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.
All the comments were well addressed.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Stefano Menini, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The authors addressed all questions. I have no additional comments.
No comment.
No comment.
No comment.
Please response to the reviewers point by point.
**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
1.The quality of English language needs sprucing up.
2. It is suggested that literature references should also include publications on MASLD with reference to insulin resistance and glycemic control. This would paint a better picture, for the simple reason that insulin resistance forms the core of Type 2 Diabetes mellitus. The authors to please note the same.
1. The authors to please mention, though in brief, the methods/procedures in Clinical Biochemistry that comply with IFCC guidelines
2. A line or two on the Quality control measures adopted in the estimation of the analytes
3. The authors to please compute lipid ratios based on the lipid profile that they have undertaken. This would provide a better picture. The authors may please link the lipid ratios to the fibroscan data and enzymes
The validity of the findings would get enhanced, if the authors could please respond to the suggestions/recommendations of the reviewer. The conclusion will also be more robust, if the authors take cognizance of the suggestions given
Insulin resistance is such an important facet in diabetes mellitus as well as in prediabetes. The characteristic indices on insulin resistance would have added greater value to the manuscript
The manuscript addresses a clinically relevant gap in understanding early hepatic changes in prediabetes. To my knowledge, this is the first study evaluating galectin-3 and LS specifically in prediabetes. The study demonstrates that LS and galectin-3 elevations begin in prediabetes, suggesting early hepatic fibro-inflammatory processes.
The manuscript is well written. However, I have two suggestions that should be stated in the manuscript as study limitations:
1. Key confounders (e.g., diet, physical activity, medication use) were not adjusted for, which may influence LS and galectin-3 levels.
2. BMI and metabolic syndrome components (e.g., lipid profiles) were mentioned but not analyzed as covariates in multivariate models.
no comment
no comment
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.