Neuroimaging and CSF Findings in Patients with Autoimmune Encephalitis: A Report of Eight Cases in a Single Academic Center
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Several corrections are necessary in figures and figure legends.
They are indicated in the below.
Figure 1.1
Remove “Text” in the center of the figure.
In Fig. 3a: Change “3a” into “3”. Put arrow to the ovarian mass.
Figure 1.2
In this legend, “on ultraScheme 5” is not understandable. Probably, “on ultraScheme 5” is “case 5”.
In Fig. 5a, indicate “FLAIR hyperintensity” using arrow.
In Fig. 5b, indicate right ovarian mass using arrow.
Figure 1.3
Figures 7a-8b are not necessary, because they are normal.
Author Response
Ref. No.: Manuscript ID: neurolint-1474530-1
Journal: Neurology International
Title: Neuroimaging and CSF Findings in Patients with Autoimmune Encephalitis: a report of eight cases in a single academic center
We would like to thank the reviewer for the time they invested in improving the quality of our manuscript. Please see attached point-by-point changes/corrections or explanations to the reviewers’ comments.
RESPONSES TO REVIEWER 1 COMMENTS
Response: Thank you for your feedbacks. We have copied your comment below with our responses following each comment. Changes in the manuscript are noted in both track change version and clean version.
Response to reviewer’s comments:
Reviewer 1:
R#1.1. Several corrections are necessary in figures and figure legends.
A#1.1. Thank you. We have addressed all your comments. Please see the revised manuscript and updated legend
They are indicated in the below.
Figure 1.1
Remove “Text” in the center of the figure.
A#1.1. Please see updated Fig 1.1
In Fig. 3a: Change “3a” into “3”. Put arrow to the ovarian mass.
A#1.1. Please see updated Fig 1.1
Figure 1.2
In this legend, “on ultraScheme 5” is not understandable. Probably, “on ultraScheme 5” is “case 5”.
A#1.1. Please see updated legends for respective figure 1.1,1.2 & 1.3
In Fig. 5a, indicate “FLAIR hyperintensity” using arrow.
In Fig. 5b, indicate right ovarian mass using arrow.
A#1.1. Please see updated Fig 1.2
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript presents 8 cases of autoimmune encephalitis in patients aged 21 to 67 years. This entity is a newly recognized inflammatory disease of the brain with an essential impact on differential diagnosis during the last years. The paper includes interesting and important aspects of the disease that clinicians should consider when involved in this diagnosis.
The manuscript is well organized and written, but some aspects should be addressed before publishing it.
Abstract: The last sentence with the objective could have a better place close to the beginning of the abstract, not as a conclusion. Abbreviated words should be explained at their first use also here.
Keywords: there should not have abbreviated words as keywords.
Case summary: in all presentations of the cases, the drug manes should not be the commercial ones. Also, the IVIV and IVMP as other abbreviations regarding treatment should be explained at their first use (even though there is a list of abbreviations at the end of the paper).
Figure 1 must be corrected as include "Text". There is 3b as the author labeled an image as 3a.
In line 101, there is no need for (0) as there were no nucleated cells or oligoclonal bands.
Line 170, "Pt" ?
I would recommend including a table with the most critical aspects for the cases (age, sex, clinical, lab, imaging, treatment and outcome).
In the Discussion section, the authors did not discuss the treatment possibilities for autoimmune encephalitis.
Also, the presentation of the different subtypes should be edited as there is no need for subsections 4.1, 4.2,... for only one sentence for some subtypes. Maybe better to have a bulleted list.
The first sentence from conclusions should be checked as ... "usually presents" and "in most cases" are somehow a repetition.
Author Response
Ref. No.: Manuscript ID: neurolint-1474530-1
Journal: Neurology International
Title: Neuroimaging and CSF Findings in Patients with Autoimmune Encephalitis: a report of eight cases in a single academic center
We would like to thank the reviewer for the time they invested in improving the quality of our manuscript. Please see attached point-by-point changes/corrections or explanations to the reviewers’ comments.
RESPONSES TO REVIEWER 2 COMMENTS
Response: Thank you for your feedbacks. We have copied your comment below with our responses following each comment. Changes in the manuscript are noted in both track change version and clean version.
Response to reviewer’s comments:
Reviewer 2:
The manuscript presents 8 cases of autoimmune encephalitis in patients aged 21 to 67 years. This entity is a newly recognized inflammatory disease of the brain with an essential impact on differential diagnosis during the last years. The paper includes interesting and important aspects of the disease that clinicians should consider when involved in this diagnosis.
The manuscript is well organized and written, but some aspects should be addressed before publishing it.
Response: Thank you for your positive comments and feedback. We have addressed all of your comments and believe that this has strengthened our manuscript.
