Reviewer's report 
 Diagnostic Value of Biochemical Markers (NashTest) for the prediction of NASH in Patients with Title: 
Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease 
 2  25 October 2006 Version: Date: 
 David Kleiner Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors have responded to previous comments by including additional text and figures that round out the paper and provide important information about the range of values obtained for NASHTest in their patient population. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
1. The authors use of the NAS has been somewhat clarified by the addition of text in the Methods and Discussion sections. In the paragraph in the Methods section (p. 10, beginning “We used two definitions of 
NASH…”, it is still a little unclear that equating the NAS to a diagnosis is a convention of this study and not 
something from the original paper. However, the discussion section makes this difference clear, so I leave up to the authors as to whether they want to polish that paragraph more. 
 Accept after discretionary revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests 
Reviewer's report 
 Diagnostic Value of Biochemical Markers (NashTest) for the prediction of NASH in Patients with Title: 
Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease 
 2  25 October 2006 Version: Date: 
 David Kleiner Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors have responded to previous comments by including additional text and figures that round out the paper and provide important information about the range of values obtained for NASHTest in their patient population. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
1. The authors use of the NAS has been somewhat clarified by the addition of text in the Methods and Discussion sections. In the paragraph in the Methods section (p. 10, beginning “We used two definitions of 
NASH…”, it is still a little unclear that equating the NAS to a diagnosis is a convention of this study and not 
something from the original paper. However, the discussion section makes this difference clear, so I leave up to the authors as to whether they want to polish that paragraph more. 
 Accept after discretionary revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests 
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report 
 Diagnostic Value of Biochemical Markers (NashTest) for the prediction of NASH in Patients with Title: 
Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease 
 2  25 October 2006 Version: Date: 
 David Kleiner Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors have responded to previous comments by including additional text and figures that round out the paper and provide important information about the range of values obtained for NASHTest in their patient population. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
1. The authors use of the NAS has been somewhat clarified by the addition of text in the Methods and Discussion sections. In the paragraph in the Methods section (p. 10, beginning “We used two definitions of 
NASH…”, it is still a little unclear that equating the NAS to a diagnosis is a convention of this study and not 
something from the original paper. However, the discussion section makes this difference clear, so I leave up to the authors as to whether they want to polish that paragraph more. 
 Accept after discretionary revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests 
assistant