Title: Establishment of a prognostic signature based on fatty acid metabolism genes in HCC
associated with hepatitis B
Version: 4 Date: 18 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
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 sufficient 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?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have responded to the best of their ability to the concerns
raised in the prior evaluation of the manuscript. The authors have formulated an interesting
hypothesis and have undertaken the appropriate analyses. Ways in which the work falls short
of best practice include the limited sample size and the inability to create training and test sets.
However, these concerns were already raised and addressed by the authors.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Reviewer 1 brought up an important question that was not adequately addressed in the response
to reviewers section, nor in the revised manuscript. The question pertained to  the advantages
of the prognostic signature in this study compared to other previously reported predictive
signatures. It would be imperative to know how the prognostic signature in this work compares to
known predictors of HBV-associated HCC including serum levels of alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) or
its variants (i.e., AFP-L3), circulating levels of HBV DNA, and/or the presence of liver fibrosis
or cirrhosis. All of these are associated with the development of HCC and poor outcomes in
individuals with HBV."
Title: Establishment of a prognostic signature based on fatty acid metabolism genes in HCC
associated with hepatitis B
Version: 4 Date: 18 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
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 sufficient 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?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have responded to the best of their ability to the concerns
raised in the prior evaluation of the manuscript. The authors have formulated an interesting
hypothesis and have undertaken the appropriate analyses. Ways in which the work falls short
of best practice include the limited sample size and the inability to create training and test sets.
However, these concerns were already raised and addressed by the authors.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Reviewer 1 brought up an important question that was not adequately addressed in the response
to reviewers section, nor in the revised manuscript. The question pertained to  the advantages
of the prognostic signature in this study compared to other previously reported predictive
signatures. It would be imperative to know how the prognostic signature in this work compares to
known predictors of HBV-associated HCC including serum levels of alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) or
its variants (i.e., AFP-L3), circulating levels of HBV DNA, and/or the presence of liver fibrosis
or cirrhosis. All of these are associated with the development of HCC and poor outcomes in
individuals with HBV."
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Establishment of a prognostic signature based on fatty acid metabolism genes in HCC
associated with hepatitis B
Version: 4 Date: 18 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
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 sufficient 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?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have responded to the best of their ability to the concerns
raised in the prior evaluation of the manuscript. The authors have formulated an interesting
hypothesis and have undertaken the appropriate analyses. Ways in which the work falls short
of best practice include the limited sample size and the inability to create training and test sets.
However, these concerns were already raised and addressed by the authors.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Reviewer 1 brought up an important question that was not adequately addressed in the response
to reviewers section, nor in the revised manuscript. The question pertained to  the advantages
of the prognostic signature in this study compared to other previously reported predictive
signatures. It would be imperative to know how the prognostic signature in this work compares to
known predictors of HBV-associated HCC including serum levels of alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) or
its variants (i.e., AFP-L3), circulating levels of HBV DNA, and/or the presence of liver fibrosis
or cirrhosis. All of these are associated with the development of HCC and poor outcomes in
individuals with HBV."
assistant