Title: Prevalence of advanced liver fibrosis in the general population of the Paris region
according to FIB-4 score and Liver Risk Score
Version: 1 Date: 23 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
Prevalence of advanced liver fibrosis in the general population of the Paris region according to
FIB-4 score and Liver Risk Score
Thank you for an interesting paper.
LRS and FIB-4 were applied to a general population, rather than a targeted at risk group. I realise
this was the point of the paper but I would ask that the authors’ discuss the limitations of doing
this please.
The authors’ have applied FIB-4 and LRS to their cohort and compared the results and
differences. This is useful in terms of how each test performs, but both tests have their limitations
which are different.  Arguably, comparing the performance of these two tests is not appropriate
because of their limitations. Why wasn’t a third independent test, such as FibroScan, used to
provide a gold standard proxy?
I would recommend that the cost comparison has statistical/health economic review.
Please note, there is a typo on page 11. "directely should be directly"
Title: Prevalence of advanced liver fibrosis in the general population of the Paris region
according to FIB-4 score and Liver Risk Score
Version: 1 Date: 23 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
Prevalence of advanced liver fibrosis in the general population of the Paris region according to
FIB-4 score and Liver Risk Score
Thank you for an interesting paper.
LRS and FIB-4 were applied to a general population, rather than a targeted at risk group. I realise
this was the point of the paper but I would ask that the authors’ discuss the limitations of doing
this please.
The authors’ have applied FIB-4 and LRS to their cohort and compared the results and
differences. This is useful in terms of how each test performs, but both tests have their limitations
which are different.  Arguably, comparing the performance of these two tests is not appropriate
because of their limitations. Why wasn’t a third independent test, such as FibroScan, used to
provide a gold standard proxy?
I would recommend that the cost comparison has statistical/health economic review.
Please note, there is a typo on page 11. "directely should be directly"
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Prevalence of advanced liver fibrosis in the general population of the Paris region
according to FIB-4 score and Liver Risk Score
Version: 1 Date: 23 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
Prevalence of advanced liver fibrosis in the general population of the Paris region according to
FIB-4 score and Liver Risk Score
Thank you for an interesting paper.
LRS and FIB-4 were applied to a general population, rather than a targeted at risk group. I realise
this was the point of the paper but I would ask that the authors’ discuss the limitations of doing
this please.
The authors’ have applied FIB-4 and LRS to their cohort and compared the results and
differences. This is useful in terms of how each test performs, but both tests have their limitations
which are different.  Arguably, comparing the performance of these two tests is not appropriate
because of their limitations. Why wasn’t a third independent test, such as FibroScan, used to
provide a gold standard proxy?
I would recommend that the cost comparison has statistical/health economic review.
Please note, there is a typo on page 11. "directely should be directly"
assistant