Title: Identification of a vascular invasion-related signature based on lncRNA pairs for
predicting prognosis in hepatocellular carcinoma
Version: 6 Date: 02 Dec 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?
No - there are major issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
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?
No - there are major issues
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?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: In the study conducted and here summerized, the authors aimed
to generate a novel predictive signature based on 5 vascular invasion-related lncRNA pairs
in human HCC samples. The hypothesis and the aim are simple and clear- As simple is the
approach. the authors subgrouped patients between HCC patients high- and low-risk groups, an
such a classification can raise several questions or criticisms. However, in addition the authors
collected more than 300 human samples (HCC) and "adopted the least absolute shrinkage
and selection operator (LASSO)-penalized Cox regression analysis" to confirm a predictive
model. We do not complitetely agree with the authors when they state they generated a
predictive model that provides insight into the value of vascular invasion-related lncRNAs
leading to a more accurate prognosis. their results are quite partial with limited investigation and
biological/biomolecular analyses. Furthermore, their replies to authors concerns and requests
are quite modest and frequently purely cosmetic. They offered minimal explanation and
compeltely refused to increment with deeper analysis and biological screening in support.
Finally, manuscript contains several repetitions and English sentences that require additional,
critical revision (in particular in the abstract and discussion sections)
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The R1 manuscript would stll benefit froma n additional revision. Several sentences in teh
Discussion are redundant and repetitive. English language still may benefit fro an additional
editing. Above al, we would recommend additional analyses and cross check for the claimed
pathways. Data normalization and levels of expression vs regression coefficients are sometimes
insufficient. The sole univariate analysis cannot be sufficient to claim new prognostic tools or
strategies. additional analyses and measurements are recommended.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Figure 3 and 4 dot spreads may suggest different subcategories
Title: Identification of a vascular invasion-related signature based on lncRNA pairs for
predicting prognosis in hepatocellular carcinoma
Version: 6 Date: 02 Dec 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?
No - there are major issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
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?
No - there are major issues
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?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: In the study conducted and here summerized, the authors aimed
to generate a novel predictive signature based on 5 vascular invasion-related lncRNA pairs
in human HCC samples. The hypothesis and the aim are simple and clear- As simple is the
approach. the authors subgrouped patients between HCC patients high- and low-risk groups, an
such a classification can raise several questions or criticisms. However, in addition the authors
collected more than 300 human samples (HCC) and "adopted the least absolute shrinkage
and selection operator (LASSO)-penalized Cox regression analysis" to confirm a predictive
model. We do not complitetely agree with the authors when they state they generated a
predictive model that provides insight into the value of vascular invasion-related lncRNAs
leading to a more accurate prognosis. their results are quite partial with limited investigation and
biological/biomolecular analyses. Furthermore, their replies to authors concerns and requests
are quite modest and frequently purely cosmetic. They offered minimal explanation and
compeltely refused to increment with deeper analysis and biological screening in support.
Finally, manuscript contains several repetitions and English sentences that require additional,
critical revision (in particular in the abstract and discussion sections)
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The R1 manuscript would stll benefit froma n additional revision. Several sentences in teh
Discussion are redundant and repetitive. English language still may benefit fro an additional
editing. Above al, we would recommend additional analyses and cross check for the claimed
pathways. Data normalization and levels of expression vs regression coefficients are sometimes
insufficient. The sole univariate analysis cannot be sufficient to claim new prognostic tools or
strategies. additional analyses and measurements are recommended.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Figure 3 and 4 dot spreads may suggest different subcategories
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Identification of a vascular invasion-related signature based on lncRNA pairs for
predicting prognosis in hepatocellular carcinoma
Version: 6 Date: 02 Dec 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?
No - there are major issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
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?
No - there are major issues
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?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: In the study conducted and here summerized, the authors aimed
to generate a novel predictive signature based on 5 vascular invasion-related lncRNA pairs
in human HCC samples. The hypothesis and the aim are simple and clear- As simple is the
approach. the authors subgrouped patients between HCC patients high- and low-risk groups, an
such a classification can raise several questions or criticisms. However, in addition the authors
collected more than 300 human samples (HCC) and "adopted the least absolute shrinkage
and selection operator (LASSO)-penalized Cox regression analysis" to confirm a predictive
model. We do not complitetely agree with the authors when they state they generated a
predictive model that provides insight into the value of vascular invasion-related lncRNAs
leading to a more accurate prognosis. their results are quite partial with limited investigation and
biological/biomolecular analyses. Furthermore, their replies to authors concerns and requests
are quite modest and frequently purely cosmetic. They offered minimal explanation and
compeltely refused to increment with deeper analysis and biological screening in support.
Finally, manuscript contains several repetitions and English sentences that require additional,
critical revision (in particular in the abstract and discussion sections)
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The R1 manuscript would stll benefit froma n additional revision. Several sentences in teh
Discussion are redundant and repetitive. English language still may benefit fro an additional
editing. Above al, we would recommend additional analyses and cross check for the claimed
pathways. Data normalization and levels of expression vs regression coefficients are sometimes
insufficient. The sole univariate analysis cannot be sufficient to claim new prognostic tools or
strategies. additional analyses and measurements are recommended.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Figure 3 and 4 dot spreads may suggest different subcategories
assistant