Title: Novel beagle model of gastric local fibrotic target lesions for the evaluation and training
of endoscopic techniques
Version: 1 Date: 28 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: WHAT IS YOUR OVERALL IMPRESSION OF THE REPORT?
Really good model that WILL aid in the training of less experienced endoscopist in submucosal
excision of early gastric cancer
WHAT HAVE THE AUTHJORS DONE WELL
The canine model is a really fantastic model for tissue feel and objective training
ARE YOU CONFIDENT IN THE AUTHORS’ DESCRIPTION AND INTERPRETATION OF
THE REPORT?
Yes, very much; they document  every important  detail
IN WHAT WAYS DOES IT NOT MEET BEST PRACTICE
this animal model meets all the accepted standards for animal work and the model itself is superb
in training
HAVE THE AUTHORS CLEARLY OUTLINED THE NEED FOR PUBLICATION BY
NOVELTY OF THE CASE OR THE SPECIFIC ADVERSE EVENT?
Yes, they present a truly innovative model for the training of less experienced endoscopist a that
provides real tissue feel as opposed to other inanimate models
SUGGESTED CHANGES
1. Line 36 add the phrase “the treatment of” after the word “in”
2. Line 48 delete “Twelve beagles were survival” and change to “All 12 beagles survived”
3. Line 51 when did you perform the endoscopic treatment? Which PID?
4. Line 52 delete “was significantly longer” to “was greater” also you give a p value  so you
do not need theirs “significantly”
5 line 54. You mention severe hemorrhage  and perforation- this begs the question did any
perforations or severe hemorrhage occur in either  group. It would be best   to define this exactly
if there were perforations in the treatment group then this will question the safety of the treatment
and whether they were treatable endoclscopically
6. Line 64 please define ESD here many readers may not have read the abstract and change the
word”canceration” to “cancer”
7. Line 71 what serious adverse events -  early or delayed perforation and hemorrhage ?
8. Line 73. I do not think you mean reduce the technical need for” but rather “to aid in the safety
of “
9. Line 87 I would suggest that you capitalize Eastern and Western
10. Line 91 add also “tactile sensation “
11.  Line 116 replace “was presented” with “was evident”
12. Line 118 is this when you did the ESD? Please state so also in abstract above
13. Line 121 add the phrase “ who had” after the word”wndoscopista”
14. Change to after the endoscope was removed,
15. What do you mean by “white moss” is that a well accepted term?
16. Throughout the text please only report while percentages with less than 100 lesions you need
only present whole numbers
17. Lines 186 and 188 please round up the numbers to while no bets I really doubt that you can
measure a hundredths of a cm reliably this will not change your stats
18. Lines 188- 190 NO you need to report here in the results section the rates of perforation and
compare them between groups. Not just in a table ! This is what the readers will want to know!
19. Line 108 what do you mean by dilatation?
20. Lines 243-245 move to methods section. Your discussion is far too long and needs to be
shortened markedly the remainder of this paragraph you have already described above so delete
this use the discussion not to repeat the methods and results but to discuss why they are important
21. Line 273 do you need to add the phrase “ needed to beat elevate the lesion” after the
word”fluid”? I think it helps to explain the procedure
22.  I really think that you can delete table 1
23. Cc table 2. The o. Aloe of 1.00 is impossible change to 0.99 1.0” is not scientific
24. Delete figure 5 you report all of this in the text though the figure looks nice it adds nothing
to your study
I am very supportive of this paper all my suggestions are offered constructively to aid the readers
well done authors
Title: Novel beagle model of gastric local fibrotic target lesions for the evaluation and training
of endoscopic techniques
Version: 1 Date: 28 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: WHAT IS YOUR OVERALL IMPRESSION OF THE REPORT?
Really good model that WILL aid in the training of less experienced endoscopist in submucosal
excision of early gastric cancer
WHAT HAVE THE AUTHJORS DONE WELL
The canine model is a really fantastic model for tissue feel and objective training
ARE YOU CONFIDENT IN THE AUTHORS’ DESCRIPTION AND INTERPRETATION OF
THE REPORT?
Yes, very much; they document  every important  detail
IN WHAT WAYS DOES IT NOT MEET BEST PRACTICE
this animal model meets all the accepted standards for animal work and the model itself is superb
in training
HAVE THE AUTHORS CLEARLY OUTLINED THE NEED FOR PUBLICATION BY
NOVELTY OF THE CASE OR THE SPECIFIC ADVERSE EVENT?
