Title: Prediction of neoplastic gallbladder polyps in patients with different age level based on
preoperative ultrasound: a multi-center retrospective real-world study
Version: 0 Date: 10 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
Overview
The manuscript suggested the prediction model for neoplastic gallbladder polyps in patients with
gallbladder according to different age levels.  Overall, the manuscript incorporated a significant
amount of multicenter data and proposed a good predictive model according to the age groups.
However, the article has some limitations. The following issues need to be adequately addressed.
Major revision
Materials and Methods
Statistical analysis
1. It will be more interesting if the authors conduct multiple comparisons as well.
2. It is unclear whether the authors use internal or external validation. The authors should clarify
how to validate the model.
3. If possible, the mixed effects logistic regression model can be used to account for within-
hospital correlation as a sensitivity analysis.
Results
Univariate and multivariate analysis of neoplastic polyps
1. Did the best-cut off values of long- and short diameters of GPS were the same in different age
groups? If not, how did the authors determine the same 10.5mm and 8.0mm best cut-off values
of long and short diameter of GPS, respectively, as the common best cut-off across different
age groups?
Minor revision
1. English proofreading is recommended.
Title: Prediction of neoplastic gallbladder polyps in patients with different age level based on
preoperative ultrasound: a multi-center retrospective real-world study
Version: 0 Date: 10 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
Overview
The manuscript suggested the prediction model for neoplastic gallbladder polyps in patients with
gallbladder according to different age levels.  Overall, the manuscript incorporated a significant
amount of multicenter data and proposed a good predictive model according to the age groups.
However, the article has some limitations. The following issues need to be adequately addressed.
Major revision
Materials and Methods
Statistical analysis
1. It will be more interesting if the authors conduct multiple comparisons as well.
2. It is unclear whether the authors use internal or external validation. The authors should clarify
how to validate the model.
3. If possible, the mixed effects logistic regression model can be used to account for within-
hospital correlation as a sensitivity analysis.
Results
Univariate and multivariate analysis of neoplastic polyps
1. Did the best-cut off values of long- and short diameters of GPS were the same in different age
groups? If not, how did the authors determine the same 10.5mm and 8.0mm best cut-off values
of long and short diameter of GPS, respectively, as the common best cut-off across different
age groups?
Minor revision
1. English proofreading is recommended.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Prediction of neoplastic gallbladder polyps in patients with different age level based on
preoperative ultrasound: a multi-center retrospective real-world study
Version: 0 Date: 10 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
Overview
The manuscript suggested the prediction model for neoplastic gallbladder polyps in patients with
gallbladder according to different age levels.  Overall, the manuscript incorporated a significant
amount of multicenter data and proposed a good predictive model according to the age groups.
However, the article has some limitations. The following issues need to be adequately addressed.
Major revision
Materials and Methods
Statistical analysis
1. It will be more interesting if the authors conduct multiple comparisons as well.
2. It is unclear whether the authors use internal or external validation. The authors should clarify
how to validate the model.
3. If possible, the mixed effects logistic regression model can be used to account for within-
hospital correlation as a sensitivity analysis.
Results
Univariate and multivariate analysis of neoplastic polyps
1. Did the best-cut off values of long- and short diameters of GPS were the same in different age
groups? If not, how did the authors determine the same 10.5mm and 8.0mm best cut-off values
of long and short diameter of GPS, respectively, as the common best cut-off across different
age groups?
Minor revision
1. English proofreading is recommended.
assistant