Title: Lipid Levels and Insulin Resistance Markers in Gastric Cancer Patients: Diagnostic and
Prognostic Significance
Version: 2 Date: 12 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear fellow scientist,
Thank you for conducting this study. It is a well-executed and solid piece of research, with
relevant sections that are clearly described in the results.
However, the Methods section could benefit from more structure. It would help to start
by outlining the endpoints and hypothesis and creating clear subsections. Currently, it feels
somewhat disorganized, and it's difficult to follow exactly what you did and how.
I recommend providing more detailed descriptions for each step in the Methods section to make
the process clearer.
Regarding the Discussion, it’s not quite optimal yet. While you offer a lot of theory and
explanations of how certain concepts work or why they were used, I miss a true discussion. What
are your own conclusions? What do other studies say, and how can we apply these findings in
practice?
The study is particularly strong because of the control group, which underwent propensity score
matching (PSM). So, my compliments for that. Make sure to use that data and critically reflect
on what could have been done better.
Also, why is "The identification of cost-effective..." mentioned at the start of the Discussion
when the article doesn’t address this topic? Begin the discussion by focusing on the study design,
what you found, and then delve into the deeper implications. This is currently missing.
Finally, how did you arrive at the sample sizes of 215 and 827 patients? This needs to be
explained.
Other than that, I have no further comments. I thoroughly enjoyed reading your study and would
like to offer my compliments.
Title: Lipid Levels and Insulin Resistance Markers in Gastric Cancer Patients: Diagnostic and
Prognostic Significance
Version: 2 Date: 12 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear fellow scientist,
Thank you for conducting this study. It is a well-executed and solid piece of research, with
relevant sections that are clearly described in the results.
However, the Methods section could benefit from more structure. It would help to start
by outlining the endpoints and hypothesis and creating clear subsections. Currently, it feels
somewhat disorganized, and it's difficult to follow exactly what you did and how.
I recommend providing more detailed descriptions for each step in the Methods section to make
the process clearer.
Regarding the Discussion, it’s not quite optimal yet. While you offer a lot of theory and
explanations of how certain concepts work or why they were used, I miss a true discussion. What
are your own conclusions? What do other studies say, and how can we apply these findings in
practice?
The study is particularly strong because of the control group, which underwent propensity score
matching (PSM). So, my compliments for that. Make sure to use that data and critically reflect
on what could have been done better.
Also, why is "The identification of cost-effective..." mentioned at the start of the Discussion
when the article doesn’t address this topic? Begin the discussion by focusing on the study design,
what you found, and then delve into the deeper implications. This is currently missing.
Finally, how did you arrive at the sample sizes of 215 and 827 patients? This needs to be
explained.
Other than that, I have no further comments. I thoroughly enjoyed reading your study and would
like to offer my compliments.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Lipid Levels and Insulin Resistance Markers in Gastric Cancer Patients: Diagnostic and
Prognostic Significance
Version: 2 Date: 12 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear fellow scientist,
Thank you for conducting this study. It is a well-executed and solid piece of research, with
relevant sections that are clearly described in the results.
However, the Methods section could benefit from more structure. It would help to start
by outlining the endpoints and hypothesis and creating clear subsections. Currently, it feels
somewhat disorganized, and it's difficult to follow exactly what you did and how.
I recommend providing more detailed descriptions for each step in the Methods section to make
the process clearer.
Regarding the Discussion, it’s not quite optimal yet. While you offer a lot of theory and
explanations of how certain concepts work or why they were used, I miss a true discussion. What
are your own conclusions? What do other studies say, and how can we apply these findings in
practice?
The study is particularly strong because of the control group, which underwent propensity score
matching (PSM). So, my compliments for that. Make sure to use that data and critically reflect
on what could have been done better.
Also, why is "The identification of cost-effective..." mentioned at the start of the Discussion
when the article doesn’t address this topic? Begin the discussion by focusing on the study design,
what you found, and then delve into the deeper implications. This is currently missing.
Finally, how did you arrive at the sample sizes of 215 and 827 patients? This needs to be
explained.
Other than that, I have no further comments. I thoroughly enjoyed reading your study and would
like to offer my compliments.
assistant