Reviewer’ s report
Title: Value of Routine Test for Identifying Colorectal Cancer from Patients with Nonalcoholic
Fatty Liver Disease
Version: 1Date: 09 Apr 2020
Reviewer: Research Square Reviewer 2
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS: OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear
objective that addresses one or several testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: isthere a clear objective?)Yes - there is a clear objectiveDESIGN - Is the current approach (includingcontrols and analysis protocols) appropriate for the objective?Yes - the approach isappropriateEXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technicalrigor to allow confidence in the results?Yes - experiments and analyses were performedappropriatelySTATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?Yes - appropriatestatistical analyses have been used in the studyINTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not overstated?No - there are minor issuesOVERALLMANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently for you tonow recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further revisions bemade to make the work technically sound?Probably - with minor revisionsPEER REVIEWERCOMMENTS: GENERAL COMMENTS: This is the review of a paper titled " Value of RoutineTest for Identifying Colorectal Cancer from Patients with Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease" byRong Yang and coauthors. In this paper, authors used large-scale clinical data mining to extractinsights into the changes in routine clinical biomarkers observed in patients with NAFLD as soon
as they develop colorectal cancer. This filed of study is not entirely news as many disease cross
mining efforts were recently published, including NAFLD/CRC area. In many cases, the findingsof these reports remain superficial, same sin is observed in this paper. Nevertheless, the paperdeserves eventual publishing, as it is a solid contribution to future meta-analysis in the field. Thepaper much improved since first round of edits, but remain imperfect in its grammar, and also kindof weak on discussion and interpretation sections.REQUESTED REVISIONS: Discussion sectionshould be more interpretative. some mechanistic explanation of the finding may beproposedADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS: yes
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
YesDoes the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
NoAre 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 furtherassessment 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:
Needs some language corrections before being publishedDeclaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:
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 thismanuscript, either now or in the future?
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares 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 interests 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 reviewer hasagreed to publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribution Licenseattributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review within aspecified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are 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 reportincluding any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative CommonsCC-BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). I understand that any commentswhich I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential commentsto the editors, which will not be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
Reviewer’ s report
Title: Value of Routine Test for Identifying Colorectal Cancer from Patients with Nonalcoholic
Fatty Liver Disease
Version: 1Date: 09 Apr 2020
Reviewer: Research Square Reviewer 2
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS: OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear
objective that addresses one or several testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: isthere a clear objective?)Yes - there is a clear objectiveDESIGN - Is the current approach (includingcontrols and analysis protocols) appropriate for the objective?Yes - the approach isappropriateEXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technicalrigor to allow confidence in the results?Yes - experiments and analyses were performedappropriatelySTATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?Yes - appropriatestatistical analyses have been used in the studyINTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not overstated?No - there are minor issuesOVERALLMANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently for you tonow recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further revisions bemade to make the work technically sound?Probably - with minor revisionsPEER REVIEWERCOMMENTS: GENERAL COMMENTS: This is the review of a paper titled " Value of RoutineTest for Identifying Colorectal Cancer from Patients with Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease" byRong Yang and coauthors. In this paper, authors used large-scale clinical data mining to extractinsights into the changes in routine clinical biomarkers observed in patients with NAFLD as soon
as they develop colorectal cancer. This filed of study is not entirely news as many disease cross
mining efforts were recently published, including NAFLD/CRC area. In many cases, the findingsof these reports remain superficial, same sin is observed in this paper. Nevertheless, the paperdeserves eventual publishing, as it is a solid contribution to future meta-analysis in the field. Thepaper much improved since first round of edits, but remain imperfect in its grammar, and also kindof weak on discussion and interpretation sections.REQUESTED REVISIONS: Discussion sectionshould be more interpretative. some mechanistic explanation of the finding may beproposedADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS: yes
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
YesDoes the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
NoAre 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 furtherassessment 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:
Needs some language corrections before being publishedDeclaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:
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 thismanuscript, either now or in the future?
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares 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 interests 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 reviewer hasagreed to publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribution Licenseattributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review within aspecified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are 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 reportincluding any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative CommonsCC-BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). I understand that any commentswhich I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential commentsto the editors, which will not be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer’ s report
Title: Value of Routine Test for Identifying Colorectal Cancer from Patients with Nonalcoholic
Fatty Liver Disease
Version: 1Date: 09 Apr 2020
Reviewer: Research Square Reviewer 2
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS: OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear
objective that addresses one or several testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: isthere a clear objective?)Yes - there is a clear objectiveDESIGN - Is the current approach (includingcontrols and analysis protocols) appropriate for the objective?Yes - the approach isappropriateEXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technicalrigor to allow confidence in the results?Yes - experiments and analyses were performedappropriatelySTATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?Yes - appropriatestatistical analyses have been used in the studyINTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not overstated?No - there are minor issuesOVERALLMANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently for you tonow recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further revisions bemade to make the work technically sound?Probably - with minor revisionsPEER REVIEWERCOMMENTS: GENERAL COMMENTS: This is the review of a paper titled " Value of RoutineTest for Identifying Colorectal Cancer from Patients with Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease" byRong Yang and coauthors. In this paper, authors used large-scale clinical data mining to extractinsights into the changes in routine clinical biomarkers observed in patients with NAFLD as soon
as they develop colorectal cancer. This filed of study is not entirely news as many disease cross
mining efforts were recently published, including NAFLD/CRC area. In many cases, the findingsof these reports remain superficial, same sin is observed in this paper. Nevertheless, the paperdeserves eventual publishing, as it is a solid contribution to future meta-analysis in the field. Thepaper much improved since first round of edits, but remain imperfect in its grammar, and also kindof weak on discussion and interpretation sections.REQUESTED REVISIONS: Discussion sectionshould be more interpretative. some mechanistic explanation of the finding may beproposedADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS: yes
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
YesDoes the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
NoAre 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 furtherassessment 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:
Needs some language corrections before being publishedDeclaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:
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 thismanuscript, either now or in the future?
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares 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 interests 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 reviewer hasagreed to publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribution Licenseattributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review within aspecified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are 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 reportincluding any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative CommonsCC-BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). I understand that any commentswhich I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential commentsto the editors, which will not be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
assistant