Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03766-6 (2025)

Title: Using a nomogram based on the controlling nutritional status score to predict prognosis
after surgery in patients with resectable gastric cancer
Version: 2 Date: 11 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?)
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?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the 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?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: HAVE THE AUTHORS RESPONDED ADEQUATELY TO
EACH OF THE QUESTIONS YOU RAISED IN YOUR COMMENTS
Yes
HAVE THEY MADE THE APPROPRIATE CHANGES IN THE MANUSCRIPT
YES and very well
WHAT IS YOUR OVERALL IMPRESSION OF THE REVISED MANUSCRIPT
I really think this is an interesting study that may very well change the aggressiveness of how
gastric cancer is treated after and maybe even before gastrectomy. The nomogram can select
those at greatest risk of recurrent disease and thus the score will need to be e aligned in a later
study according to its use
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL REVISIONS THE AUTHORS SHOULD MAKE
I have read the entire manuscript again and will only add comments that might further improve
this otherwise interesting and well conducted study
1. Page 1 line 11 you should add the words “a potentially curative” after the word “received”
this will answer my question on the last review. This is also Perone t for pages 3 last line  I know
that is in the methods but not in the abstract
2. page 2 lines 5 something to think about out should you end the last sentence with “and may
identify those patients wholesale benefit from a more aggressive treatment protocol”.   I really
think this is a possibility and would make your nomogram much more clinically useful and not
just for predicting g survival
3. Page 3 line 16 why not add “and their physicians”
After the word “and”
4. Page 4 line 2 I would add the plowed “only” before the “R 1/2 resections)
5. Page 4 line 4 should you say after the word “differentiation which included signet cell cancer”?
I suggest that you think. About it because many studies have e looked at signet cell gastric cancer
er alone showing a worse survival
6. page 11 line 11   I would change “get more efficient nutritional treatment” to  “undergo
an attempt at nutritional resuscitation “and on line 13   I would change it to read “with high
postoperative scores may gain from postoperative”. I think the word you used “preoperative”
should be postoperative because you addresses preoperative on line 11
7. Page 13 line 17 why not also add “and postoperative” before the word “nutritional”
Nine study these suggestions into k will
Make it even just a little
But better AND highlight the conclusions of your study