Title: A Postsurgical Prognostic Nomogram for Patients with Lymph Node Positive
Rectosigmoid Junction Adenocarcinoma
Version: 2 Date: 09 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
In the current manuscript the authors aimed to generate a reliable RSJC risk prediction model
that supports the prediction of the prognosis of PLN-RSJCs after surgery. They established a
nomogram model using independent risk predictors such as age, marital in a development cohort,
and validated its accuracy in a validation cohort. As an original research article, this paper is
well written, and provides a method for prognosis of PLN-RSJC patients. It can be considered
to minor revision. However, I have concerns with some questions as follows.
1. To explore and validate your model, the ratio of patients is 7:3 but not some other ratio. Please
explain it in the discussion.
2. There is a spelling mistake in the sentence " we extracted 3384 patients with PLN-RSJCs and
randomly divided them into development (n=2344) and validation (n=1004) cohorts at a radio
of 7:3" in your abstract. Please correct it in your revision.
3. There is a grammatical errors in the sentence “Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed
significant different in OS between the two groups in your result”. Please correct it in your
revision.
4. How do you know that there is no difference in results such as c-index or AUC values between
the development cohort and the validation cohort?  Please explain it.
Title: A Postsurgical Prognostic Nomogram for Patients with Lymph Node Positive
Rectosigmoid Junction Adenocarcinoma
Version: 2 Date: 09 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
In the current manuscript the authors aimed to generate a reliable RSJC risk prediction model
that supports the prediction of the prognosis of PLN-RSJCs after surgery. They established a
nomogram model using independent risk predictors such as age, marital in a development cohort,
and validated its accuracy in a validation cohort. As an original research article, this paper is
well written, and provides a method for prognosis of PLN-RSJC patients. It can be considered
to minor revision. However, I have concerns with some questions as follows.
1. To explore and validate your model, the ratio of patients is 7:3 but not some other ratio. Please
explain it in the discussion.
2. There is a spelling mistake in the sentence " we extracted 3384 patients with PLN-RSJCs and
randomly divided them into development (n=2344) and validation (n=1004) cohorts at a radio
of 7:3" in your abstract. Please correct it in your revision.
3. There is a grammatical errors in the sentence “Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed
significant different in OS between the two groups in your result”. Please correct it in your
revision.
4. How do you know that there is no difference in results such as c-index or AUC values between
the development cohort and the validation cohort?  Please explain it.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: A Postsurgical Prognostic Nomogram for Patients with Lymph Node Positive
Rectosigmoid Junction Adenocarcinoma
Version: 2 Date: 09 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
In the current manuscript the authors aimed to generate a reliable RSJC risk prediction model
that supports the prediction of the prognosis of PLN-RSJCs after surgery. They established a
nomogram model using independent risk predictors such as age, marital in a development cohort,
and validated its accuracy in a validation cohort. As an original research article, this paper is
well written, and provides a method for prognosis of PLN-RSJC patients. It can be considered
to minor revision. However, I have concerns with some questions as follows.
1. To explore and validate your model, the ratio of patients is 7:3 but not some other ratio. Please
explain it in the discussion.
2. There is a spelling mistake in the sentence " we extracted 3384 patients with PLN-RSJCs and
randomly divided them into development (n=2344) and validation (n=1004) cohorts at a radio
of 7:3" in your abstract. Please correct it in your revision.
3. There is a grammatical errors in the sentence “Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed
significant different in OS between the two groups in your result”. Please correct it in your
revision.
4. How do you know that there is no difference in results such as c-index or AUC values between
the development cohort and the validation cohort?  Please explain it.
assistant