Title: Dual energy CT-derived quantitative parameters and hematological characteristics predict
pathological complete response in neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy esophageal squamous cell
carcinoma patients
Version: 3 Date: 18 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (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?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Not sure - I am not able to assess the statistics in this study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: I had the pleasure to review the manuscript entitled “Dual energy
CT-derived quantitative parameters and hematological characteristics predict pathological
complete response in neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy esophageal squamous cell carcinoma
patients”. The authors have satisfactorily responded to the previous reviewers' comments.
The manuscript has improved significantly.  I would like to invite the authors to revise their
manuscript considering the following points:
- There is no background information or description of the problem in the abstract to support
the study rationale. You have only mentioned the study objectives in your abstract. I would add
one or two sentences as the lead of the abstract to provide an introduction to the main study
topic, to highlight the gap in knowledge and the motivation or rationale for the study for the
abstract readers.
- Instead of "Material and methods" please use "Patients and methods".
- To shorten the abstract, the last sentence of the method section (statistical analysis) could be
removed.
- The conclusion section of your abstract mainly repeats your study findings with no
definite interpretation. I suggest providing a statement that mentions the overarching clinical
implications of your findings and explains why your findings are relevant/important and how
they can shape future research.
- Please be more specific about "two experienced radiologists". How much experience?
Fellowship trained?
Title: Dual energy CT-derived quantitative parameters and hematological characteristics predict
pathological complete response in neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy esophageal squamous cell
carcinoma patients
Version: 3 Date: 18 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (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?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Not sure - I am not able to assess the statistics in this study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: I had the pleasure to review the manuscript entitled “Dual energy
CT-derived quantitative parameters and hematological characteristics predict pathological
complete response in neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy esophageal squamous cell carcinoma
patients”. The authors have satisfactorily responded to the previous reviewers' comments.
The manuscript has improved significantly.  I would like to invite the authors to revise their
manuscript considering the following points:
- There is no background information or description of the problem in the abstract to support
the study rationale. You have only mentioned the study objectives in your abstract. I would add
one or two sentences as the lead of the abstract to provide an introduction to the main study
topic, to highlight the gap in knowledge and the motivation or rationale for the study for the
abstract readers.
- Instead of "Material and methods" please use "Patients and methods".
- To shorten the abstract, the last sentence of the method section (statistical analysis) could be
removed.
- The conclusion section of your abstract mainly repeats your study findings with no
definite interpretation. I suggest providing a statement that mentions the overarching clinical
implications of your findings and explains why your findings are relevant/important and how
they can shape future research.
- Please be more specific about "two experienced radiologists". How much experience?
Fellowship trained?
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Dual energy CT-derived quantitative parameters and hematological characteristics predict
pathological complete response in neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy esophageal squamous cell
carcinoma patients
Version: 3 Date: 18 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (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?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Not sure - I am not able to assess the statistics in this study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: I had the pleasure to review the manuscript entitled “Dual energy
CT-derived quantitative parameters and hematological characteristics predict pathological
complete response in neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy esophageal squamous cell carcinoma
patients”. The authors have satisfactorily responded to the previous reviewers' comments.
The manuscript has improved significantly.  I would like to invite the authors to revise their
manuscript considering the following points:
- There is no background information or description of the problem in the abstract to support
the study rationale. You have only mentioned the study objectives in your abstract. I would add
one or two sentences as the lead of the abstract to provide an introduction to the main study
topic, to highlight the gap in knowledge and the motivation or rationale for the study for the
abstract readers.
- Instead of "Material and methods" please use "Patients and methods".
- To shorten the abstract, the last sentence of the method section (statistical analysis) could be
removed.
- The conclusion section of your abstract mainly repeats your study findings with no
definite interpretation. I suggest providing a statement that mentions the overarching clinical
implications of your findings and explains why your findings are relevant/important and how
they can shape future research.
- Please be more specific about "two experienced radiologists". How much experience?
Fellowship trained?
assistant