Title: Cholesterol-modified prognostic nutritional index as an independent prognostic
biomarker in primary biliary cholangitis patients
Version: 1 Date: 10 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
1. Table 1 is deliberately placed in the text with little significance. The conut score is not the
focus of the text. It is misleading to place it in Table 1 and can be placed in the supplementary
materials.
2. The differences between male and female patients specially compared in Table 2 do not reflect
the value of comparison in the text. If it is believed that the differences between male and female
patients have an impact on the results, it should be explained in the results, otherwise it is not
necessary to specially compare the gender differences.
3. Table 2 does not show the prognosis of all patients, please add.
4. The author analyzed the relationship between many factors and patient survival, and should
consider survival time at the same time, rather than only survival results. Other methods can be
used for further analysis, such as Cox regression.
5. In the univariate analysis of the author, the biochemical indicators that are traditionally
considered to be closely related to the prognosis, such as ALP and total bilirubin, are
meaningless. Please elaborate the possible reasons in the discussion.
Title: Cholesterol-modified prognostic nutritional index as an independent prognostic
biomarker in primary biliary cholangitis patients
Version: 1 Date: 10 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
1. Table 1 is deliberately placed in the text with little significance. The conut score is not the
focus of the text. It is misleading to place it in Table 1 and can be placed in the supplementary
materials.
2. The differences between male and female patients specially compared in Table 2 do not reflect
the value of comparison in the text. If it is believed that the differences between male and female
patients have an impact on the results, it should be explained in the results, otherwise it is not
necessary to specially compare the gender differences.
3. Table 2 does not show the prognosis of all patients, please add.
4. The author analyzed the relationship between many factors and patient survival, and should
consider survival time at the same time, rather than only survival results. Other methods can be
used for further analysis, such as Cox regression.
5. In the univariate analysis of the author, the biochemical indicators that are traditionally
considered to be closely related to the prognosis, such as ALP and total bilirubin, are
meaningless. Please elaborate the possible reasons in the discussion.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Cholesterol-modified prognostic nutritional index as an independent prognostic
biomarker in primary biliary cholangitis patients
Version: 1 Date: 10 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
1. Table 1 is deliberately placed in the text with little significance. The conut score is not the
focus of the text. It is misleading to place it in Table 1 and can be placed in the supplementary
materials.
2. The differences between male and female patients specially compared in Table 2 do not reflect
the value of comparison in the text. If it is believed that the differences between male and female
patients have an impact on the results, it should be explained in the results, otherwise it is not
necessary to specially compare the gender differences.
3. Table 2 does not show the prognosis of all patients, please add.
4. The author analyzed the relationship between many factors and patient survival, and should
consider survival time at the same time, rather than only survival results. Other methods can be
used for further analysis, such as Cox regression.
5. In the univariate analysis of the author, the biochemical indicators that are traditionally
considered to be closely related to the prognosis, such as ALP and total bilirubin, are
meaningless. Please elaborate the possible reasons in the discussion.
assistant