JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Integrating traditional biomarkers and emerging predictors to assess neoadjuvant
chemotherapy efficacy in breast cancer: a multifactorial analysis of Ki-67, CDK4, EGFR, TILs
and ctDNA
Version: 0 Date: 19 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this interesting study "Integrating Traditional
Biomarkers and Emerging Predictors to Assess Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Efficacy in Breast
Cancer: A Multifactorial Analysis of Ki-67, CDK4, EGFR, TILs, and ctDNA".
However, I have some comments and recommendations:
Comments:
Title: - Is appropriate for the content of the article.
Abstract:- Represents a suitable summary of the work.
Article content:- The methods and results have been well explained.
Conclusions:- Are justified on the basis of the study.
Recommendations:
Discussion:- Mention the strength of the study.
References:- Stick to the format of the journal.
General:- Revise language, grammar and syntax.
Title: Integrating traditional biomarkers and emerging predictors to assess neoadjuvant
chemotherapy efficacy in breast cancer: a multifactorial analysis of Ki-67, CDK4, EGFR, TILs
and ctDNA
Version: 0 Date: 20 Sep 2024
Reviewer:  Michael Odida
Reviewer's report:
Manuscript on an important topic and well written. There are some minor mistakes in
the   introduction. Clinicopathology  should be clinical pathology and important should be
importance.
Title: Integrating traditional biomarkers and emerging predictors to assess neoadjuvant
chemotherapy efficacy in breast cancer: a multifactorial analysis of Ki-67, CDK4, EGFR, TILs
and ctDNA
Version: 0 Date: 21 Sep 2024
Reviewer:  Phuc Nhon Nguyen
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
Thank you for your interesting work concernin breast cancer in women’s health. I have some
comments in constructive way:
-A study flowchart should be added with inclusion/exclusion cases.
-Study sample size should be calculated.
-Immunohistochemical tests should be described in detailed with more information.
-Please add information for NACT chemotherapy. Which chemotherapy were used?
-History of family such as colon cancer, breast cancer was not provided.
-Concomitant diseases and side-effects of the drugs were absent in Table 1.
-Type of statistical tests should be added to p-value in table as foot-notes.
-Multivariate logistic regression should be generated with adjusted factors.
-The retrospective study could not be avoided with bias.
-The perspective of netrophi to lymphocyte ratio and genomic factors should be mentioned in
future study.
Gago-Dominguez, M., Matabuena, M., Redondo, C.M. et al. Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio
and breast cancer risk: analysis by subtype and potential interactions. Sci Rep 10, 13203 (2020).
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-70077-z
Chen, C., Lin, CJ., Pei, YC. et al. Comprehensive genomic profiling of breast cancers
characterizes germline-somatic mutation interactions mediating therapeutic vulnerabilities. Cell
Discov 9, 125 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41421-023-00614-3
-Ultrasound for detecting hypervascularity and its parameters could help in developping a
predicting model for the prognosis of common cancer as well as breast cancer. Please mention
in discussion.
Park AY, Seo BK. Up-to-date Doppler techniques for breast tumor vascularity: superb
microvascular imaging and contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Ultrasonography. 2018;37(2):98-106.
doi:10.14366/usg.17043
Nguyen PN, Nguyen VT. Endometrial thickness and uterine artery Doppler parameters
as soft markers for prediction of endometrial cancer in postmenopausal bleeding women:
a cross-sectional study at tertiary referral hospitals from Vietnam. Obstet Gynecol Sci.
2022;65(5):430-440. doi:10.5468/ogs.22053
-English editing should be required.
After review process, I hope to receive your revision.
Yours respecfully,
Title: Integrating traditional biomarkers and emerging predictors to assess neoadjuvant
chemotherapy efficacy in breast cancer: a multifactorial analysis of Ki-67, CDK4, EGFR, TILs
and ctDNA
Version: 0 Date: 21 Sep 2024
Reviewer:  Burak Sezgin
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor
Many thanx to give me the opportunity to review the article entitled ‘Integrating Traditional
Biomarkers and Emerging Predictors to Assess Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Efficacy in Breast
Cancer: A Multifactorial Analysis of Ki-67, CDK4, EGFR, TILs, and ctDNA.