R#2.1. Abstract: The last sentence with the objective could have a better place close to the beginning of the abstract, not as a conclusion. Abbreviated words should be explained at their first use also here.
A#2.1. Thank you. We have moved up the last sentence. Please see the track change version line 14-16. We have also explained abbreviated words at their first use. Please see the line# 14-16, page#1
R#2.2. Keywords: there should not have abbreviated words as keywords.
A#2.2. Thank you. We have changed abbreviated words to full words in the Keywords section. Please see line 28-29 in the track change version. Please see the line# 28-29, page#1
R#2.3. Case summary: in all presentations of the cases, the drug manes should not be the commercial ones. Also, the IVIV and IVMP as other abbreviations regarding treatment should be explained at their first use (even though there is a list of abbreviations at the end of the paper).
A#2.3. Thank you. we have changed “Avonex” to interferon beta-1a. We have also explained PET and GAD65 at their first use in case 1. IVIG has been explained in the abstract section. Please see the line# 25,72,76 &77, page#1,2
R#2.4. Figure 1 must be corrected as include "Text". There is 3b as the author labeled an image as 3a.
A#2.4. Please see updated Fig 1.1 and Fig 1.2
R#2.5. In line 101, there is no need for (0) as there were no nucleated cells or oligoclonal bands.
A#2.5. Response: Thank you. We have deleted (0) in case 4. Please see the line# 127-128, page#3
R#2.6. Line 170, "Pt" ?
A#2.6. Thank you. We have corrected this error in case 8. Please see the line# 255, page#5
R#2.7. I would recommend including a table with the most critical aspects for the cases (age, sex, clinical, lab, imaging, treatment and outcome).
A#2.7. Thank you. We have included a table with the most critical aspects for the cases. Please see table 1.
R#2.8. In the Discussion section, the authors did not discuss the treatment possibilities for autoimmune encephalitis.
A#2.8. Thank you. We have added discussions of autoimmune encephalitis treatments. Please see the line# 255, page#7
R#2.9. Also, the presentation of the different subtypes should be edited as there is no need for subsections 4.1, 4.2,... for only one sentence for some subtypes. Maybe better to have a bulleted list.
A#2.9. Thank you. We have changed subsections 4.1, 4.2…. to bulleted lists. Please see the line# 356-394, page#7&8
R#2.10. The first sentence from conclusions should be checked as ... "usually presents" and "in most cases" are somehow a repetition.
A#2.10. Thank you. We have reworded this section. Please see the line# 396-397, page#8
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript was improved based on reviewers' recommendations, but there are still minor changes that the authors could make. I would write in line 32 the full name of diseases and then use it as an abbreviation. Table 1: capital letters for "cases" and CSF in the 5th column.
In Discussion: paragraph regarding the therapy should be replaced after presenting various subtypes.
For the bulleted list, I would not use a new paragraph for the sentence presenting the subtype, but I would write it immediately after the subtype's name (antibody).
I would recommend adding a paragraph that would discuss the cases in light of what was presented in the Discussion: age, sex, CSF findings, imaging as the authors did for treatment.
Author Response
Ref. No.: Manuscript ID: neurolint-1474530-2
Journal: Neurology International
Title: Neuroimaging and CSF Findings in Patients with Autoimmune Encephalitis: a report of eight cases in a single academic center
We would like to thank the reviewer for the time they invested in improving the quality of our manuscript. Please see attached point-by-point changes/corrections or explanations to the reviewers’ comments.
Response to Reviewer comments
Response: Thank you for your feedbacks. We have copied your comment below with our responses following each comment. Changes in the manuscript are noted in both track change version and clean version.
The manuscript was improved based on reviewers' recommendations, but there are still minor changes that the authors could make. I would write in line 32 the full name of diseases and then use it as an abbreviation. Table 1: capital letters for "cases" and CSF in the 5th column.
Response: Thank you for your feedbacks. We have corrected the abbreviations (line 32) and capitalization (5th column of the table)
In Discussion: paragraph regarding the therapy should be replaced after presenting various subtypes.
Response: Thank you. We have moved discussion of treatments to line 279 in the track change version after subtypes.
For the bulleted list, I would not use a new paragraph for the sentence presenting the subtype, but I would write it immediately after the subtype's name (antibody).
Response: Thank you. We have made changes according to your recommendations. We agree these changes have made the manuscript cleaner and easier to read.
I would recommend adding a paragraph that would discuss the cases in light of what was presented in the Discussion: age, sex, CSF findings, imaging as the authors did for treatment.
Response: Thank you. We have added the discussion of age, sex, CSF and imaging findings and we believe this has strengthened our manuscript. Please see line 276-294 in the track change version.
