Title: Global Burden, Temporal Trends, and Health Workforce Correlations of Gallbladder and
Biliary Tract Cancer: A Comprehensive Analysis from 1990 to 2021 with Projections to 2046
Version: 0 Date: 09 May 2025
Reviewer's report:
There is much useful information in this article. However, the most serious problem is that the
methodological description is too thin. For readers who are not in this field, many figures and
tables are difficult to understand. After adding more methodological descriptions and placing
unimportant results in the supplementary documents, this article will be very good.
Abstract and keywords:
1. The result section of the abstract should present the key data.
2. Health inequality and prediction analysis were not mentioned in the methods.
3. There are too many key words.
Methods:
4. There are too few methodologies for statistical analysis. The author should introduce the
absolute and relative indicators in health inequality analysis.
5. In the Age-period-cohort model, which indicators were used respectively when describing
age, period and birth cohort effect.
6. If necessary, the relevant references are also required for BAPC model and decomposition
analysis.
Results:
7. “Table 4” should be “Table 2”.
8. The scales in Figure 3 and Figure 5 should not be measured using scientific notation.
9. For readers who do not understand frontier analysis, Table 3 is very difficult to understand.
The author should describe more about the methodological aspects of cutting-edge analysis and
the significance represented by the indicators.
10. Similarly, the methodology (correlation analysis) involved in Figure 4 was not mentioned
by the author in the methods section.
Discussion:
11. The author should present own insights in a separate paragraph, such as how to control the
disease burden of GBTC in the future, including risk factors, health education, and treatment
strategies.
Title: Global Burden, Temporal Trends, and Health Workforce Correlations of Gallbladder and
Biliary Tract Cancer: A Comprehensive Analysis from 1990 to 2021 with Projections to 2046
Version: 0 Date: 09 May 2025
Reviewer's report:
There is much useful information in this article. However, the most serious problem is that the
methodological description is too thin. For readers who are not in this field, many figures and
tables are difficult to understand. After adding more methodological descriptions and placing
unimportant results in the supplementary documents, this article will be very good.
Abstract and keywords:
1. The result section of the abstract should present the key data.
2. Health inequality and prediction analysis were not mentioned in the methods.
3. There are too many key words.
Methods:
4. There are too few methodologies for statistical analysis. The author should introduce the
absolute and relative indicators in health inequality analysis.
5. In the Age-period-cohort model, which indicators were used respectively when describing
age, period and birth cohort effect.
6. If necessary, the relevant references are also required for BAPC model and decomposition
analysis.
Results:
7. “Table 4” should be “Table 2”.
8. The scales in Figure 3 and Figure 5 should not be measured using scientific notation.
9. For readers who do not understand frontier analysis, Table 3 is very difficult to understand.
The author should describe more about the methodological aspects of cutting-edge analysis and
the significance represented by the indicators.
10. Similarly, the methodology (correlation analysis) involved in Figure 4 was not mentioned
by the author in the methods section.
Discussion:
11. The author should present own insights in a separate paragraph, such as how to control the
disease burden of GBTC in the future, including risk factors, health education, and treatment
strategies.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Global Burden, Temporal Trends, and Health Workforce Correlations of Gallbladder and
Biliary Tract Cancer: A Comprehensive Analysis from 1990 to 2021 with Projections to 2046
Version: 0 Date: 09 May 2025
Reviewer's report:
There is much useful information in this article. However, the most serious problem is that the
methodological description is too thin. For readers who are not in this field, many figures and
tables are difficult to understand. After adding more methodological descriptions and placing
unimportant results in the supplementary documents, this article will be very good.
Abstract and keywords:
1. The result section of the abstract should present the key data.
2. Health inequality and prediction analysis were not mentioned in the methods.
3. There are too many key words.
Methods:
4. There are too few methodologies for statistical analysis. The author should introduce the
absolute and relative indicators in health inequality analysis.
5. In the Age-period-cohort model, which indicators were used respectively when describing
age, period and birth cohort effect.
6. If necessary, the relevant references are also required for BAPC model and decomposition
analysis.
Results:
7. “Table 4” should be “Table 2”.
8. The scales in Figure 3 and Figure 5 should not be measured using scientific notation.
9. For readers who do not understand frontier analysis, Table 3 is very difficult to understand.
The author should describe more about the methodological aspects of cutting-edge analysis and
the significance represented by the indicators.
10. Similarly, the methodology (correlation analysis) involved in Figure 4 was not mentioned
by the author in the methods section.
Discussion:
11. The author should present own insights in a separate paragraph, such as how to control the
disease burden of GBTC in the future, including risk factors, health education, and treatment
strategies.
assistant