Development of a New Treatment for Lung Diseases, Mainly Interstitial Pneumonia, Using Platinum-Palladium: A Pilot Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article tried to describe the possibility of a new treatment for patients with interstitial pneumonia. Still, the study design is not clear, the definition of interstitial is not clear, and the classification in acute or chronic, infectious or fibrosing, idiopathic or non-idiopathic is not done, and is not according to the ATS/ERS classification. The comparative effect on COPD and the assertion that the effect would be similar in  IPF is strange. The definition of COPD is not accurate.

The efficacity of platinum-palladium on stomach and colon  cancer  is not published ( without reference)

In this study, the authors reported cases of COPD and interstitial pneumonia. 

2.1 is only one case with interstitial pneumonia ( IPF, Hypersensitivity pneumonitis, drug-induced pneumonia ? What kind of interstitial pneumonia?  HRCT could help....

2.2 progress of the disease?

It is not clear, and is not really relevant... material and method is not clearly described

3. Measurement in vivo and vitro of what?

It is not clear the design of the study, the aims, the objectives, the material, and the methods:

3.1 The measurement of AMPK  (twice?) material/methods?

3.2  The measurement of KL-6 on 16 patients with what characteristics?

3.2 The measurement of blood hydrogen peroxidase on 12 patients without any characteristics also

figure 1, 2 3 without relevance

3.4 study on the symptoms of 32 patients...??

In results, we found that we have a placebo group

We don t know anything about what statistical methods used

neither the discussion was better.. some information without reference; general assumptions and with a lot of problems

There is no conclusion in the paper

For this reason, I consider that is not suitable for publication

Author Response

Thank you for pointing that out.
As you say, I had been confusing interstitial pneumonia with COPD, but there was indeed a tendency for improvement in patients with interstitial pneumonia and COPD.
However, as you pointed out, there was confusion, so I have changed the title this time and rewritten it to focus mainly on interstitial pneumonia and provide a brief explanation of COPD.

In addition, you pointed out that there are still unknown aspects of this research, so I would like to treat it as a "pilot study."

I will send you the revised manuscript, so I appreciate your cooperation.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic is in interesting. The paper quite well written.

I have some comments:

1)   Abstract might be beneficial to include a sentence that briefly summarizes the key findings of the study. This can provide readers with a quick overview of the research.

 

2)  Introduction section should be elaborated.  The objective of this study should be clearly explained.

3) 2. Materials and Methods. I suggest to clarify the inclusion and the exclusion criteria to support the conclusions.

4) Please, clarify the characteristics of study population

5) 3. Measurements. In addition, in order to measure the 154 current activity of AMPK with this kit, AMPK activity was confirmed 1 hour, 12 hours, 155 and 24 hours after addition. In addition, the evaluation was performed statistically using 156 the Mann–Whitney U test using statistical processing software (IBM SPSS Statistics 157 Ver.29).

I suggest to improve the description of statistical tests used to evaluate the data to clarify the and support the conclusions.

 

6) 4. Results 189 4.1. AMPK measurement 190 To measure the activity of MPK, platinum palladium was administered to MCF-7 191 and the percentage was calculated from the absorbance, with the following results being 192 obtained. With the control group taken as 100%, it was confirmed that the activity had 193 increased significantly in all groups at a significance level of 1%. (Table 1, Figure 4). Results section should be specified.  This section is quite complicated, it should be simplified.

 

7) 5. Discussion 256 This is a case report of platinum-palladium improving the condition of interstitial 257 pneumonia. In addition to this case, there have been many reports of improvement in 258 interstitial pneumonia and COPD at other clinics, and platinum-palladium has been used 259 in many cases. Discussion and conclusion section should be specified. Conclusion part of discussion should be added.

8) Diagnostic limitations of this study should be summarized in discussion section.

 

Author Response

Thank you for pointing that out.
I have revised the manuscript based on what you said.
Also, since I would like to treat this research as a pilot study, I have changed the title.

Thank you for checking.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study presents an exploration of the potential therapeutic effects of platinum-palladium (Pt-Pd) functional nutritional water in treating interstitial pneumonia (IP) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). While the study provides intriguing findings regarding the antioxidant and AMPK-activating properties of Pt-Pd, several methodological, scientific, and interpretational concerns must be addressed to ensure the robustness and credibility of the findings.

• It is advisable to undertake diligent proofreading to rectify grammatical errors in the manuscript that would enhance the overall readability of the paper.
• While the study emphasizes the antioxidant properties of Pt-Pd, there is insufficient mechanistic explanation as to how Pt-Pd influences AMPK activation and subsequent lung function improvement.
• The study claims that Pt-Pd can selectively remove ROS, but no detailed biochemical evidence (e.g., enzymatic pathways or molecular interactions) is provided to support this hypothesis.
• The study is based on a limited number of subjects. Given the small sample size, the reported effects may be subject to random variability.
• There is no clearly defined placebo or control group to compare against the intervention group, making it difficult to attribute observed improvements solely to Pt-Pd.
• The absence of blinding and randomization in patient selection introduces a risk of bias.
• While the study reports patient age, sex, and smoking history, no comprehensive demographic or comorbidity data are presented. These factors could significantly influence disease progression and response to intervention.
• It remains unclear whether pre-existing medical conditions or concurrent treatments could have confounded the results.
• The study does not mention a power analysis to justify the chosen sample sizes. A larger cohort would be needed to determine the statistical reliability of the results.
• The experimental conditions are not well explained (e.g., cell line handling, culture conditions, potential confounding factors).
• No validation through alternative techniques (e.g., western blotting for AMPK phosphorylation) is presented.
• The biological plausibility of an 800% increase in AMPK activity is questionable and should be interpreted with caution.
• The study claims that KL-6 levels significantly decreased following Pt-Pd administration, but the magnitude of the decrease is not clearly specified.
• The correlation between KL-6 reduction and actual clinical improvement in lung function is not rigorously established.
• No longitudinal follow-up data are presented to confirm whether these effects were sustained over time.
• The lack of animal model studies to confirm these mechanisms weakens the translational value of the findings.
• At present, the study's conclusions should be interpreted with caution, and claims regarding the pharmaceutical efficacy of Pt-Pd should be tempered until more robust evidence is available.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Can be improved.

Author Response

Thank you for pointing that out.
I have revised the manuscript based on what you said.
Also, since I would like to treat this research as a pilot study, I have changed the title.

Thank you for checking.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been improved, no further comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have improved the quality of their review in this revised manuscript. The authors have addressed all my comments and critiques, thereby I recommend this manuscript for publication.