Title: Predicting the risk of lymph node metastasis in colon cancer: development and validation
of an online dynamic nomogram based on multiple preoperative data
Version: 2 Date: 14 Feb 2025
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?)
No - there are minor issues
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 major 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?
No - manuscript has some fundamental flaw(s)
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: Dear authors
Suggested modifications are lacking. The paper seems the same of the previous time. It's still
too long and too detailed in section without any interest for the reader.
Moreover the real evidence derived from such a small number of patients is really vey
questionable.
Please see and follow previous suggestions
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
see my comments above
Title: Predicting the risk of lymph node metastasis in colon cancer: development and validation
of an online dynamic nomogram based on multiple preoperative data
Version: 2 Date: 14 Feb 2025
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?)
No - there are minor issues
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 major 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?
No - manuscript has some fundamental flaw(s)
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: Dear authors
Suggested modifications are lacking. The paper seems the same of the previous time. It's still
too long and too detailed in section without any interest for the reader.
Moreover the real evidence derived from such a small number of patients is really vey
questionable.
Please see and follow previous suggestions
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
see my comments above
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Predicting the risk of lymph node metastasis in colon cancer: development and validation
of an online dynamic nomogram based on multiple preoperative data
Version: 2 Date: 14 Feb 2025
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?)
No - there are minor issues
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 major 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?
No - manuscript has some fundamental flaw(s)
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: Dear authors
Suggested modifications are lacking. The paper seems the same of the previous time. It's still
too long and too detailed in section without any interest for the reader.
Moreover the real evidence derived from such a small number of patients is really vey
questionable.
Please see and follow previous suggestions
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
see my comments above
assistant