Title: Serum Cholinesterase Combined with Platelet-to-Hemoglobin Ratio for Predicting
Survival Prognosis in Stage I-III Colorectal Cancer Patients Undergoing Radical Surgery: A
Retrospective Cohort Study
Version: 3 Date: 03 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review your manuscript titled "Serum Cholinesterase
Combined with Platelet-to-Hemoglobin Ratio for Predicting Survival Prognosis in Stage I-III
Colorectal Cancer Patients Undergoing Radical Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort Study." I was
particularly interested in this study given its relevance to my research field, and I began the
review process with great anticipation. However, within just one hour of reviewing, my emotions
shifted from excitement to disappointment, and ultimately to frustration. The manuscript has
numerous issues, and below are my detailed comments and suggestions:
1. Background Section
The background section is acceptable and introduces the research objectives. However, I would
like you to briefly explain why you chose PHR and CHE as indicators, rather than simply stating
that they have been less studied. Does fewer studies mean they are unimportant or insignificant?
Please provide more compelling reasons.
2. Methods Section
Please provide the ethical approval number from the institutional review board. Additionally,
the methods section is overly lengthy and should be streamlined.
3. Results Section
The results section is simply unbearable and impossible to read! It is filled with numbers—could
you please summarize them? I couldn’t get through it, so how can you expect other readers to?
The results section is over 2,800 characters long, which is outrageous! I strongly recommend
that your team rewrite this section entirely.
Furthermore, the grouping method in Table 1 is unclear. How were the patients divided into
Groups 1, 2, and 3? Please elaborate.
Also, the tables are too verbose! Some data are already presented in figures, so why repeat them
in tables?
Lastly, the two regression analysis tables do not strictly follow the three-line table format. Please
revise them.
4. Discussion Section
The discussion section is also disappointing.
First paragraph: The content has already been covered in the background section. Either omit
it or summarize it in one or two sentences. What I want to know is why you chose these two
indicators.
Third paragraph: I don’t understand the purpose of your lengthy discussion on the mechanisms
of NF-#B and TNF-# pathways. We don’t care about how these pathways work—we care about
what other studies have found and why these indicators are prognostic. Is your discussion even
relevant to the article?
Fourth paragraph: Similar to the third paragraph, what is the point of discussing anemia at such
length? Please shorten or remove this section.
5. References
I have reason to suspect that you did not carefully review the literature.
First, Reference 6 is from 1979. Are you telling me there have been no similar studies in the
past 30+ years?
Second, References 31 and 32 are likely older than you are. Why are you citing them?
Third, the reference list is too long, with nearly 50 entries. Please reduce it to around 30, keeping
only the most relevant and up-to-date literature.
6. Funding
Finally, I have a question: The authors’ affiliations are in Harbin and Sichuan, so why is the
funding from the Beijing Medical Award Foundation? Please explain this discrepancy.
7. Conclusion
In summary, my frustration stems from the fact that the writing of this manuscript is extremely
poor, giving me the impression that the authors did not approach this work with a serious
academic attitude. However, it is worth acknowledging that the study design is novel and
demonstrates a significant amount of work. Precisely because of this, I recommend a major
revision rather than outright rejection. I hope you will take these comments seriously, reorganize
the logic, data, and presentation of the manuscript, and bring it up to the standard required for
academic publication.
I look forward to seeing an improved version.
Sincerely,
Reviewer
Title: Serum Cholinesterase Combined with Platelet-to-Hemoglobin Ratio for Predicting
Survival Prognosis in Stage I-III Colorectal Cancer Patients Undergoing Radical Surgery: A
Retrospective Cohort Study
Version: 3 Date: 03 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review your manuscript titled "Serum Cholinesterase
Combined with Platelet-to-Hemoglobin Ratio for Predicting Survival Prognosis in Stage I-III
Colorectal Cancer Patients Undergoing Radical Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort Study." I was
particularly interested in this study given its relevance to my research field, and I began the
review process with great anticipation. However, within just one hour of reviewing, my emotions
shifted from excitement to disappointment, and ultimately to frustration. The manuscript has
numerous issues, and below are my detailed comments and suggestions:
1. Background Section
The background section is acceptable and introduces the research objectives. However, I would
like you to briefly explain why you chose PHR and CHE as indicators, rather than simply stating
that they have been less studied. Does fewer studies mean they are unimportant or insignificant?
Please provide more compelling reasons.
2. Methods Section
Please provide the ethical approval number from the institutional review board. Additionally,
the methods section is overly lengthy and should be streamlined.
3. Results Section
The results section is simply unbearable and impossible to read! It is filled with numbers—could
you please summarize them? I couldn’t get through it, so how can you expect other readers to?
The results section is over 2,800 characters long, which is outrageous! I strongly recommend
that your team rewrite this section entirely.
Furthermore, the grouping method in Table 1 is unclear. How were the patients divided into
Groups 1, 2, and 3? Please elaborate.
Also, the tables are too verbose! Some data are already presented in figures, so why repeat them
in tables?
