Title: Early assessment of treatment response in primary biliary cholangitis: key to timely
management
Version: 4 Date: 03 Jul 2025
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: 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 sufficient 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 - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have made a sincere effort to address the concerns
raised during the second  review. They have clarified the definition of the primary outcome and
standardized the terminology throughout the manuscript (e.g., use of "complete biochemical
response" and "at last check-up"), which improves clarity for the reader. These revisions enhance
the transparency and consistency of the outcome reporting
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
The authors have removed original Table 4 as well as original Figures 2 and 3 and this helps to
reduce the clutter and adds to the understanding of the data. I am happy with the rebuttal.
Title: Early assessment of treatment response in primary biliary cholangitis: key to timely
management
Version: 4 Date: 03 Jul 2025
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: 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 sufficient 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 - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have made a sincere effort to address the concerns
raised during the second  review. They have clarified the definition of the primary outcome and
standardized the terminology throughout the manuscript (e.g., use of "complete biochemical
response" and "at last check-up"), which improves clarity for the reader. These revisions enhance
the transparency and consistency of the outcome reporting
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
The authors have removed original Table 4 as well as original Figures 2 and 3 and this helps to
reduce the clutter and adds to the understanding of the data. I am happy with the rebuttal.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Early assessment of treatment response in primary biliary cholangitis: key to timely
management
Version: 4 Date: 03 Jul 2025
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: 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 sufficient 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 - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have made a sincere effort to address the concerns
raised during the second  review. They have clarified the definition of the primary outcome and
standardized the terminology throughout the manuscript (e.g., use of "complete biochemical
response" and "at last check-up"), which improves clarity for the reader. These revisions enhance
the transparency and consistency of the outcome reporting
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
The authors have removed original Table 4 as well as original Figures 2 and 3 and this helps to
reduce the clutter and adds to the understanding of the data. I am happy with the rebuttal.
assistant