Title: Bile ductal mucosal dysplasia is a possible risk factor for adenocarcinoma in patients with
adenomyomatous hyperplasia of the Vaterian System: a single-centre study from China
Version: 3 Date: 21 Oct 2023
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?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors responded well to the comments raised by the reviewers.
Two minor comments need to be considered before publication: 1) Inclusion of the country in the
title and revising "may be" to "a possible risk factor for".  2) Also, in the end of the Conclusion,
the authors need to mention that the larger-scale studies could be from multi-center studies in
multiple medical centers.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Yes, see above.
Title: Bile ductal mucosal dysplasia is a possible risk factor for adenocarcinoma in patients with
adenomyomatous hyperplasia of the Vaterian System: a single-centre study from China
Version: 3 Date: 21 Oct 2023
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?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors responded well to the comments raised by the reviewers.
Two minor comments need to be considered before publication: 1) Inclusion of the country in the
title and revising "may be" to "a possible risk factor for".  2) Also, in the end of the Conclusion,
the authors need to mention that the larger-scale studies could be from multi-center studies in
multiple medical centers.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Yes, see above.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Bile ductal mucosal dysplasia is a possible risk factor for adenocarcinoma in patients with
adenomyomatous hyperplasia of the Vaterian System: a single-centre study from China
Version: 3 Date: 21 Oct 2023
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?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors responded well to the comments raised by the reviewers.
Two minor comments need to be considered before publication: 1) Inclusion of the country in the
title and revising "may be" to "a possible risk factor for".  2) Also, in the end of the Conclusion,
the authors need to mention that the larger-scale studies could be from multi-center studies in
multiple medical centers.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Yes, see above.
assistant