Title: Clinical diagnostic value of methylated SEPT9 combined with NLR, PLR and LMR in
colorectal cancer
Version: 1 Date: 19 Jun 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (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 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?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The manuscript presents results on the predictive values of
several plasma biomarkers (mSEPT9, NLR, PLR and LMR) in colorectal cancer (CRC). The
authors recruited large enough cohorts of both patients and control groups, with a balanced
representation of different clinical characteristics. Overall, a study worth to read, with some
minor corrections.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
- The expression ""obviously higher values"" is used in both the abstract and discussion. Do the
authors mean ""significantly higher"" instead? In that case it would be desirable to quote the p-
value, at least in the discussion.
- There is an abundance of abbreviations in the manuscript, but not all of them are defined on first
usage. Please define as needed, since not all the readership will be familiar with all the terms.
- I would recommend to add the clinical characteristics of the cohorts recruited as a table, with
averages for ages, N men/women, etc., to easily give an overview of the cohorts.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
- ""In compliance with the result"", ""at last"", ""there is a dearth of study"" among other
expressions are not used correctly in the text. Please revise the manuscript for English usage.
Title: Clinical diagnostic value of methylated SEPT9 combined with NLR, PLR and LMR in
colorectal cancer
Version: 1 Date: 19 Jun 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (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 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?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The manuscript presents results on the predictive values of
several plasma biomarkers (mSEPT9, NLR, PLR and LMR) in colorectal cancer (CRC). The
authors recruited large enough cohorts of both patients and control groups, with a balanced
representation of different clinical characteristics. Overall, a study worth to read, with some
minor corrections.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
- The expression ""obviously higher values"" is used in both the abstract and discussion. Do the
authors mean ""significantly higher"" instead? In that case it would be desirable to quote the p-
value, at least in the discussion.
- There is an abundance of abbreviations in the manuscript, but not all of them are defined on first
usage. Please define as needed, since not all the readership will be familiar with all the terms.
- I would recommend to add the clinical characteristics of the cohorts recruited as a table, with
averages for ages, N men/women, etc., to easily give an overview of the cohorts.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
- ""In compliance with the result"", ""at last"", ""there is a dearth of study"" among other
expressions are not used correctly in the text. Please revise the manuscript for English usage.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Clinical diagnostic value of methylated SEPT9 combined with NLR, PLR and LMR in
colorectal cancer
Version: 1 Date: 19 Jun 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (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 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?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The manuscript presents results on the predictive values of
several plasma biomarkers (mSEPT9, NLR, PLR and LMR) in colorectal cancer (CRC). The
authors recruited large enough cohorts of both patients and control groups, with a balanced
representation of different clinical characteristics. Overall, a study worth to read, with some
minor corrections.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
- The expression ""obviously higher values"" is used in both the abstract and discussion. Do the
authors mean ""significantly higher"" instead? In that case it would be desirable to quote the p-
value, at least in the discussion.
- There is an abundance of abbreviations in the manuscript, but not all of them are defined on first
usage. Please define as needed, since not all the readership will be familiar with all the terms.
- I would recommend to add the clinical characteristics of the cohorts recruited as a table, with
averages for ages, N men/women, etc., to easily give an overview of the cohorts.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
- ""In compliance with the result"", ""at last"", ""there is a dearth of study"" among other
expressions are not used correctly in the text. Please revise the manuscript for English usage.
assistant