Reviewer's report
Title:Computational Prediction and Experimental Validation Associating FABP-1
and Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma with Diabetes
Version: 1Date:19 September 2010
Reviewer: Per Bendix Jeppesen
Reviewer's report:
The paper is well written and clear in its message. The data are very interesting
and will give us new important knowledge about how we in the future may predict
harmful cancer diseases.
However, I find the results are very descriptive even the authors mention that this
is the first study to attempt FABP-1 association for pancreatic Adenocarcinoma.
You may also ask if the numbers of sample (patents) is high enough to make the
statement that the authors do in this paper. Overall, I admits the importance of
this study, as a possible new instrument to detect this severe fatal disease.
As a pilot study, I think the paper should be accepted as a short communication,
and then later, when new and more maintenance definitive data are ready.
Minor Essential revisions:
1) P 6 L4. Should be [11, 12]
2) Is there a reason why the authors don’t use Type 2 Diabetes instead of
Diabetes mellitus.
3) P 15 L 17. Should be [3]
4) Would be nice if you could corrects for the age difference between normal and
cancer group, as we know that type 2 diabetes is offend are related to age.
5) Further explanations needed for fig 2. Please illustrate on the pictures, the
main differences.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests' below
Reviewer's report
Title:Computational Prediction and Experimental Validation Associating FABP-1
and Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma with Diabetes
Version: 1Date:19 September 2010
Reviewer: Per Bendix Jeppesen
Reviewer's report:
The paper is well written and clear in its message. The data are very interesting
and will give us new important knowledge about how we in the future may predict
harmful cancer diseases.
However, I find the results are very descriptive even the authors mention that this
is the first study to attempt FABP-1 association for pancreatic Adenocarcinoma.
You may also ask if the numbers of sample (patents) is high enough to make the
statement that the authors do in this paper. Overall, I admits the importance of
this study, as a possible new instrument to detect this severe fatal disease.
As a pilot study, I think the paper should be accepted as a short communication,
and then later, when new and more maintenance definitive data are ready.
Minor Essential revisions:
1) P 6 L4. Should be [11, 12]
2) Is there a reason why the authors don’t use Type 2 Diabetes instead of
Diabetes mellitus.
3) P 15 L 17. Should be [3]
4) Would be nice if you could corrects for the age difference between normal and
cancer group, as we know that type 2 diabetes is offend are related to age.
5) Further explanations needed for fig 2. Please illustrate on the pictures, the
main differences.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests' below
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Computational Prediction and Experimental Validation Associating FABP-1
and Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma with Diabetes
Version: 1Date:19 September 2010
Reviewer: Per Bendix Jeppesen
Reviewer's report:
The paper is well written and clear in its message. The data are very interesting
and will give us new important knowledge about how we in the future may predict
harmful cancer diseases.
However, I find the results are very descriptive even the authors mention that this
is the first study to attempt FABP-1 association for pancreatic Adenocarcinoma.
You may also ask if the numbers of sample (patents) is high enough to make the
statement that the authors do in this paper. Overall, I admits the importance of
this study, as a possible new instrument to detect this severe fatal disease.
As a pilot study, I think the paper should be accepted as a short communication,
and then later, when new and more maintenance definitive data are ready.
Minor Essential revisions:
1) P 6 L4. Should be [11, 12]
2) Is there a reason why the authors don’t use Type 2 Diabetes instead of
Diabetes mellitus.
3) P 15 L 17. Should be [3]
4) Would be nice if you could corrects for the age difference between normal and
cancer group, as we know that type 2 diabetes is offend are related to age.
5) Further explanations needed for fig 2. Please illustrate on the pictures, the
main differences.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests' below
assistant