The authors retrospectively analyzed the clinicopathological data of 231 breast cancer patients
who underwent preoperative NACT. They analyzed the correlation between the expression
of Ki-67, CDK4, EGFR, TILs, and ctDNA with the outcome and prognosis of breast
cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). Although it is difficult to
make a recommendation as these findings highlight the potential for integrating traditional
clinicopathological factors with novel biomarkers for personalized treatment strategies in breast
cancer, it is an interesting study and has a value.
Advices to authors
Main text
- why did you exclude patients to whom unable to perform HER-2, ER, PR, EGFR, Ki-67, CDK4
expression. This sentence seems as a prospective nature. Did you plan to perform these markers
during the study?
-in inclusion criterias, why did not you add the patients with bilateral mass?
Discussion
-  positive aspects of the study should be added
Title: Integrating traditional biomarkers and emerging predictors to assess neoadjuvant
chemotherapy efficacy in breast cancer: a multifactorial analysis of Ki-67, CDK4, EGFR, TILs
and ctDNA
Version: 0 Date: 23 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors
In general, the presented article seems acceptable in terms of its scientific structure and the
content of the results and is able to be printed, but there are a few points that should be considered
to increase the quality:
Methodology and statistical analysis:
• The article uses standard methods of statistical analysis such as logistic regression and survival
analysis, which are suitable for investigating factors affecting treatment results. However, it is
important to be careful in explaining the details of the methodology and statistical tools used.
If there is a deficiency in this section, the article should explain the statistical methods more
precisely and clearly.
2. Attention to limitations:
• The article mentions limitations such as the retrospective nature of the study and the short
follow-up period. Providing suggestions for the future, including studies with a prospective
design and a longer follow-up period, shows awareness of these limitations and helps to accept
the article.
3. Clear and coherent results:
• Results are fully presented and the relationship between different variables and clinical
outcomes is well described. However, the interpretation of the results in the "Discussion" section
may need to be strengthened by using newer and more up-to-date sources.
4. Language and writing:
• The article should be carefully reviewed and edited in terms of scientific language and fluency
of the text.
Title: Integrating traditional biomarkers and emerging predictors to assess neoadjuvant
chemotherapy efficacy in breast cancer: a multifactorial analysis of Ki-67, CDK4, EGFR, TILs
and ctDNA
Version: 0 Date: 24 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thanks to the respected author.
Please mention the strengths of the study.
It is written at the end of the discussion. Lower expression of Ki-67 and …. has a better outcome?
The article is properly written and appears ready for printing.
Best Regards
Title: Integrating traditional biomarkers and emerging predictors to assess neoadjuvant
chemotherapy efficacy in breast cancer: a multifactorial analysis of Ki-67, CDK4, EGFR, TILs
and ctDNA
Version: 0 Date: 24 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you very much for the opportunity to review the manuscript.
This is an interesting manuscript evaluates the predictive value of biomarkers such as Ki-67,
CDK4, EGFR, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in
assessing the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in breast cancer. The study, based
on a sample of 231 patients, utilizes retrospective analysis to explore the relationship between
these biomarkers, pathological complete response (pCR), and disease-free survival (DFS). Key
findings indicate that TNM classification, EGFR positivity, low Ki-67 expression, and CDK4
negativity are linked to higher pCR rates, while higher TILs levels and significant reductions
in ctDNA during NACT correlate with better prognosis. Propensity score matching revealed
that patients who achieved pCR had higher 3-year DFS rates than non-pCR patients. Subgroup
analysis highlighted distinct biomarker profiles across different breast cancer subtypes. The
study's strengths include its comprehensive biomarker analysis, robust statistical methods, and
its clinical relevance in advancing personalized treatment strategies. Overall, this study provides
valuable insights into how traditional and emerging biomarkers can be integrated for more
personalized breast cancer treatment.
My suggestions:
Please revise discussion for more detailed analysis on subgroup differences and the potential
implications for immunotherapy.
