Title: Development and validation of an interpretable machine learning model for predicting
the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with chronic hepatitis B: a case-control study
Version: 3 Date: 07 Jan 2025
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?
No - there are minor issues
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?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: I thank the authors for their thorough and comprehensive responses
to my previous comments. Most of my concerns have been fully addressed, and I am largely
satisfied with the current version of the manuscript. However, there is one remaining issue that
requires further clarification: the authors should provide the 95% confidence intervals for the
model performance metrics presented in Table 3.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The authors should provide the 95% confidence intervals for the model performance metrics
presented in Table 3.
Title: Development and validation of an interpretable machine learning model for predicting
the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with chronic hepatitis B: a case-control study
Version: 3 Date: 07 Jan 2025
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?
No - there are minor issues
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?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: I thank the authors for their thorough and comprehensive responses
to my previous comments. Most of my concerns have been fully addressed, and I am largely
satisfied with the current version of the manuscript. However, there is one remaining issue that
requires further clarification: the authors should provide the 95% confidence intervals for the
model performance metrics presented in Table 3.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The authors should provide the 95% confidence intervals for the model performance metrics
presented in Table 3.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Development and validation of an interpretable machine learning model for predicting
the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with chronic hepatitis B: a case-control study
Version: 3 Date: 07 Jan 2025
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?
No - there are minor issues
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?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: I thank the authors for their thorough and comprehensive responses
to my previous comments. Most of my concerns have been fully addressed, and I am largely
satisfied with the current version of the manuscript. However, there is one remaining issue that
requires further clarification: the authors should provide the 95% confidence intervals for the
model performance metrics presented in Table 3.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The authors should provide the 95% confidence intervals for the model performance metrics
presented in Table 3.
assistant