Title: Development of A Prediction Model for Predicting the Prevalance of Nonalcoholic Fatty
Liver Disease in Chinese Nurses: The First-Year Follow Data of a Web-Based Ambispective
Cohort Study
Version: 2 Date: 16 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
The aim of this study was to develop and validate a prediction model to predict the incidence of
NAFLD in female nurses. The strength of this study was to collect various information including
demographic characteristics, work situation, and daily lifestyle. However, there are still several
shortcomings.
1. In line 106, the main outcome is the incidence of NAFLD. However, the flow chart did
not show that the prevalent NAFLD were excluded initially. In addition, the author should
mention why the cohort was classified into two sets. If the prediction model was made from
the development set, the author should explain why the prediction was not made from the total
participants.
2. I think Table S1 is important and should be included in the manuscript after reorganized.
3. In line 154, the author mentioned that 27 indicators were recognized as risk factors for NAFLD
indicators, and the detailed parameters of the characteristics in univariate analysis are presented
in Table 3. However, Table 3 only included 21 factors.
4. In line 160, the author mentioned that 11 indicators were recognized as risk factors for NAFLD
development in Table S1. However, only 8 indicators were reported in line 162. Then, the
NAFLD risk nomogram was built based on the 7 independent predictors. The real number of
indicators should be clarified.
5. The strength of this study was the factors related to work situation and lifestyle. However, the
author discussed many laboratory tests and the important non-laboratory factor of the shift work
were only mentioned in line 236-238. The shift work is most important finding in this study,
which may be neglected by other researches.
6. The author reported that AST and Tbil were protective indicators of NAFLD incidence, which
is controversial. The author should provide more explanation or evidence to support.
7. There are minor suggestions. First, the content of Table 1 can be integrated into the methods
and Table 1 may be reserved in the supplement. Second, in Table 2, the data of ALT should
be revised.
Title: Development of A Prediction Model for Predicting the Prevalance of Nonalcoholic Fatty
Liver Disease in Chinese Nurses: The First-Year Follow Data of a Web-Based Ambispective
Cohort Study
Version: 2 Date: 16 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
The aim of this study was to develop and validate a prediction model to predict the incidence of
NAFLD in female nurses. The strength of this study was to collect various information including
demographic characteristics, work situation, and daily lifestyle. However, there are still several
shortcomings.
1. In line 106, the main outcome is the incidence of NAFLD. However, the flow chart did
not show that the prevalent NAFLD were excluded initially. In addition, the author should
mention why the cohort was classified into two sets. If the prediction model was made from
the development set, the author should explain why the prediction was not made from the total
participants.
2. I think Table S1 is important and should be included in the manuscript after reorganized.
3. In line 154, the author mentioned that 27 indicators were recognized as risk factors for NAFLD
indicators, and the detailed parameters of the characteristics in univariate analysis are presented
in Table 3. However, Table 3 only included 21 factors.
4. In line 160, the author mentioned that 11 indicators were recognized as risk factors for NAFLD
development in Table S1. However, only 8 indicators were reported in line 162. Then, the
NAFLD risk nomogram was built based on the 7 independent predictors. The real number of
indicators should be clarified.
5. The strength of this study was the factors related to work situation and lifestyle. However, the
author discussed many laboratory tests and the important non-laboratory factor of the shift work
were only mentioned in line 236-238. The shift work is most important finding in this study,
which may be neglected by other researches.
6. The author reported that AST and Tbil were protective indicators of NAFLD incidence, which
is controversial. The author should provide more explanation or evidence to support.
7. There are minor suggestions. First, the content of Table 1 can be integrated into the methods
and Table 1 may be reserved in the supplement. Second, in Table 2, the data of ALT should
be revised.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Development of A Prediction Model for Predicting the Prevalance of Nonalcoholic Fatty
Liver Disease in Chinese Nurses: The First-Year Follow Data of a Web-Based Ambispective
Cohort Study
Version: 2 Date: 16 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
The aim of this study was to develop and validate a prediction model to predict the incidence of
NAFLD in female nurses. The strength of this study was to collect various information including
demographic characteristics, work situation, and daily lifestyle. However, there are still several
shortcomings.
1. In line 106, the main outcome is the incidence of NAFLD. However, the flow chart did
not show that the prevalent NAFLD were excluded initially. In addition, the author should
mention why the cohort was classified into two sets. If the prediction model was made from
the development set, the author should explain why the prediction was not made from the total
participants.
2. I think Table S1 is important and should be included in the manuscript after reorganized.
3. In line 154, the author mentioned that 27 indicators were recognized as risk factors for NAFLD
indicators, and the detailed parameters of the characteristics in univariate analysis are presented
in Table 3. However, Table 3 only included 21 factors.
4. In line 160, the author mentioned that 11 indicators were recognized as risk factors for NAFLD
development in Table S1. However, only 8 indicators were reported in line 162. Then, the
NAFLD risk nomogram was built based on the 7 independent predictors. The real number of
indicators should be clarified.
5. The strength of this study was the factors related to work situation and lifestyle. However, the
author discussed many laboratory tests and the important non-laboratory factor of the shift work
were only mentioned in line 236-238. The shift work is most important finding in this study,
which may be neglected by other researches.
6. The author reported that AST and Tbil were protective indicators of NAFLD incidence, which
is controversial. The author should provide more explanation or evidence to support.
7. There are minor suggestions. First, the content of Table 1 can be integrated into the methods
and Table 1 may be reserved in the supplement. Second, in Table 2, the data of ALT should
be revised.
assistant