I would suggest discussing more ctDNA’s role in detecting minimal residual disease in the
discussion part.
I would be happy to review the revised manuscript again.
Title: Integrating traditional biomarkers and emerging predictors to assess neoadjuvant
chemotherapy efficacy in breast cancer: a multifactorial analysis of Ki-67, CDK4, EGFR, TILs
and ctDNA
Version: 1 Date: 23 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you very much for the opportunity to review the revised manuscript. It seems to me that
the authors have addressed all concerns raised by the reviewers. I have no further comments
regarding the manuscript.
Title: Integrating traditional biomarkers and emerging predictors to assess neoadjuvant
chemotherapy efficacy in breast cancer: a multifactorial analysis of Ki-67, CDK4, EGFR, TILs
and ctDNA
Version: 1 Date: 24 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting article, and with careful and detailed revisions by the author, I think it has
reached a level that can be published.
Title: Integrating traditional biomarkers and emerging predictors to assess neoadjuvant
chemotherapy efficacy in breast cancer: a multifactorial analysis of Ki-67, CDK4, EGFR, TILs
and ctDNA
Version: 1 Date: 24 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this interesting study "Integrating traditional
biomarkers and emerging predictors to assess neoadjuvant chemotherapy efficacy in breast
cancer: a multifactorial analysis of Ki-67, CDK4, EGFR, TILs and ctDNA".
Almost all reviewer’s comments and recommendations were considered.
Title: Integrating traditional biomarkers and emerging predictors to assess neoadjuvant
chemotherapy efficacy in breast cancer: a multifactorial analysis of Ki-67, CDK4, EGFR, TILs
and ctDNA
Version: 1 Date: 24 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Phuc Nhon Nguyen
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for your revision. The paper is well-improved.
Title: Integrating traditional biomarkers and emerging predictors to assess neoadjuvant
chemotherapy efficacy in breast cancer: a multifactorial analysis of Ki-67, CDK4, EGFR, TILs
and ctDNA
Version: 1 Date: 26 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
The article presents in a very well documented and comprehensive manner the role of  Ki 67
and EGFR as prognostic markers in breast cancer patients underlining the fact that cases with
positive EGFR receptors along with lower levels of Ki67 and lower TNM stages seem to have a
better outcome and a higher possibility to personalize their treatment, increasing therefore their
lifespan.
Therefore, we consider that the article can be published in the current form
Title: Integrating traditional biomarkers and emerging predictors to assess neoadjuvant
chemotherapy efficacy in breast cancer: a multifactorial analysis of Ki-67, CDK4, EGFR, TILs
and ctDNA
Version: 1 Date: 26 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Michael Odida
Reviewer's report:
I would like to thank the authors for this manuscript on breast cancer. The authors have
extensively revised the manuscript. In my opinion, the manuscript is of great value in breast
cancer.
Title: ‘It’s a secret in my life’: Frontstage and backstage experiences of women undergoing
induced abortions in a rural community of Pakistan
Version: 2 Date: 27 Nov 2023
Reviewer:  Malvern Chiweshe
Reviewer's report:
The paper effectively employs qualitative methods, including in-depth interviews and focus
groups, to capture the nuanced experiences of women undergoing abortions in Pakistan.
The application of Goffman’s dramaturgical theory is innovative and provides a unique lens
to understand the dichotomy between public and private experiences. The study thoroughly
considers Pakistan's cultural and religious context, offering a detailed view of how societal
norms influence women’s experiences.  However, a couple of improvements can further
strengthen the paper:
- The paper could be strengthened by a more explicit discussion of policy implications and
practical recommendations for healthcare providers, policymakers, and community leaders.
-  The paper will benefit from professional editing throughout. For example, the headings need
to be on different levels.
- A bit more explanation on  how the religious and legal systems  operate alongside each other
when it comes to abortion
-  There a couple of concepts that needs further exploration to help those who are not familiar
to the theories being presented e.g., Goffman's three types of stigma, social construction
-  The results section could benefit from more nuance and citations
-  There are about 8 women who were in their 60's in the study.  It is not stated when their
abortions happened or how this affects their recollection of their abortions.
