We read with great interest the article by Chen et al. (1) The authors state "Our porcine hepatectomy model was developed based on modifications of previously described techniques. Liver resection was entirely guided by anatomical landmarks to avoid potential surgeon bias. As a result, the model was very reproducible, despite previous studies with large animal models of acute liver failure." Unfortunately, these statements and citations are not scientifically valid and, in our opinion, may lead readers to the wrong conclusion, especially young researchers who are looking for a valid model.The authors claim that published animal models, including one described in their own previous study, need modifying to prevent bias and to make them reproducible. These modifications need to be explained and clarified, but the authors have failed to provide this information. In the surgical methods section of their study, the reader can only find information about the landmarks for segment 2 and 3 resection (25% resection). The authors have cited the study of Nedredal et al. (2) to describe their surgical method, but information on how liver resection was performed was also missing from this study, since no resection has been performed. Considering the anatomical similarities between pigs and humans, a porcine model of liver resection can still be considered a clinically relevant and valid simulation. (3,4) Finally, the authors resected 85% of the liver in their porcine model. We believe this is not an optimal method for inducing posthepatectomy liver failure and have explained this issue in detail previously. (5)