Yes, they present a truly innovative model for the training of less experienced endoscopist a that
provides real tissue feel as opposed to other inanimate models
SUGGESTED CHANGES
1. Line 36 add the phrase “the treatment of” after the word “in”
2. Line 48 delete “Twelve beagles were survival” and change to “All 12 beagles survived”
3. Line 51 when did you perform the endoscopic treatment? Which PID?
4. Line 52 delete “was significantly longer” to “was greater” also you give a p value  so you
do not need theirs “significantly”
5 line 54. You mention severe hemorrhage  and perforation- this begs the question did any
perforations or severe hemorrhage occur in either  group. It would be best   to define this exactly
if there were perforations in the treatment group then this will question the safety of the treatment
and whether they were treatable endoclscopically
6. Line 64 please define ESD here many readers may not have read the abstract and change the
word”canceration” to “cancer”
7. Line 71 what serious adverse events -  early or delayed perforation and hemorrhage ?
8. Line 73. I do not think you mean reduce the technical need for” but rather “to aid in the safety
of “
9. Line 87 I would suggest that you capitalize Eastern and Western
10. Line 91 add also “tactile sensation “
11.  Line 116 replace “was presented” with “was evident”
12. Line 118 is this when you did the ESD? Please state so also in abstract above
13. Line 121 add the phrase “ who had” after the word”wndoscopista”
14. Change to after the endoscope was removed,
15. What do you mean by “white moss” is that a well accepted term?
16. Throughout the text please only report while percentages with less than 100 lesions you need
only present whole numbers
17. Lines 186 and 188 please round up the numbers to while no bets I really doubt that you can
measure a hundredths of a cm reliably this will not change your stats
18. Lines 188- 190 NO you need to report here in the results section the rates of perforation and
compare them between groups. Not just in a table ! This is what the readers will want to know!
19. Line 108 what do you mean by dilatation?
20. Lines 243-245 move to methods section. Your discussion is far too long and needs to be
shortened markedly the remainder of this paragraph you have already described above so delete
this use the discussion not to repeat the methods and results but to discuss why they are important
21. Line 273 do you need to add the phrase “ needed to beat elevate the lesion” after the
word”fluid”? I think it helps to explain the procedure
22.  I really think that you can delete table 1
23. Cc table 2. The o. Aloe of 1.00 is impossible change to 0.99 1.0” is not scientific
24. Delete figure 5 you report all of this in the text though the figure looks nice it adds nothing
to your study
I am very supportive of this paper all my suggestions are offered constructively to aid the readers
well done authors
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Novel beagle model of gastric local fibrotic target lesions for the evaluation and training
of endoscopic techniques
Version: 1 Date: 28 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: WHAT IS YOUR OVERALL IMPRESSION OF THE REPORT?
Really good model that WILL aid in the training of less experienced endoscopist in submucosal
excision of early gastric cancer
WHAT HAVE THE AUTHJORS DONE WELL
The canine model is a really fantastic model for tissue feel and objective training
ARE YOU CONFIDENT IN THE AUTHORS’ DESCRIPTION AND INTERPRETATION OF
THE REPORT?
Yes, very much; they document  every important  detail
IN WHAT WAYS DOES IT NOT MEET BEST PRACTICE
this animal model meets all the accepted standards for animal work and the model itself is superb
in training
HAVE THE AUTHORS CLEARLY OUTLINED THE NEED FOR PUBLICATION BY
NOVELTY OF THE CASE OR THE SPECIFIC ADVERSE EVENT?
Yes, they present a truly innovative model for the training of less experienced endoscopist a that
provides real tissue feel as opposed to other inanimate models
SUGGESTED CHANGES
1. Line 36 add the phrase “the treatment of” after the word “in”
2. Line 48 delete “Twelve beagles were survival” and change to “All 12 beagles survived”
3. Line 51 when did you perform the endoscopic treatment? Which PID?
4. Line 52 delete “was significantly longer” to “was greater” also you give a p value  so you
do not need theirs “significantly”
5 line 54. You mention severe hemorrhage  and perforation- this begs the question did any
perforations or severe hemorrhage occur in either  group. It would be best   to define this exactly
if there were perforations in the treatment group then this will question the safety of the treatment
and whether they were treatable endoclscopically
6. Line 64 please define ESD here many readers may not have read the abstract and change the
word”canceration” to “cancer”
7. Line 71 what serious adverse events -  early or delayed perforation and hemorrhage ?
8. Line 73. I do not think you mean reduce the technical need for” but rather “to aid in the safety
of “
9. Line 87 I would suggest that you capitalize Eastern and Western
10. Line 91 add also “tactile sensation “
11.  Line 116 replace “was presented” with “was evident”
12. Line 118 is this when you did the ESD? Please state so also in abstract above
13. Line 121 add the phrase “ who had” after the word”wndoscopista”
14. Change to after the endoscope was removed,
15. What do you mean by “white moss” is that a well accepted term?
16. Throughout the text please only report while percentages with less than 100 lesions you need
only present whole numbers
17. Lines 186 and 188 please round up the numbers to while no bets I really doubt that you can
measure a hundredths of a cm reliably this will not change your stats
18. Lines 188- 190 NO you need to report here in the results section the rates of perforation and
compare them between groups. Not just in a table ! This is what the readers will want to know!
19. Line 108 what do you mean by dilatation?
20. Lines 243-245 move to methods section. Your discussion is far too long and needs to be
shortened markedly the remainder of this paragraph you have already described above so delete
this use the discussion not to repeat the methods and results but to discuss why they are important
21. Line 273 do you need to add the phrase “ needed to beat elevate the lesion” after the
word”fluid”? I think it helps to explain the procedure
22.  I really think that you can delete table 1
23. Cc table 2. The o. Aloe of 1.00 is impossible change to 0.99 1.0” is not scientific
24. Delete figure 5 you report all of this in the text though the figure looks nice it adds nothing
to your study
I am very supportive of this paper all my suggestions are offered constructively to aid the readers
well done authors
assistant