- There needs to be consistency on how the participant quotes are presented. Some are just a
couple of words.
Title: ‘It’s a secret in my life’: Frontstage and backstage experiences of women undergoing
induced abortions in a rural community of Pakistan
Version: 3 Date: 04 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Mariyam Sarfraz
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript is much improved, with the comments addressed and relevant details added. I
would still urge to reduce the  theory description part, if possible.
There is some language and formatting editing required in the document.
Title: The relationship between serum progesterone level on the day of HCG trigger in IVF/
ICSI cycles and oocyte maturation and embryo quality: A retrospective observational study
Version: 2 Date: 13 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this interesting study "The relationship
between serum progesterone level on the day of HCG trigger in IVF/ICSI cycles and oocyte
maturation and embryo quality".
However, I have some comments and recommendations:
Comments:
Title: - Is appropriate for the content of the article.
Abstract:- Represents a suitable summary of the work.
Article content:- The methods and results have been well explained.
Conclusions:- Are justified on the basis of the study.
Recommendations:
Discussion:- Mention the limitations of the study.
References:- Stick to the format of the journal.
General:- Revise language, grammar and syntax.
Title: The relationship between serum progesterone level on the day of HCG trigger in IVF/
ICSI cycles and oocyte maturation and embryo quality: A retrospective observational study
Version: 2 Date: 16 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Mohammed abu El-Hamd
Reviewer's report:
What is the type of this study?
The type of the study should be a part of the title.
Did the authors conduct power analyses for the sample size assessment?
What are the ethical considerations?
The discussion and results should be more organized.
Major corrections to the language are essential.
References should match the instructions of this journal.
Title: The relationship between serum progesterone level on the day of HCG trigger in IVF/
ICSI cycles and oocyte maturation and embryo quality: A retrospective observational study
Version: 5 Date: 06 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this interesting study "The relationship
between serum progesterone level on the day of HCG trigger in IVF/ICSI cycles and oocyte
maturation and embryo quality".
Almost all reviewer’s comments and recommendations were considered.
Title: The relationship between serum progesterone level on the day of HCG trigger in IVF/
ICSI cycles and oocyte maturation and embryo quality: A retrospective observational study
Version: 7 Date: 19 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this interesting study "The relationship
between serum progesterone level on the day of HCG trigger in IVF/ICSI cycles and oocyte
maturation and embryo quality".
Almost all reviewer’s comments and recommendations were considered.
Title: Sex-Specific Associations of Prenatal Chinese Famine Exposure with Cataract Risk at
Age Sixty: A Cross-Sectional Study
Version: 1 Date: 07 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
I appreciate the opportunity to review your paper titled “Long-term effects of prenatal Chinese
famine exposure on offspring's age-related cataract risk: A gender-based cross-sectional study”.
This study suggests an investigation into association between exposure to famine and cataract
risk in Chongqing, China. However, a number of minor to moderate revisions, including
revised interpretation of some findings, must be addressed. I have the following comments and
suggestions aimed to improve the quality of the paper
Please see below:
Major comments
1. The authors explained the cause of the Great Famine in China primarily in terms of climate
change, and they attributed the association with cataracts to malnutrition. However, the overall
connection between the background evidence and research results appears tenuous. During
the Great Famine in China, policy failures and socioeconomic factors likely played a more
significant role than climate change alone. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to incorporate these
factors into the explanation?
2. What is the regional distribution of the data included in the study? Can it represent the entire
population of China? Since the data was recruited from a single institution, the authors need to
describe the limitations regarding the representativeness of their sample.
3. I have significant concerns regarding the selection of the control group. The current control
group is defined as the period immediately following the Chinese Great Famine. It is likely
that the aftermath of the famine still influenced this control group. Additionally, since the time
periods for the patient group and the control group are not the same, the temporal effects could
be substantial. How do the authors address these issues?
4. The current results seem susceptible to potential confounding factors, which could undermine
the robustness of the findings. I recommend further adjustments to the model to account for
additional demographic, socioeconomic, and obstetric indicators.
