Clinical profile of patients presenting with thiamine-responsive upper-gastrointestinal upset: A pointer toward gastric beriberi

•we thank the reviewer for the suggestion. The data included in the discussion section has now been moved to results. The data from previous studies albeit less, has been compared with our results as suggested (Page: 5-6; Line no: 155-183).•The patient grouping were determined as per the clinical presentation, and the text has been modified accordingly. This now reads as “Considering the pattern of presentation and precipitating factors of thiamine deficiency, the cases were stratified in to five broad categories as Group. I: (Poor dietary intake) Poor dietary intake either due to psychiatric illness or due to loss of appetite or voluntary refusal. Group II: (AGE) The patients with a shorter duration of illness and symptoms precipitated by acute gastroenteritis. Those who had lactic acidosis disproportionate to hemodynamic compromise and responded quickly to thiamine replacement. Group III: (Comorbid illness) Elderly subjects generally with multiple comorbid illnesses. Group IV: (Pregnancy Related) Pregnant women with protracted vomiting. Group V: (vicious cycle) Patients having vicious cycle of recurrent vomiting triggered by variety of factors (e.g., drugs, adrenal insufficiency etc). These patients responded to withdrawal of triggers or giving steroids only after administration of thiamine. Thiamine response was also dramatic in this group and did not respond to withdrawal of offending drugs in drug-induced and giving steroids in Adrenal insufficiency”. (Page No: 03; Line no: 78-89).•The Statistical methods employed have been described in the methodology section (Page No: 03; Line no: 90-95).•No, we did not measure serum magnesium levels nor was magnesium administered. This would have definitely improved the confidence on over results. This has been added as limiting factor in the present study. (Page No: 10; Line no: 290-294)•The details of the statistical analysis employed has been incorporated in the methodology section (Page No: 03, Line no:90-95) and has been presented in Table:1, 2 and 3.•We thank the reviewer for pointing out this typo error, the data actually is 1610.68±310.61 and 1700.73±303.70 for males and females respectively and the same has been modified in the Table 2. It was a typographical error.•Comparison between different groups was done using One Way ANOVA. Results are modified accordingly and presented in Tables 1-3. Discussion has also been modified as per the suggestions from the reviewer.•Along with the full dietary assessment,