Title: Integrin #5, a noninvasive diagnostic biomarker, is associated with unfavorable prognosis
and immunotherapy efficacy in gastric cancer
Version: 0 Date: 28 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear Colleague,
Thank you for conducting this research. I would like to discuss a few points with you.
Firstly, the manuscript contains numerous grammatical and flow-related errors. Please review
and correct these to ensure clarity and coherence.
In the introduction, you state: "It is often the case that the bulk of GC diagnoses occur in the late
stages of disease during their initial visit, inevitably leading to a 5-year survival rate of under
10% and a lack of effective biomarkers for diagnosis and targeted therapeutic interventions."
Therefore, you test ITGB5 between two groups: one with 375 cases of GC and 32 controls.
However, to validate this properly with a control group, you need to ensure an overpowered
control group. This is typically in a 1:2 or even 1:4 ratio to confirm that the degree of occurrence
and control is corrected. Here, you use only 32 controls, which significantly diminishes the
power of detecting ITGB5 or any biomarker. This methodology appears flawed, and a larger
control group is necessary.
The introduction outlines the difficulty of early detection, so how do you plan to implement this
practically? Considering that patients usually present at late stages, what is your aim? To detect
tumors earlier? Please elaborate on the practical implications of your findings.
Regarding the statistical analysis, while your methods are correct, they are rather basic. You
compare groups and determine the presence or absence of significance. However, GC patients
and controls differ substantially in disease stages, necessitating matching to ensure each GC
patient has an identical control without GC.
From an epidemiological standpoint, it is crucial to ensure no confounding factors in both groups
could skew the results. This analysis appears to be missing.
You use Cox regression analysis, but with only 32 controls, you can officially correct for
only three variables. You do not have unlimited access to all variables, as the smallest group
determines your capacity for correction, not the 375 cases. For instance, you cite age as a value,
but has this been corrected for as a confounder, given that GC is typically diagnosed at a late
stage? The same question applies to the disease stage. age was not significant, but how was this
corrected, and does this still hold in stratification?
The results section is seven pages long but fails to clearly present key points. Given the
aforementioned limitations, many of the results raise doubts. How do you apply correlations
with other immune checkpoint-related mRNA in daily practice? This and comparisons to other
literature and implications for future practice are missing from the discussion.
In summary, the study presents numerous uncertainties and lacks clarity on how to proceed and
the contribution of regression analyses. As it stands, the manuscript is not ready for publication.
Best regards,
Title: Integrin #5, a noninvasive diagnostic biomarker, is associated with unfavorable prognosis
and immunotherapy efficacy in gastric cancer
Version: 0 Date: 28 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear Colleague,
Thank you for conducting this research. I would like to discuss a few points with you.
Firstly, the manuscript contains numerous grammatical and flow-related errors. Please review
and correct these to ensure clarity and coherence.
In the introduction, you state: "It is often the case that the bulk of GC diagnoses occur in the late
stages of disease during their initial visit, inevitably leading to a 5-year survival rate of under
10% and a lack of effective biomarkers for diagnosis and targeted therapeutic interventions."
Therefore, you test ITGB5 between two groups: one with 375 cases of GC and 32 controls.
However, to validate this properly with a control group, you need to ensure an overpowered
control group. This is typically in a 1:2 or even 1:4 ratio to confirm that the degree of occurrence
and control is corrected. Here, you use only 32 controls, which significantly diminishes the
power of detecting ITGB5 or any biomarker. This methodology appears flawed, and a larger
control group is necessary.
The introduction outlines the difficulty of early detection, so how do you plan to implement this
practically? Considering that patients usually present at late stages, what is your aim? To detect
tumors earlier? Please elaborate on the practical implications of your findings.
Regarding the statistical analysis, while your methods are correct, they are rather basic. You
compare groups and determine the presence or absence of significance. However, GC patients
and controls differ substantially in disease stages, necessitating matching to ensure each GC
patient has an identical control without GC.
From an epidemiological standpoint, it is crucial to ensure no confounding factors in both groups
could skew the results. This analysis appears to be missing.
You use Cox regression analysis, but with only 32 controls, you can officially correct for
only three variables. You do not have unlimited access to all variables, as the smallest group
determines your capacity for correction, not the 375 cases. For instance, you cite age as a value,
but has this been corrected for as a confounder, given that GC is typically diagnosed at a late
stage? The same question applies to the disease stage. age was not significant, but how was this
corrected, and does this still hold in stratification?
The results section is seven pages long but fails to clearly present key points. Given the
aforementioned limitations, many of the results raise doubts. How do you apply correlations
with other immune checkpoint-related mRNA in daily practice? This and comparisons to other
literature and implications for future practice are missing from the discussion.
In summary, the study presents numerous uncertainties and lacks clarity on how to proceed and
the contribution of regression analyses. As it stands, the manuscript is not ready for publication.
Best regards,
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Integrin #5, a noninvasive diagnostic biomarker, is associated with unfavorable prognosis
and immunotherapy efficacy in gastric cancer
Version: 0 Date: 28 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear Colleague,
Thank you for conducting this research. I would like to discuss a few points with you.
Firstly, the manuscript contains numerous grammatical and flow-related errors. Please review
and correct these to ensure clarity and coherence.
In the introduction, you state: "It is often the case that the bulk of GC diagnoses occur in the late
stages of disease during their initial visit, inevitably leading to a 5-year survival rate of under
10% and a lack of effective biomarkers for diagnosis and targeted therapeutic interventions."
Therefore, you test ITGB5 between two groups: one with 375 cases of GC and 32 controls.
However, to validate this properly with a control group, you need to ensure an overpowered
control group. This is typically in a 1:2 or even 1:4 ratio to confirm that the degree of occurrence
and control is corrected. Here, you use only 32 controls, which significantly diminishes the
power of detecting ITGB5 or any biomarker. This methodology appears flawed, and a larger
control group is necessary.
The introduction outlines the difficulty of early detection, so how do you plan to implement this
practically? Considering that patients usually present at late stages, what is your aim? To detect
tumors earlier? Please elaborate on the practical implications of your findings.
Regarding the statistical analysis, while your methods are correct, they are rather basic. You
compare groups and determine the presence or absence of significance. However, GC patients
and controls differ substantially in disease stages, necessitating matching to ensure each GC
patient has an identical control without GC.
From an epidemiological standpoint, it is crucial to ensure no confounding factors in both groups
could skew the results. This analysis appears to be missing.
You use Cox regression analysis, but with only 32 controls, you can officially correct for
only three variables. You do not have unlimited access to all variables, as the smallest group
determines your capacity for correction, not the 375 cases. For instance, you cite age as a value,
but has this been corrected for as a confounder, given that GC is typically diagnosed at a late
stage? The same question applies to the disease stage. age was not significant, but how was this
corrected, and does this still hold in stratification?
The results section is seven pages long but fails to clearly present key points. Given the
aforementioned limitations, many of the results raise doubts. How do you apply correlations
with other immune checkpoint-related mRNA in daily practice? This and comparisons to other
literature and implications for future practice are missing from the discussion.
In summary, the study presents numerous uncertainties and lacks clarity on how to proceed and
the contribution of regression analyses. As it stands, the manuscript is not ready for publication.
Best regards,
assistant