Title: Preoperative Platelet-Lymphocyte Ratio (PLR) as a Prognostic Inflammation Biomarker
in Asian HIV-Infected Patients with Gastric Cancer: A Single-Center Study
Version: 4 Date: 04 May 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?
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 - 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: As a critique, while the authors have made efforts to address previous
review comments, the lack of validation using an independent cohort remains a significant
limitation of this study. This leaves room for potential biases and calls into question the reliability
of the results.
Additionally, the challenges of studying a rare condition such as HIV infection are
acknowledged by the authors but are not adequately highlighted in the revised manuscript. It is
essential to acknowledge the study's limitations, including the limited sample size and potential
for selection bias, which may impact the generalizability of the findings.
It is recommended that the authors list and discuss the limitations of their study to provide a
more balanced interpretation of the results. This will help readers to better understand the scope
and potential impact of the research.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The lack of validation using an independent cohort remains a significant limitation of this study.
It is important to acknowledge the limitations of the study, including the limited sample size and
potential for selection bias, which may impact the generalizability of the findings.
It is recommended that the authors clearly list and discuss the limitations of their study in order to
provide a more balanced interpretation of the results. This will help readers to better understand
the scope and potential impact of this single institution-based study.
Title: Preoperative Platelet-Lymphocyte Ratio (PLR) as a Prognostic Inflammation Biomarker
in Asian HIV-Infected Patients with Gastric Cancer: A Single-Center Study
Version: 4 Date: 04 May 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?
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 - 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: As a critique, while the authors have made efforts to address previous
review comments, the lack of validation using an independent cohort remains a significant
limitation of this study. This leaves room for potential biases and calls into question the reliability
of the results.
Additionally, the challenges of studying a rare condition such as HIV infection are
acknowledged by the authors but are not adequately highlighted in the revised manuscript. It is
essential to acknowledge the study's limitations, including the limited sample size and potential
for selection bias, which may impact the generalizability of the findings.
It is recommended that the authors list and discuss the limitations of their study to provide a
more balanced interpretation of the results. This will help readers to better understand the scope
and potential impact of the research.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The lack of validation using an independent cohort remains a significant limitation of this study.
It is important to acknowledge the limitations of the study, including the limited sample size and
potential for selection bias, which may impact the generalizability of the findings.
It is recommended that the authors clearly list and discuss the limitations of their study in order to
provide a more balanced interpretation of the results. This will help readers to better understand
the scope and potential impact of this single institution-based study.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Preoperative Platelet-Lymphocyte Ratio (PLR) as a Prognostic Inflammation Biomarker
in Asian HIV-Infected Patients with Gastric Cancer: A Single-Center Study
Version: 4 Date: 04 May 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?
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 - 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: As a critique, while the authors have made efforts to address previous
review comments, the lack of validation using an independent cohort remains a significant
limitation of this study. This leaves room for potential biases and calls into question the reliability
of the results.
Additionally, the challenges of studying a rare condition such as HIV infection are
acknowledged by the authors but are not adequately highlighted in the revised manuscript. It is
essential to acknowledge the study's limitations, including the limited sample size and potential
for selection bias, which may impact the generalizability of the findings.
It is recommended that the authors list and discuss the limitations of their study to provide a
more balanced interpretation of the results. This will help readers to better understand the scope
and potential impact of the research.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The lack of validation using an independent cohort remains a significant limitation of this study.
It is important to acknowledge the limitations of the study, including the limited sample size and
potential for selection bias, which may impact the generalizability of the findings.
It is recommended that the authors clearly list and discuss the limitations of their study in order to
provide a more balanced interpretation of the results. This will help readers to better understand
the scope and potential impact of this single institution-based study.
assistant