Title: IMAGING-BASED DIAGNOSIS OF SARCOPENIA FOR TRANSPLANT-FREE
SURVIVAL IN PRIMARY SCLEROSING CHOLANGITIS
Version: 2 Date: 24 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
Some comments are listed as follows.
Background
In the sentences “(1) recurrent cholangitis with #2 septic episodes over a  span of 6 months”,
the words “a  span” should be revised as “a span”.
In the Background part, could the authors elaborate on the value of the “country-specific standard
exception (SE) criteria”?
Methods
In the Data collection part, in the sentence “Patient data was collected via electronic review of
patient records”, the word “was” should be revised as “were”.
The authors said “This retrospective, single-center study...”. The ethical approval is given in
2018, but the patients are included from 2018 to 2022.
In the sentence “Out the initial 141 patients, 46 were excluded from the study”, the word “of”
should be added after the word “Out”.
Results
In the Risk factors of impaired transplant-free survival part, in the sentence “Univariate Cox
regression analyses were performed to identify  risk factors for impaired TFS”, the words
“identify  risk” should be revised as “identify risk”.
In the Sarcopenia & BMI in SE criteria part, in the sentence “we substituted BMI reduction
(Table 2) for L3-SMI sarcopenia”, the word “for” should be revised as “with”.
In the Table 1, the data “35.3% (12)” should be revised as “33.3% (12)”.
Discussion
In the sentences “This finding supports the growing evidence that sarcopenia is an independent
predictor of adverse outcome in patients with other CLD” and “the predictive value of PMI for
outcome of CLD remains controversial”, the word “outcome” should be revised as “outcomes”.
Authors’ contributions
In the sentence “PK, FR, FC collected data”, the word “and” should be added between the words
“FR” and “FC”.
Title: IMAGING-BASED DIAGNOSIS OF SARCOPENIA FOR TRANSPLANT-FREE
SURVIVAL IN PRIMARY SCLEROSING CHOLANGITIS
Version: 2 Date: 24 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
Some comments are listed as follows.
Background
In the sentences “(1) recurrent cholangitis with #2 septic episodes over a  span of 6 months”,
the words “a  span” should be revised as “a span”.
In the Background part, could the authors elaborate on the value of the “country-specific standard
exception (SE) criteria”?
Methods
In the Data collection part, in the sentence “Patient data was collected via electronic review of
patient records”, the word “was” should be revised as “were”.
The authors said “This retrospective, single-center study...”. The ethical approval is given in
2018, but the patients are included from 2018 to 2022.
In the sentence “Out the initial 141 patients, 46 were excluded from the study”, the word “of”
should be added after the word “Out”.
Results
In the Risk factors of impaired transplant-free survival part, in the sentence “Univariate Cox
regression analyses were performed to identify  risk factors for impaired TFS”, the words
“identify  risk” should be revised as “identify risk”.
In the Sarcopenia & BMI in SE criteria part, in the sentence “we substituted BMI reduction
(Table 2) for L3-SMI sarcopenia”, the word “for” should be revised as “with”.
In the Table 1, the data “35.3% (12)” should be revised as “33.3% (12)”.
Discussion
In the sentences “This finding supports the growing evidence that sarcopenia is an independent
predictor of adverse outcome in patients with other CLD” and “the predictive value of PMI for
outcome of CLD remains controversial”, the word “outcome” should be revised as “outcomes”.
Authors’ contributions
In the sentence “PK, FR, FC collected data”, the word “and” should be added between the words
“FR” and “FC”.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: IMAGING-BASED DIAGNOSIS OF SARCOPENIA FOR TRANSPLANT-FREE
SURVIVAL IN PRIMARY SCLEROSING CHOLANGITIS
Version: 2 Date: 24 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
Some comments are listed as follows.
Background
In the sentences “(1) recurrent cholangitis with #2 septic episodes over a  span of 6 months”,
the words “a  span” should be revised as “a span”.
In the Background part, could the authors elaborate on the value of the “country-specific standard
exception (SE) criteria”?
Methods
In the Data collection part, in the sentence “Patient data was collected via electronic review of
patient records”, the word “was” should be revised as “were”.
The authors said “This retrospective, single-center study...”. The ethical approval is given in
2018, but the patients are included from 2018 to 2022.
In the sentence “Out the initial 141 patients, 46 were excluded from the study”, the word “of”
should be added after the word “Out”.
Results
In the Risk factors of impaired transplant-free survival part, in the sentence “Univariate Cox
regression analyses were performed to identify  risk factors for impaired TFS”, the words
“identify  risk” should be revised as “identify risk”.
In the Sarcopenia & BMI in SE criteria part, in the sentence “we substituted BMI reduction
(Table 2) for L3-SMI sarcopenia”, the word “for” should be revised as “with”.
In the Table 1, the data “35.3% (12)” should be revised as “33.3% (12)”.
Discussion
In the sentences “This finding supports the growing evidence that sarcopenia is an independent
predictor of adverse outcome in patients with other CLD” and “the predictive value of PMI for
outcome of CLD remains controversial”, the word “outcome” should be revised as “outcomes”.
Authors’ contributions
In the sentence “PK, FR, FC collected data”, the word “and” should be added between the words
“FR” and “FC”.
assistant