Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Elevated serum triglyceride and low -density lipoprotein cho lesterol promotes the 
formation of colorectal polyps  
 
Version: 3 Date: 06 Aug 2019  
 
Reviewer: Reviewer 2  
 
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?)  
 
No - there are minor issues  
 
 
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for the 
objective?  
 
No - there are minor issues  
 
 
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?  
 
No - there a re issues with the statistics in the study  
 
 
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not 
overstated?  
 
No - there are minor issues  
 
 
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficien tly 
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?  
 
Maybe - with major revisions  
 
 
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:  
 
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors responses partially addressed my previous concerns. Still 
room for improvements to better the quality of the paper.  
 
 
REQUESTED REVISIONS:  
 
To better structure the paper and especially the discussion, the authors should first p rovide 
differences between Controls vs ALL polyp patients (Table 4 which should become Table 2), 
then compare Controls vs. Non -AA vs. Advanced lesions (present Table 2 that should become 
Table 3) and then TA vs. TVA vs. HGD vs. Controls (Present in Table 3  that should become 
Table 4). In this sequence, the two markers will prove sequentially that they can distinguish 
polyp beraig patients from controls, those with advanced adenomas vs. those without and 
probably specific lesions such as TVA and HGD vs, othe rs. However, for this to happen, the p 
values that are given in present Tables 2 and 3 are inadequate to draw any conclusion. The 
statement on p values below Tables 2 and 3 is NOT correct. In Table 2, authors claim BMI is 
given in Median and IQR, NO IQR ra nge is given, while in Table 3, the BMI seems to be 
expressed in Mean  and SD??? Once the authors correct and rearrange the Tables as suggested 
above, the discussion section should follow the same course of comparisons and sub -discussions.  
The last statem ent in abstract about the usefulness of these two markers for surveillance of 
colorectal lesions should be changed to usefulness to assess risk of colorectal lesions, maybe 
advanced ones OR any type of polyps depending on what individual p values [in compa rison to 
Controls and in comparison to each other] will say.  
 
 
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:  
 
No 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specif y what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects requ ire further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, f ees, funding, or salary 
from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the 
publication of this manuscript, either  now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or 
lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the 
future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents re lating to the content 
of the manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization 
that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing intere sts? 
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have  no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
This reviewer  has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with 
declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for t hese reviews. This reviewer has 
agreed to publication of their comments online under a Creat ive Commons Attribution License 
attributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for  completing the review within 
a specified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid re gardless of the reviewer 
recommendation.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or publication, my named report 
including any attachm ents I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
whic h I do not wish to be included in my named report can be in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Elevated serum triglyceride and low -density lipoprotein cho lesterol promotes the 
formation of colorectal polyps  
 
Version: 3 Date: 06 Aug 2019  
 
Reviewer: Reviewer 2  
 
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?)  
 
No - there are minor issues  
 
 
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for the 
objective?  
 
No - there are minor issues  
 
 
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?  
 
No - there a re issues with the statistics in the study  
 
 
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not 
overstated?  
 
No - there are minor issues  
 
 
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficien tly 
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?  
 
Maybe - with major revisions  
 
 
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:  
 
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors responses partially addressed my previous concerns. Still 
room for improvements to better the quality of the paper.  
 
 
REQUESTED REVISIONS:  
 
To better structure the paper and especially the discussion, the authors should first p rovide 
differences between Controls vs ALL polyp patients (Table 4 which should become Table 2), 
then compare Controls vs. Non -AA vs. Advanced lesions (present Table 2 that should become 
Table 3) and then TA vs. TVA vs. HGD vs. Controls (Present in Table 3  that should become 
Table 4). In this sequence, the two markers will prove sequentially that they can distinguish 
polyp beraig patients from controls, those with advanced adenomas vs. those without and 
probably specific lesions such as TVA and HGD vs, othe rs. However, for this to happen, the p 
values that are given in present Tables 2 and 3 are inadequate to draw any conclusion. The 
statement on p values below Tables 2 and 3 is NOT correct. In Table 2, authors claim BMI is 
given in Median and IQR, NO IQR ra nge is given, while in Table 3, the BMI seems to be 
expressed in Mean  and SD??? Once the authors correct and rearrange the Tables as suggested 
above, the discussion section should follow the same course of comparisons and sub -discussions.  
The last statem ent in abstract about the usefulness of these two markers for surveillance of 
colorectal lesions should be changed to usefulness to assess risk of colorectal lesions, maybe 
advanced ones OR any type of polyps depending on what individual p values [in compa rison to 
Controls and in comparison to each other] will say.  
 
 
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:  
 
No 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specif y what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects requ ire further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, f ees, funding, or salary 
from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the 
publication of this manuscript, either  now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or 
lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the 
future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents re lating to the content 
of the manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization 
that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing intere sts? 
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have  no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
This reviewer  has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with 
declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for t hese reviews. This reviewer has 
agreed to publication of their comments online under a Creat ive Commons Attribution License 
attributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for  completing the review within 
a specified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid re gardless of the reviewer 
recommendation.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or publication, my named report 
including any attachm ents I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
whic h I do not wish to be included in my named report can be in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Elevated serum triglyceride and low -density lipoprotein cho lesterol promotes the 
formation of colorectal polyps  
 
Version: 3 Date: 06 Aug 2019  
 
Reviewer: Reviewer 2  
 
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?)  
 
No - there are minor issues  
 
 
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for the 
objective?  
 
No - there are minor issues  
 
 
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?  
 
No - there a re issues with the statistics in the study  
 
 
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not 
overstated?  
 
No - there are minor issues  
 
 
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficien tly 
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?  
 
Maybe - with major revisions  
 
 
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:  
 
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors responses partially addressed my previous concerns. Still 
room for improvements to better the quality of the paper.  
 
 
REQUESTED REVISIONS:  
 
To better structure the paper and especially the discussion, the authors should first p rovide 
differences between Controls vs ALL polyp patients (Table 4 which should become Table 2), 
then compare Controls vs. Non -AA vs. Advanced lesions (present Table 2 that should become 
Table 3) and then TA vs. TVA vs. HGD vs. Controls (Present in Table 3  that should become 
Table 4). In this sequence, the two markers will prove sequentially that they can distinguish 
polyp beraig patients from controls, those with advanced adenomas vs. those without and 
probably specific lesions such as TVA and HGD vs, othe rs. However, for this to happen, the p 
values that are given in present Tables 2 and 3 are inadequate to draw any conclusion. The 
statement on p values below Tables 2 and 3 is NOT correct. In Table 2, authors claim BMI is 
given in Median and IQR, NO IQR ra nge is given, while in Table 3, the BMI seems to be 
expressed in Mean  and SD??? Once the authors correct and rearrange the Tables as suggested 
above, the discussion section should follow the same course of comparisons and sub -discussions.  
The last statem ent in abstract about the usefulness of these two markers for surveillance of 
colorectal lesions should be changed to usefulness to assess risk of colorectal lesions, maybe 
advanced ones OR any type of polyps depending on what individual p values [in compa rison to 
Controls and in comparison to each other] will say.  
 
 
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:  
 
No 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specif y what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects requ ire further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, f ees, funding, or salary 
from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the 
publication of this manuscript, either  now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or 
lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the 
future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents re lating to the content 
of the manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization 
that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing intere sts? 
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have  no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
This reviewer  has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with 
declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for t hese reviews. This reviewer has 
agreed to publication of their comments online under a Creat ive Commons Attribution License 
attributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for  completing the review within 
a specified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid re gardless of the reviewer 
recommendation.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or publication, my named report 
including any attachm ents I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
whic h I do not wish to be included in my named report can be in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant