Title: A Nomogram for predicting cause-specific mortality among patients with cecal
carcinoma: A study based on SEER database
Version: 0 Date: 29 Mar 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors identified some independent predictor variables for predicting cause-specific
mortality among patients with cecal carcinoma by analyzing SEER database. The manuscript
benefits cecal carcinoma clinical study. However, there are some points that need to be
addressed.
Comment 1: The first major defect of this study is the debate or argument is not clear stated in
the introduction session. Hence, the contribution is weak in this manuscript. I would suggest the
authors to enhance their theoretical discussion and arrives their debate or argument.
Comment 2: It is preferable to write the  summary (abstract) of the study in a clearer and more
comprehensive manner in order to reflect the study.
Comment 3: It is suggested to present the structure of the article at the end of the introduction.
Comment 4: In the statistical analysis part, only what is related to the statistical analysis that
was conducted in the study should be written.
Comment 5: The second major defect of this study is the interpretations of  results was not
enough, so  much more explanations and interpretations must be added for the results.
Comment 6: More suitable title should be presented for each figures.
Comment 7: It is suggested to compare the results of the present study with some similar studies
which is done before.
Comment 8: Please revise your conclusion part into more details. Basically, you should enhance
your contributions, limitations, underscore the scientific value added of your paper, and/or the
applicability of your findings/results and future study in this session.
Comment 9: It is best to review the manuscript in relation to the language.
Comment 10: Some of the paragraphs in the manuscript should be repositioned to its
correct position., so please rearrange it. For example page 5 “The demographic and clinical
characteristics of patients were obtained for the analysis of the training and validation dataset.”
And   “As for tumor characteristics, TNM staging conformed to the seventh edition of the AJCC
Cancer Staging Manual, stage grouping was in line with AJCC Stage third edition, and tumor
grading was determined according to the International Classification of Diseases Oncology
second edition (ICD-O-2).”
Title: A Nomogram for predicting cause-specific mortality among patients with cecal
carcinoma: A study based on SEER database
Version: 0 Date: 29 Mar 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors identified some independent predictor variables for predicting cause-specific
mortality among patients with cecal carcinoma by analyzing SEER database. The manuscript
benefits cecal carcinoma clinical study. However, there are some points that need to be
addressed.
Comment 1: The first major defect of this study is the debate or argument is not clear stated in
the introduction session. Hence, the contribution is weak in this manuscript. I would suggest the
authors to enhance their theoretical discussion and arrives their debate or argument.
Comment 2: It is preferable to write the  summary (abstract) of the study in a clearer and more
comprehensive manner in order to reflect the study.
Comment 3: It is suggested to present the structure of the article at the end of the introduction.
Comment 4: In the statistical analysis part, only what is related to the statistical analysis that
was conducted in the study should be written.
Comment 5: The second major defect of this study is the interpretations of  results was not
enough, so  much more explanations and interpretations must be added for the results.
Comment 6: More suitable title should be presented for each figures.
Comment 7: It is suggested to compare the results of the present study with some similar studies
which is done before.
Comment 8: Please revise your conclusion part into more details. Basically, you should enhance
your contributions, limitations, underscore the scientific value added of your paper, and/or the
applicability of your findings/results and future study in this session.
Comment 9: It is best to review the manuscript in relation to the language.
Comment 10: Some of the paragraphs in the manuscript should be repositioned to its
correct position., so please rearrange it. For example page 5 “The demographic and clinical
characteristics of patients were obtained for the analysis of the training and validation dataset.”
And   “As for tumor characteristics, TNM staging conformed to the seventh edition of the AJCC
Cancer Staging Manual, stage grouping was in line with AJCC Stage third edition, and tumor
grading was determined according to the International Classification of Diseases Oncology
second edition (ICD-O-2).”
Please review this paper.
user
Title: A Nomogram for predicting cause-specific mortality among patients with cecal
carcinoma: A study based on SEER database
Version: 0 Date: 29 Mar 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors identified some independent predictor variables for predicting cause-specific
mortality among patients with cecal carcinoma by analyzing SEER database. The manuscript
benefits cecal carcinoma clinical study. However, there are some points that need to be
addressed.
Comment 1: The first major defect of this study is the debate or argument is not clear stated in
the introduction session. Hence, the contribution is weak in this manuscript. I would suggest the
authors to enhance their theoretical discussion and arrives their debate or argument.
Comment 2: It is preferable to write the  summary (abstract) of the study in a clearer and more
comprehensive manner in order to reflect the study.
Comment 3: It is suggested to present the structure of the article at the end of the introduction.
Comment 4: In the statistical analysis part, only what is related to the statistical analysis that
was conducted in the study should be written.
Comment 5: The second major defect of this study is the interpretations of  results was not
enough, so  much more explanations and interpretations must be added for the results.
Comment 6: More suitable title should be presented for each figures.
Comment 7: It is suggested to compare the results of the present study with some similar studies
which is done before.
Comment 8: Please revise your conclusion part into more details. Basically, you should enhance
your contributions, limitations, underscore the scientific value added of your paper, and/or the
applicability of your findings/results and future study in this session.
Comment 9: It is best to review the manuscript in relation to the language.
Comment 10: Some of the paragraphs in the manuscript should be repositioned to its
correct position., so please rearrange it. For example page 5 “The demographic and clinical
characteristics of patients were obtained for the analysis of the training and validation dataset.”
And   “As for tumor characteristics, TNM staging conformed to the seventh edition of the AJCC
Cancer Staging Manual, stage grouping was in line with AJCC Stage third edition, and tumor
grading was determined according to the International Classification of Diseases Oncology
second edition (ICD-O-2).”
assistant