Title: The role of marital status in gallbladder cancer: a real-world competing risk analysis
Version: 0 Date: 31 May 2024
Reviewer's report:
This study investigated the impact of marital status on the survival rate of gallbladder cancer
(GBC) patients and established a predictive model graph to evaluate the probability of cancer
specific death (CSD) in individual patients. Multiple statistical analysis methods were used to
verify the reliability of the research results. There are also some limitations to the research,
such as selective bias in retrospective studies and the relatively small size of external validation
samples. In addition, the application scope of the model may be limited by the PSM method,
requiring more external validation and further research to verify its accuracy and reliability.
Specifically, the following issues need to be clarified:
The description of research background and purpose is not clear enough: although the study
mentioned that gallbladder cancer (GBC) is one of the main malignant tumors in the biliary
system, and its incidence rate is on the rise, when introducing the research purpose, it did
not clearly explain why to explore the relationship between marital status and GBC and the
significance of building a prediction model map.
The literature review is not sufficient: Although there has been some research on the impact of
marital status on other cancers mentioned in the introduction, there is a lack of comprehensive
overview of existing research, especially in the literature review of the impact of marital status
on GBC, which is relatively brief.
Insufficient explanation of variable selection and matching methods: Although the propensity
score matching (PSM) method was mentioned to reduce the impact of confounding factors, it
was not detailed which variables were selected for matching and the principles and methods
of matching. These pieces of information are crucial for understanding the interpretability of
research design and results.
The presentation of the results is not clear enough: In the results section, although a large amount
of data and statistical analysis results are provided, there is no clear summary and explanation
of the main results. Meanwhile, there are a large number of charts, but some of them may not
have clear content and explanations, making it difficult for readers to understand.
There is a logical jump in the discussion section: in the discussion section, the author shifted from
explaining the research results to discussing previous research, lacking coherence. In addition,
the discussion section failed to delve into the clinical significance of the research results and
the direction of future research.
Language expression needs further improvement: there are some issues with inaccurate
and fluent language expression in the article, which affects the overall readability and
professionalism of the article.
Title: The role of marital status in gallbladder cancer: a real-world competing risk analysis
Version: 0 Date: 31 May 2024
Reviewer's report:
This study investigated the impact of marital status on the survival rate of gallbladder cancer
(GBC) patients and established a predictive model graph to evaluate the probability of cancer
specific death (CSD) in individual patients. Multiple statistical analysis methods were used to
verify the reliability of the research results. There are also some limitations to the research,
such as selective bias in retrospective studies and the relatively small size of external validation
samples. In addition, the application scope of the model may be limited by the PSM method,
requiring more external validation and further research to verify its accuracy and reliability.
Specifically, the following issues need to be clarified:
The description of research background and purpose is not clear enough: although the study
mentioned that gallbladder cancer (GBC) is one of the main malignant tumors in the biliary
system, and its incidence rate is on the rise, when introducing the research purpose, it did
not clearly explain why to explore the relationship between marital status and GBC and the
significance of building a prediction model map.
The literature review is not sufficient: Although there has been some research on the impact of
marital status on other cancers mentioned in the introduction, there is a lack of comprehensive
overview of existing research, especially in the literature review of the impact of marital status
on GBC, which is relatively brief.
Insufficient explanation of variable selection and matching methods: Although the propensity
score matching (PSM) method was mentioned to reduce the impact of confounding factors, it
was not detailed which variables were selected for matching and the principles and methods
of matching. These pieces of information are crucial for understanding the interpretability of
research design and results.
The presentation of the results is not clear enough: In the results section, although a large amount
of data and statistical analysis results are provided, there is no clear summary and explanation
of the main results. Meanwhile, there are a large number of charts, but some of them may not
have clear content and explanations, making it difficult for readers to understand.
There is a logical jump in the discussion section: in the discussion section, the author shifted from
explaining the research results to discussing previous research, lacking coherence. In addition,
the discussion section failed to delve into the clinical significance of the research results and
the direction of future research.
Language expression needs further improvement: there are some issues with inaccurate
and fluent language expression in the article, which affects the overall readability and
professionalism of the article.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: The role of marital status in gallbladder cancer: a real-world competing risk analysis
Version: 0 Date: 31 May 2024
Reviewer's report:
This study investigated the impact of marital status on the survival rate of gallbladder cancer
(GBC) patients and established a predictive model graph to evaluate the probability of cancer
specific death (CSD) in individual patients. Multiple statistical analysis methods were used to
verify the reliability of the research results. There are also some limitations to the research,
such as selective bias in retrospective studies and the relatively small size of external validation
samples. In addition, the application scope of the model may be limited by the PSM method,
requiring more external validation and further research to verify its accuracy and reliability.
Specifically, the following issues need to be clarified:
The description of research background and purpose is not clear enough: although the study
mentioned that gallbladder cancer (GBC) is one of the main malignant tumors in the biliary
system, and its incidence rate is on the rise, when introducing the research purpose, it did
not clearly explain why to explore the relationship between marital status and GBC and the
significance of building a prediction model map.
The literature review is not sufficient: Although there has been some research on the impact of
marital status on other cancers mentioned in the introduction, there is a lack of comprehensive
overview of existing research, especially in the literature review of the impact of marital status
on GBC, which is relatively brief.
Insufficient explanation of variable selection and matching methods: Although the propensity
score matching (PSM) method was mentioned to reduce the impact of confounding factors, it
was not detailed which variables were selected for matching and the principles and methods
of matching. These pieces of information are crucial for understanding the interpretability of
research design and results.
The presentation of the results is not clear enough: In the results section, although a large amount
of data and statistical analysis results are provided, there is no clear summary and explanation
of the main results. Meanwhile, there are a large number of charts, but some of them may not
have clear content and explanations, making it difficult for readers to understand.
There is a logical jump in the discussion section: in the discussion section, the author shifted from
explaining the research results to discussing previous research, lacking coherence. In addition,
the discussion section failed to delve into the clinical significance of the research results and
the direction of future research.
Language expression needs further improvement: there are some issues with inaccurate
and fluent language expression in the article, which affects the overall readability and
professionalism of the article.
assistant