Lastly, the two regression analysis tables do not strictly follow the three-line table format. Please
revise them.
4. Discussion Section
The discussion section is also disappointing.
First paragraph: The content has already been covered in the background section. Either omit
it or summarize it in one or two sentences. What I want to know is why you chose these two
indicators.
Third paragraph: I don’t understand the purpose of your lengthy discussion on the mechanisms
of NF-#B and TNF-# pathways. We don’t care about how these pathways work—we care about
what other studies have found and why these indicators are prognostic. Is your discussion even
relevant to the article?
Fourth paragraph: Similar to the third paragraph, what is the point of discussing anemia at such
length? Please shorten or remove this section.
5. References
I have reason to suspect that you did not carefully review the literature.
First, Reference 6 is from 1979. Are you telling me there have been no similar studies in the
past 30+ years?
Second, References 31 and 32 are likely older than you are. Why are you citing them?
Third, the reference list is too long, with nearly 50 entries. Please reduce it to around 30, keeping
only the most relevant and up-to-date literature.
6. Funding
Finally, I have a question: The authors’ affiliations are in Harbin and Sichuan, so why is the
funding from the Beijing Medical Award Foundation? Please explain this discrepancy.
7. Conclusion
In summary, my frustration stems from the fact that the writing of this manuscript is extremely
poor, giving me the impression that the authors did not approach this work with a serious
academic attitude. However, it is worth acknowledging that the study design is novel and
demonstrates a significant amount of work. Precisely because of this, I recommend a major
revision rather than outright rejection. I hope you will take these comments seriously, reorganize
the logic, data, and presentation of the manuscript, and bring it up to the standard required for
academic publication.
I look forward to seeing an improved version.
Sincerely,
Reviewer
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Serum Cholinesterase Combined with Platelet-to-Hemoglobin Ratio for Predicting
Survival Prognosis in Stage I-III Colorectal Cancer Patients Undergoing Radical Surgery: A
Retrospective Cohort Study
Version: 3 Date: 03 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review your manuscript titled "Serum Cholinesterase
Combined with Platelet-to-Hemoglobin Ratio for Predicting Survival Prognosis in Stage I-III
Colorectal Cancer Patients Undergoing Radical Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort Study." I was
particularly interested in this study given its relevance to my research field, and I began the
review process with great anticipation. However, within just one hour of reviewing, my emotions
shifted from excitement to disappointment, and ultimately to frustration. The manuscript has
numerous issues, and below are my detailed comments and suggestions:
1. Background Section
The background section is acceptable and introduces the research objectives. However, I would
like you to briefly explain why you chose PHR and CHE as indicators, rather than simply stating
that they have been less studied. Does fewer studies mean they are unimportant or insignificant?
Please provide more compelling reasons.
2. Methods Section
Please provide the ethical approval number from the institutional review board. Additionally,
the methods section is overly lengthy and should be streamlined.
3. Results Section
The results section is simply unbearable and impossible to read! It is filled with numbers—could
you please summarize them? I couldn’t get through it, so how can you expect other readers to?
The results section is over 2,800 characters long, which is outrageous! I strongly recommend
that your team rewrite this section entirely.
Furthermore, the grouping method in Table 1 is unclear. How were the patients divided into
Groups 1, 2, and 3? Please elaborate.
Also, the tables are too verbose! Some data are already presented in figures, so why repeat them
in tables?
Lastly, the two regression analysis tables do not strictly follow the three-line table format. Please
revise them.
4. Discussion Section
The discussion section is also disappointing.
First paragraph: The content has already been covered in the background section. Either omit
it or summarize it in one or two sentences. What I want to know is why you chose these two
indicators.
Third paragraph: I don’t understand the purpose of your lengthy discussion on the mechanisms
of NF-#B and TNF-# pathways. We don’t care about how these pathways work—we care about
what other studies have found and why these indicators are prognostic. Is your discussion even
relevant to the article?
Fourth paragraph: Similar to the third paragraph, what is the point of discussing anemia at such
length? Please shorten or remove this section.
5. References
I have reason to suspect that you did not carefully review the literature.
First, Reference 6 is from 1979. Are you telling me there have been no similar studies in the
past 30+ years?
Second, References 31 and 32 are likely older than you are. Why are you citing them?
Third, the reference list is too long, with nearly 50 entries. Please reduce it to around 30, keeping
only the most relevant and up-to-date literature.
6. Funding
Finally, I have a question: The authors’ affiliations are in Harbin and Sichuan, so why is the
funding from the Beijing Medical Award Foundation? Please explain this discrepancy.
7. Conclusion
In summary, my frustration stems from the fact that the writing of this manuscript is extremely
poor, giving me the impression that the authors did not approach this work with a serious
academic attitude. However, it is worth acknowledging that the study design is novel and
demonstrates a significant amount of work. Precisely because of this, I recommend a major
revision rather than outright rejection. I hope you will take these comments seriously, reorganize
the logic, data, and presentation of the manuscript, and bring it up to the standard required for
academic publication.
I look forward to seeing an improved version.
Sincerely,
Reviewer
assistant