Title: The Prognostic Value of AST-Lymphocyte Ratio Index in Liver Cancer Patients Treated
with TACE: A Systematic Review and Single-Center Retrospective Study
Version: 1 Date: 20 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
In revised manuscript,  Line  62  GLOBOCAN 2018 is outdated, the latest one is GLOBOCAN
2022
Reference #3 and #6 are the same.
Line 168   Neutrophil Lymphocyte ratio is a ratio, with no unit.
Fig 7 is  not the best way to present data . Consider excluding outliers and consider why outliers
exist.
Fig 8 cannot stand independent from the text.  Provide survival numbers at each time point below
X axis, provide p value in the figure.
The discussion part is too  wordy and repetitive on the same point, for example , Line 248-262.
Overall, this manuscript consists of two separate studies (one meta-analysis , the other
retrospective study) . The retrospective study did not add much value on the top of meta-analysis.
Instead of solving the issue of various ALRI cutoffs among  the prior studies,  the retrospective
study just introduced a new cutoff without reconcile the difference.  Consider splitting this
manuscript into two.     As a systemic review and meta-analysis, there are  many angles you can
expand the discussion, such as, comparing other studies in other biomarkers broadly, compare
different  indications, and so on.     So is the retrospective analysis .    However, the discussion
part of present manuscript  is weak and repetitive.
Title: The Prognostic Value of AST-Lymphocyte Ratio Index in Liver Cancer Patients Treated
with TACE: A Systematic Review and Single-Center Retrospective Study
Version: 1 Date: 20 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
In revised manuscript,  Line  62  GLOBOCAN 2018 is outdated, the latest one is GLOBOCAN
2022
Reference #3 and #6 are the same.
Line 168   Neutrophil Lymphocyte ratio is a ratio, with no unit.
Fig 7 is  not the best way to present data . Consider excluding outliers and consider why outliers
exist.
Fig 8 cannot stand independent from the text.  Provide survival numbers at each time point below
X axis, provide p value in the figure.
The discussion part is too  wordy and repetitive on the same point, for example , Line 248-262.
Overall, this manuscript consists of two separate studies (one meta-analysis , the other
retrospective study) . The retrospective study did not add much value on the top of meta-analysis.
Instead of solving the issue of various ALRI cutoffs among  the prior studies,  the retrospective
study just introduced a new cutoff without reconcile the difference.  Consider splitting this
manuscript into two.     As a systemic review and meta-analysis, there are  many angles you can
expand the discussion, such as, comparing other studies in other biomarkers broadly, compare
different  indications, and so on.     So is the retrospective analysis .    However, the discussion
part of present manuscript  is weak and repetitive.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: The Prognostic Value of AST-Lymphocyte Ratio Index in Liver Cancer Patients Treated
with TACE: A Systematic Review and Single-Center Retrospective Study
Version: 1 Date: 20 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
In revised manuscript,  Line  62  GLOBOCAN 2018 is outdated, the latest one is GLOBOCAN
2022
Reference #3 and #6 are the same.
Line 168   Neutrophil Lymphocyte ratio is a ratio, with no unit.
Fig 7 is  not the best way to present data . Consider excluding outliers and consider why outliers
exist.
Fig 8 cannot stand independent from the text.  Provide survival numbers at each time point below
X axis, provide p value in the figure.
The discussion part is too  wordy and repetitive on the same point, for example , Line 248-262.
Overall, this manuscript consists of two separate studies (one meta-analysis , the other
retrospective study) . The retrospective study did not add much value on the top of meta-analysis.
Instead of solving the issue of various ALRI cutoffs among  the prior studies,  the retrospective
study just introduced a new cutoff without reconcile the difference.  Consider splitting this
manuscript into two.     As a systemic review and meta-analysis, there are  many angles you can
expand the discussion, such as, comparing other studies in other biomarkers broadly, compare
different  indications, and so on.     So is the retrospective analysis .    However, the discussion
part of present manuscript  is weak and repetitive.
assistant