non-atrophic gastritis
group. Maybe this is a misspelling. Please correct this word.
2. In Table 1, does it need to write the proportions of female and HP-negative groups? I think that
they are visible from the male and HP-positive groups' proportions. Please discuss the authors
and revise if you agree.
3. I recommend that Figure 2, named “PGI, PGII, PGR, and G-17 are among the different
histology status groups”, be more suitable in the subtitle “Serum PG and G-17 differences among
the various groups”. Because this figure describes the differences in serum biomarkers among
the groups. Please discuss this with the authors. If you agree with this, you should change the
figure number (Figure 1).
4. Findings in the subtitle “Analysis of Serum PG and Gastric Cancer Risk Determination” do
not describe the risk determination of serum biomarkers. There are no analyzed risk assessment
indicators, including Odds ratio or Relative risk. So, I recommend combining the first two
subtitles of the Results under the name “Serum PG and G-17 differences among the various
groups”. Please discuss this with the authors and revise if you agree.
5. In lines 153-157, paragraphs may be related to Figure 3a-c and Figure 3d-f. Please correct
the Figure number.
6. In Table 4, is there the first group CAG (chronic atrophic gastritis) or NAG (non-atrophic
gastritis)? Please review this.
assistant