Title: Development and validation of a prognostic nomogram for gallbladder cancer patients
after surgery
Version: 3 Date: 16 Mar 2022
Reviewer:  Zhisong Liu
Reviewer's report:
(1) Answer: Thanks for your kindly suggestion. In our study, we used the “compareC” package
to compare the c-index of different models and calculated p-values. In the training set, the c-
index of the nomogram was 0.724, which was significantly higher than the Nevin staging system
(C-index = 0.671; P < 0.001) and the 8th TNM staging system (C-index = 0.682; P < 0.001).
In the validation set, the C-index of the nomogram was 0.715, which was also higher than the
Nevin staging system (C-index = 0.692; P < 0.05) and the 8th TNM staging system (C-index
= 0.688; P = 0.06).
Yes, your explanation is correct, but the corresponding explanation is still not reflected in the
Abstract. This may lead the readers to believe that you are simply comparing c-values rather
than statistical test.
(2) Answer: Thanks for your comments. Indeed, Figure 2 doesn’t show this message. We’ve
revised it in the manuscript. We also gave the full name of CI here.
It seems that you did not catch my idea. Information “with a median survival of 24 months [95%
confidence interval (CI), 22 to 27 months” can not be found in any Figures.
Title: Development and validation of a prognostic nomogram for gallbladder cancer patients
after surgery
Version: 3 Date: 16 Mar 2022
Reviewer:  Zhisong Liu
Reviewer's report:
(1) Answer: Thanks for your kindly suggestion. In our study, we used the “compareC” package
to compare the c-index of different models and calculated p-values. In the training set, the c-
index of the nomogram was 0.724, which was significantly higher than the Nevin staging system
(C-index = 0.671; P < 0.001) and the 8th TNM staging system (C-index = 0.682; P < 0.001).
In the validation set, the C-index of the nomogram was 0.715, which was also higher than the
Nevin staging system (C-index = 0.692; P < 0.05) and the 8th TNM staging system (C-index
= 0.688; P = 0.06).
Yes, your explanation is correct, but the corresponding explanation is still not reflected in the
Abstract. This may lead the readers to believe that you are simply comparing c-values rather
than statistical test.
(2) Answer: Thanks for your comments. Indeed, Figure 2 doesn’t show this message. We’ve
revised it in the manuscript. We also gave the full name of CI here.
It seems that you did not catch my idea. Information “with a median survival of 24 months [95%
confidence interval (CI), 22 to 27 months” can not be found in any Figures.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Development and validation of a prognostic nomogram for gallbladder cancer patients
after surgery
Version: 3 Date: 16 Mar 2022
Reviewer:  Zhisong Liu
Reviewer's report:
(1) Answer: Thanks for your kindly suggestion. In our study, we used the “compareC” package
to compare the c-index of different models and calculated p-values. In the training set, the c-
index of the nomogram was 0.724, which was significantly higher than the Nevin staging system
(C-index = 0.671; P < 0.001) and the 8th TNM staging system (C-index = 0.682; P < 0.001).
In the validation set, the C-index of the nomogram was 0.715, which was also higher than the
Nevin staging system (C-index = 0.692; P < 0.05) and the 8th TNM staging system (C-index
= 0.688; P = 0.06).
Yes, your explanation is correct, but the corresponding explanation is still not reflected in the
Abstract. This may lead the readers to believe that you are simply comparing c-values rather
than statistical test.
(2) Answer: Thanks for your comments. Indeed, Figure 2 doesn’t show this message. We’ve
revised it in the manuscript. We also gave the full name of CI here.
It seems that you did not catch my idea. Information “with a median survival of 24 months [95%
confidence interval (CI), 22 to 27 months” can not be found in any Figures.
assistant