Title: Application of a Novel Scoring System for Gastric Cancer Opportunistic Screening in
Hospital Visits
Version: 0 Date: 27 Feb 2022
Reviewer's report:
1. The idea of this study is relatively new, but the overall article is poorly framed. Only data
from a large single-centre sample was included in this study for validation to derive the scoring
model. To make this scoring system more practical and feasible, the authors are requested to
divide the 6701 patients into two cohorts in a ratio of 2:1, one being the training set and the
other being the internal validation set. An external validation set will also need to be found for
validation, including data from other units as well as the SEER database, and the above external
data should be validated separately for external validation.
2. Did all 6701 patients undergo gastroscopy? Is there a high concordance between the
proportion of patients screened for gastric cancer using the new scoring system and the
proportion screened out by endoscopy? Could the authors please add the ROC curves for gastric
cancer screening when the new scoring system, gastroscopy and the two are combined?
3. The authors are requested to add the rationale for the score assignment of the new scoring
system (score assignment in Table 1). Please explain the reasons for the different scores for
each indicator. Please describe in detail in the methodology section whether the scores were
artificially set or calculated using cut-off values for a large sample of data.
4. The authors are requested to provide a copy of the ethical approval for this study and the
ethical approval number.
5. The language of the full text also needs to be revised by a native English-speaking professional
for this purpose.
6. The number of references is too small and in addition relatively old. The authors are requested
to add literature from the last 2 years, and the number of references should be added to more
than 30.
7. In summary, the manuscript is recommended to be rejected. The manuscript should be
forwarded to another journal.
Title: Application of a Novel Scoring System for Gastric Cancer Opportunistic Screening in
Hospital Visits
Version: 0 Date: 27 Feb 2022
Reviewer's report:
1. The idea of this study is relatively new, but the overall article is poorly framed. Only data
from a large single-centre sample was included in this study for validation to derive the scoring
model. To make this scoring system more practical and feasible, the authors are requested to
divide the 6701 patients into two cohorts in a ratio of 2:1, one being the training set and the
other being the internal validation set. An external validation set will also need to be found for
validation, including data from other units as well as the SEER database, and the above external
data should be validated separately for external validation.
2. Did all 6701 patients undergo gastroscopy? Is there a high concordance between the
proportion of patients screened for gastric cancer using the new scoring system and the
proportion screened out by endoscopy? Could the authors please add the ROC curves for gastric
cancer screening when the new scoring system, gastroscopy and the two are combined?
3. The authors are requested to add the rationale for the score assignment of the new scoring
system (score assignment in Table 1). Please explain the reasons for the different scores for
each indicator. Please describe in detail in the methodology section whether the scores were
artificially set or calculated using cut-off values for a large sample of data.
4. The authors are requested to provide a copy of the ethical approval for this study and the
ethical approval number.
5. The language of the full text also needs to be revised by a native English-speaking professional
for this purpose.
6. The number of references is too small and in addition relatively old. The authors are requested
to add literature from the last 2 years, and the number of references should be added to more
than 30.
7. In summary, the manuscript is recommended to be rejected. The manuscript should be
forwarded to another journal.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Application of a Novel Scoring System for Gastric Cancer Opportunistic Screening in
Hospital Visits
Version: 0 Date: 27 Feb 2022
Reviewer's report:
1. The idea of this study is relatively new, but the overall article is poorly framed. Only data
from a large single-centre sample was included in this study for validation to derive the scoring
model. To make this scoring system more practical and feasible, the authors are requested to
divide the 6701 patients into two cohorts in a ratio of 2:1, one being the training set and the
other being the internal validation set. An external validation set will also need to be found for
validation, including data from other units as well as the SEER database, and the above external
data should be validated separately for external validation.
2. Did all 6701 patients undergo gastroscopy? Is there a high concordance between the
proportion of patients screened for gastric cancer using the new scoring system and the
proportion screened out by endoscopy? Could the authors please add the ROC curves for gastric
cancer screening when the new scoring system, gastroscopy and the two are combined?
3. The authors are requested to add the rationale for the score assignment of the new scoring
system (score assignment in Table 1). Please explain the reasons for the different scores for
each indicator. Please describe in detail in the methodology section whether the scores were
artificially set or calculated using cut-off values for a large sample of data.
4. The authors are requested to provide a copy of the ethical approval for this study and the
ethical approval number.
5. The language of the full text also needs to be revised by a native English-speaking professional
for this purpose.
6. The number of references is too small and in addition relatively old. The authors are requested
to add literature from the last 2 years, and the number of references should be added to more
than 30.
7. In summary, the manuscript is recommended to be rejected. The manuscript should be
forwarded to another journal.
assistant