Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03219-6 (2024)

Title: Prognostic analysis of hepatocellular carcinoma based on Cuproptosis -associated
lncRNAs
Version: 0 Date: 13 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
1.When composing a written work, the author frequently encounters formatting errors, including
the omission of a space character at the onset of a paragraph. Additionally, with regard to
abbreviations, the complete term should be employed upon its initial mention, while subsequent
references may utilize the abbreviated form. For instance, in line 72, the term "Hepatocellular
carcinoma" has already been abbreviated as "HCC" in line 29. Consequently, in line 72, it is
appropriate to employ the abbreviation instead.
2.The author demonstrates, as depicted in Figure 1, the exclusion of mRNA data, whereas
the correlation analysis presented in this article incorporates 19 genes associated with copper
apoptosis, which constitutes mRNA data. Consequently, the expression depicted in Figure 1 can
be deemed inaccurate.
3. Does the PFS analysis mentioned in line 105 not fall under the purview of the Survival analysis
discussed in line 99? The method section lacks explicit mention of the evaluation approach for
the survival analysis, while Figure 3 employs K-M plots.
4.The author's writing exhibits numerous grammatical errors, particularly in the section where
specific results of previous research are described and the past tense is employed, as exemplified
by the phrase "results are displayed in Figure 2B." Several analogous errors can be identified
throughout the text.
5.The findings depicted in Figure 3, specifically Figure 3A and Figure 3C, present a perplexing
scenario. It is challenging to ascertain whether these outcomes are solely attributed to a specific
lncRNA or if they are a collective prediction derived from the integration of six lncRNAs, as
indicated in the Figure legend and figure. Furthermore, additional figures should be included to
provide supplementary information to state it clearly. Moreover, when conducting the regression
analysis, it remains unspecified how many lncRNAs were included in the model, particularly
when considering variables such as age, gender, stages, grades, and model scores. It is imperative
to provide a clear and explicit description in this regard.
6.The genes mentioned in lines 225 to 226 encompass Cuproptosis-related genes, Cuproptosis-
related lncRNAs, and lncRNAs involved in the construction of the model. It remains unclear
which specific genes are being referred to and the specific variables in which lncRNAs
participate in the model construction. The author's thought process behind this transition is
challenging to comprehend.
7.In the analysis of immediate related functions, it is essential to identify the R package
employed for this analysis. Additionally, it would be helpful to provide a comprehensive list of
corresponding R packages for similar analyses conducted in other contexts.
8.The author incorporated mutation and drug sensitivity data; however, the source and sample
size of these data were not disclosed, resulting in a sense of abruptness for the readers.
9. The nomenclature of the figure legend is insufficient, impeding the clear expression of the
figure's intended significance.
10. In the discussion section, kindly provide a list of articles akin to your research and elucidate
the strengths inherent in your study.