Title: Conditional survival and the prognostic value of serum carcinoembryonic antigen level
in oldest old with colorectal cancer
Version: 4 Date: 18 Mar 2024
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
No - there are minor issues
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
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 - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors responded to many comments of reviewers but there are
still insufficient ones in the rebuttal.  1) The language and grammatical errors: There are still
some mistakes or awkward expression in the revised manuscript. For instance, ""oldest old ""
sounds strange and could be replaced with for instance extremely or very old with defining the
concept. The revised manuscript should be proofed by those whose primary language is English.
2) In the abstract, the definition of the stage according to CEA level should still be described in
more clear fashion. In addition, CEA levels in each TNM stages could also provide meaningful
insights. 3) The limitation of SEER database as American database should be mentioned in the
last part of Discussion. 4) The comments regarding prediction accuracy was not responded in
the satisfactory fashion.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
As mentioned above."
Title: Conditional survival and the prognostic value of serum carcinoembryonic antigen level
in oldest old with colorectal cancer
Version: 4 Date: 18 Mar 2024
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
No - there are minor issues
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
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 - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors responded to many comments of reviewers but there are
still insufficient ones in the rebuttal.  1) The language and grammatical errors: There are still
some mistakes or awkward expression in the revised manuscript. For instance, ""oldest old ""
sounds strange and could be replaced with for instance extremely or very old with defining the
concept. The revised manuscript should be proofed by those whose primary language is English.
2) In the abstract, the definition of the stage according to CEA level should still be described in
more clear fashion. In addition, CEA levels in each TNM stages could also provide meaningful
insights. 3) The limitation of SEER database as American database should be mentioned in the
last part of Discussion. 4) The comments regarding prediction accuracy was not responded in
the satisfactory fashion.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
As mentioned above."
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Conditional survival and the prognostic value of serum carcinoembryonic antigen level
in oldest old with colorectal cancer
Version: 4 Date: 18 Mar 2024
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
No - there are minor issues
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
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 - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors responded to many comments of reviewers but there are
still insufficient ones in the rebuttal.  1) The language and grammatical errors: There are still
some mistakes or awkward expression in the revised manuscript. For instance, ""oldest old ""
sounds strange and could be replaced with for instance extremely or very old with defining the
concept. The revised manuscript should be proofed by those whose primary language is English.
2) In the abstract, the definition of the stage according to CEA level should still be described in
more clear fashion. In addition, CEA levels in each TNM stages could also provide meaningful
insights. 3) The limitation of SEER database as American database should be mentioned in the
last part of Discussion. 4) The comments regarding prediction accuracy was not responded in
the satisfactory fashion.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
As mentioned above."
assistant