All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
The authors have conducted excellent work on this manuscript, incorporating feedback from reviewers to enhance the clarity and depth of the content. They have successfully elucidated the role of Mac-2 Binding protein Glycosylation Isomer performed as a best diagnostic marker for liver fibrosis using meta analysis. This manuscript now offers a clearer and more insightful understanding of the mechanisms at play, thanks to the thoughtful integration of the reviewers' suggestions.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vladimir Uversky, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Please see additional comments.
Please see additional comments.
Please see additional comments.
The code has been provided.
The authors have conducted excellent work on this manuscript, incorporating feedback from reviewers to enhance the clarity and depth of the content. They have successfully elucidated the role of M2BPGi role in the Liver fibrosis, providing a detailed and comprehensive explanation of this complex biological process. Based on Reviewer 1 inputs, Please provide raw data and coding files for this study. Thanks
Please see additional comments.
Please see additional comments.
Please see additional comments.
The "raw data" is duplicated with "Additional material 1". They are both analysis results. Maybe the author uploaded it by mistake. No raw data is provided. And there is no code that is for loading data in the state code file.
The authors should incorporate all comments suggested by the reviewers. Reviewer 1's comments were not addressed in the experimental design and findings in your manuscript. Update your manuscript according to the reviewer's comments. Thanks.
Please see additional comments.
Please see additional comments.
Please see additional comments.
Most problems have been improved but the features of each sample are not provided in the data and the Stata script that generates the result has still not been provided. I suggest the author add this information.
Authors have addressed the comments in my previous review. The article rerqires no further review and is ready for publication.
no comment
no comment
no comment
Dear authors,
We kindly request that you carefully review the comments provided by the reviewers. Their valuable suggestions offer insights to enhance your manuscript. Updating your work in accordance with their inputs will significantly strengthen its content.
Thank you
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**Language Note:** The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
For Figure 1, please export the figure in pdf/jpg format rather than using a screenshot. There are grammar error prompts left in the figure.
I suggest that the author should increase the resolution of the figures. The text can not be seen clearly.
I also suggest author provide the stata script and data to improve the reproducibility.
The analysis is too simple to support the conclusion claimed by the author.
I suggest authors do more analysis by splitting the dataset according to sample features such as age, gender, country, etc.
If the result is consistent across different sample partitions, the the author can make the claim. Otherwise, the result is not convincing.
Evaluation of Mac-2 binding protein glycosylation Isomer (M2BPGi) as a Diagnostic Marker for Staging Liver fibrosis: A Meta-Analysis
The manuscript adheres to the journal's guidelines by employing methods for data deidentification and upholding ethical standards. Furthermore, thorough scrutiny of the figures and tables has been undertaken. Overall, I commend the authors for their meticulous effort in presenting a meticulously structured research framework. The figures are pertinent and accurately labeled, facilitating a more lucid comprehension of the material.
However, the manuscript still requires revisions.
Provide reference for line 35-36.
Line 154, perhaps the authors meant P-value<0.05?
Provide references for line 168-172.
The statistical analysis section lacks depth and explanation of the statistical models built.
Can the authors please elaborate on how the statistical models were built, which were the predictors and the response variables to obtain the odds ratios reported in Tables 2 and 3?
Protein-Protein Interaction (PPI) could play a vital role in the biomarker’s performance, so have the author’s assessed any potential PPIs. The resource here could help: https://pharos.nih.gov/.
The statistical analysis lacks clarity and conciseness, making it difficult for readers to follow the description of the statistical analysis process. It could benefit from breaking down into smaller, more digestible chunks of information. The manuscript mentions the utilization of various statistical tools, but it doesn't provide sufficient explanation regarding why each tool was chosen or how they were applied in the analysis.
Overall, the manuscript could be improved by providing clearer explanations of the statistical analysis methods used, organizing the information more effectively, and ensuring that technical terms are explained for readers unfamiliar with the field.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.