Title: Association between the Red Blood Cell Distribution Width-to-Albumin Ratio and Risk
of Colorectal and Gastric Cancers: A Cross-Sectional Study Using NHANES 2005–2018
Version: 2 Date: 15 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
1. Title Specificity: Consider specifying the type of digestive tract tumors examined in the title
for clarity, such as "Colorectal and Gastric Cancers" instead of the more general "Digestive
Tract Tumors."
2. Background Details: In the background section, specify why RAR is a particularly novel
marker compared to other markers of nutrition and inflammation that have been used in cancer
risk prediction. This could provide a clearer justification for the study.
3. Keyword Optimization: Ensure that the keywords are optimized to include specific terms that
are frequently searched in your research field. Consider adding terms like "biomarker," "cancer
screening," or "prognostic marker."
4. Potential Confounders and Bias: Address potential confounders and biases more explicitly
in the abstract. While it's clear you've controlled for several variables, discussing the impact of
residual confounding or selection bias (if any) could enhance the credibility of your findings.
5. Broader Implications: Expand on the broader clinical implications of your findings in the
conclusion of the abstract. Suggest specific ways in which RAR could be integrated into current
screening protocols or risk assessment models for colorectal cancer. This would directly link
your research findings to practical applications, making the study more relevant to practitioners
and policy-makers.
Title: Association between the Red Blood Cell Distribution Width-to-Albumin Ratio and Risk
of Colorectal and Gastric Cancers: A Cross-Sectional Study Using NHANES 2005–2018
Version: 2 Date: 15 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
1. Title Specificity: Consider specifying the type of digestive tract tumors examined in the title
for clarity, such as "Colorectal and Gastric Cancers" instead of the more general "Digestive
Tract Tumors."
2. Background Details: In the background section, specify why RAR is a particularly novel
marker compared to other markers of nutrition and inflammation that have been used in cancer
risk prediction. This could provide a clearer justification for the study.
3. Keyword Optimization: Ensure that the keywords are optimized to include specific terms that
are frequently searched in your research field. Consider adding terms like "biomarker," "cancer
screening," or "prognostic marker."
4. Potential Confounders and Bias: Address potential confounders and biases more explicitly
in the abstract. While it's clear you've controlled for several variables, discussing the impact of
residual confounding or selection bias (if any) could enhance the credibility of your findings.
5. Broader Implications: Expand on the broader clinical implications of your findings in the
conclusion of the abstract. Suggest specific ways in which RAR could be integrated into current
screening protocols or risk assessment models for colorectal cancer. This would directly link
your research findings to practical applications, making the study more relevant to practitioners
and policy-makers.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Association between the Red Blood Cell Distribution Width-to-Albumin Ratio and Risk
of Colorectal and Gastric Cancers: A Cross-Sectional Study Using NHANES 2005–2018
Version: 2 Date: 15 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
1. Title Specificity: Consider specifying the type of digestive tract tumors examined in the title
for clarity, such as "Colorectal and Gastric Cancers" instead of the more general "Digestive
Tract Tumors."
2. Background Details: In the background section, specify why RAR is a particularly novel
marker compared to other markers of nutrition and inflammation that have been used in cancer
risk prediction. This could provide a clearer justification for the study.
3. Keyword Optimization: Ensure that the keywords are optimized to include specific terms that
are frequently searched in your research field. Consider adding terms like "biomarker," "cancer
screening," or "prognostic marker."
4. Potential Confounders and Bias: Address potential confounders and biases more explicitly
in the abstract. While it's clear you've controlled for several variables, discussing the impact of
residual confounding or selection bias (if any) could enhance the credibility of your findings.
5. Broader Implications: Expand on the broader clinical implications of your findings in the
conclusion of the abstract. Suggest specific ways in which RAR could be integrated into current
screening protocols or risk assessment models for colorectal cancer. This would directly link
your research findings to practical applications, making the study more relevant to practitioners
and policy-makers.
assistant