Title: A Postsurgical Prognostic Nomogram for Patients with Lymph Node Positive
Rectosigmoid Junction Adenocarcinoma
Version: 4 Date: 21 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: I was not a previous reviewer. I read the responses to the prior
reviewers, but I did not actually have the prior reviews. Unfortunately, the authors did not copy
the prior comments into their response letter. However, the responses suggest the prior comments
were relatively minor. The authors used standard of care methods, including a nomogram,
concordance indices, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, calibration curves, and an
internal validation cohort. The methods adhere to the typical nomogram development paradigm.
Based on the paper and the responses, I think the paper has been improved.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Minor comment: The authors could define the “All” and “None” labels in Figure 5, perhaps in
the figure caption (DCA curve)."
Title: A Postsurgical Prognostic Nomogram for Patients with Lymph Node Positive
Rectosigmoid Junction Adenocarcinoma
Version: 4 Date: 21 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: I was not a previous reviewer. I read the responses to the prior
reviewers, but I did not actually have the prior reviews. Unfortunately, the authors did not copy
the prior comments into their response letter. However, the responses suggest the prior comments
were relatively minor. The authors used standard of care methods, including a nomogram,
concordance indices, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, calibration curves, and an
internal validation cohort. The methods adhere to the typical nomogram development paradigm.
Based on the paper and the responses, I think the paper has been improved.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Minor comment: The authors could define the “All” and “None” labels in Figure 5, perhaps in
the figure caption (DCA curve)."
Please review this paper.
user
Title: A Postsurgical Prognostic Nomogram for Patients with Lymph Node Positive
Rectosigmoid Junction Adenocarcinoma
Version: 4 Date: 21 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: I was not a previous reviewer. I read the responses to the prior
reviewers, but I did not actually have the prior reviews. Unfortunately, the authors did not copy
the prior comments into their response letter. However, the responses suggest the prior comments
were relatively minor. The authors used standard of care methods, including a nomogram,
concordance indices, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, calibration curves, and an
internal validation cohort. The methods adhere to the typical nomogram development paradigm.
Based on the paper and the responses, I think the paper has been improved.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Minor comment: The authors could define the “All” and “None” labels in Figure 5, perhaps in
the figure caption (DCA curve)."
assistant