Title: Construction and validation of a survival prognostic model for stage III hepatocellular
carcinoma: a real-world, multicenter clinical study
Version: 2 Date: 27 Jan 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors, warm regards to you, and thank you for your work on this manuscript. I would
like to offer the following feedback:
General comments: The manuscript needs significant language editing to make it more concise.
There are language errors and phrasing that can be improved.
Materials and methods: I found this section to require some clarification. Validation of the model
is detailed, but the process of selecting the variables for the model is not.
"consistency index," perhaps the authors mean the concordance index (c-index)?
It is not clearly stated how the 'rms', 'foreign' and 'survival' packages were used in R. Perhaps the
"foreign" package was used to read the data? And "rms" used to fit the model?  Please clarify.
How the determination of the optimal cut-off values was determined using Kaplan-Meier is not
clear too.
Discussion: Elements already introduced in the introduction section are repeated in the
discussion section. I think it may be better for this section to focus primarily on explaining the
authors' findings.
*Figure 6 is not clear.
Title: Construction and validation of a survival prognostic model for stage III hepatocellular
carcinoma: a real-world, multicenter clinical study
Version: 2 Date: 27 Jan 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors, warm regards to you, and thank you for your work on this manuscript. I would
like to offer the following feedback:
General comments: The manuscript needs significant language editing to make it more concise.
There are language errors and phrasing that can be improved.
Materials and methods: I found this section to require some clarification. Validation of the model
is detailed, but the process of selecting the variables for the model is not.
"consistency index," perhaps the authors mean the concordance index (c-index)?
It is not clearly stated how the 'rms', 'foreign' and 'survival' packages were used in R. Perhaps the
"foreign" package was used to read the data? And "rms" used to fit the model?  Please clarify.
How the determination of the optimal cut-off values was determined using Kaplan-Meier is not
clear too.
Discussion: Elements already introduced in the introduction section are repeated in the
discussion section. I think it may be better for this section to focus primarily on explaining the
authors' findings.
*Figure 6 is not clear.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Construction and validation of a survival prognostic model for stage III hepatocellular
carcinoma: a real-world, multicenter clinical study
Version: 2 Date: 27 Jan 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors, warm regards to you, and thank you for your work on this manuscript. I would
like to offer the following feedback:
General comments: The manuscript needs significant language editing to make it more concise.
There are language errors and phrasing that can be improved.
Materials and methods: I found this section to require some clarification. Validation of the model
is detailed, but the process of selecting the variables for the model is not.
"consistency index," perhaps the authors mean the concordance index (c-index)?
It is not clearly stated how the 'rms', 'foreign' and 'survival' packages were used in R. Perhaps the
"foreign" package was used to read the data? And "rms" used to fit the model?  Please clarify.
How the determination of the optimal cut-off values was determined using Kaplan-Meier is not
clear too.
Discussion: Elements already introduced in the introduction section are repeated in the
discussion section. I think it may be better for this section to focus primarily on explaining the
authors' findings.
*Figure 6 is not clear.
assistant