5. The Chinese famine exposure implicitly encompasses multiple factors, making it limiting to
connect the research results solely to malnutrition. The authors need to explain the findings from
various perspectives.
Minor comments
1. Throughout the manuscript, the authors interchangeably use “gender” and “sex”. Considering
the potential difference between socio-cultural gender and biological sex. The authors need
to unify these terms accordingly. The authors can choose "gender" and "sex" based on their
perspective and rationale.
2. I recommend that authors specify "prenatal exposure" throughout the Manuscript.
Title: Impact of serum lipid on recurrence of uterine fibroids: A single center retrospective study
Version: 1 Date: 12 Jun 2024
Reviewer:  Martina Arcieri
Reviewer's report:
I read and evaluated this interesting manuscript.
I think some revisions are necessary before considering publication.
A language revision is necessary
Also, how was the sample calculation done to be sure that 36 recurrences are sufficient?
The abstract should be revised.
How long before surgery were the blood tests performed? Do you routinely do all the indicated
tests (CA125, CA19.9 etc.) in the pre-operative?
The discussione should be revised.  What could be the reason for the correlation? Have in vivo
or in vitro studies been carried out?
Title: Impact of serum lipid on recurrence of uterine fibroids: A single center retrospective study
Version: 2 Date: 15 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
# While the study develops three prediction models based on different lipid parameters, it would
be beneficial to provide a clearer rationale for why these specific lipid levels were chosen over
others.
# The study is based on a single-center population, which could limit the generalizability of
the results. Acknowledging this limitation is good, but proposing potential multicenter studies
would further strengthen the discussion.
# You have developed three models based on TC, LDL-C, and HDL-C levels. Could you explain
why TG levels were not statistically significant in your analysis and why a predictive model
based on TG levels was not developed, despite TG being considered important in other studies?
# Given that UF recurrence may occur beyond the 12-month period, do you plan to extend the
study's follow-up duration in future studies to capture potential long-term recurrence?
# Have you considered integrating other non-lipid biomarkers or patient characteristics (e.g.,
genetic factors) into the nomograms to improve predictive accuracy? Could this potentially
enhance the clinical application of the models?
Title: A novel prognostic score of recurrence for endometrial cancer patients with staging
surgery
Version: 1 Date: 16 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Basilio Pecorino
Reviewer's report:
Dear Author, thanks for the opportunity to review this manuscript.
1. Title: please, you have to change it focusing on the importance of your score to predict
recurrence.
2. Abstract: in my opinion you should remove the sentence "ETR score were superior to those
using the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics staging system".
3. Introduction: in consideration of presumed superiority of your score in comparison with FIGO
staging system, you have to summarized the FIGO criteria.
4. Method: Did you consider sentinel node dissection instead of lymphadenectomy? What
software Did you use for statistical analysis?
5. Discussion:  What is the prognosis in syncronous endometrial endometrioid ovarian/
endometrial cancer? Please, cite this work: Pecorino B, Laganà AS, Chiantera V, Ferrara M,
Di Stefano AB, Di Donna MC, Sorrentino F, Nappi L, Mikuš M, Scollo P. Progression Free
Survival, Overall Survival, and Relapse Rate in Endometrioid Ovarian Cancer and Synchronous
Endometrial-Ovarian Endometrioid Cancer (SEO-EC): Results from a Large Retrospective
Analysis. Medicina (Kaunas). 2022 Nov 23;58(12):1706. doi: 10.3390/medicina58121706.
Title: A novel prognostic score of recurrence for endometrial cancer patients with staging
surgery
Version: 1 Date: 21 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Erkan #im#ek
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
I appreciate your efforts.
It would be more significant for the literature, I would say, if this study could incorporate the
molecular categorization of endometrial cancer.Incorporating radiation and chemotherapy into
this procedure would also be advantageous, in my opinion.
Title: A novel prognostic score of recurrence for endometrial cancer patients with staging
surgery
Version: 1 Date: 28 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
1
The title of the study
A novel prognostic score for endometrial cancer patients undergoing lymphadenectomy
How about
A novel prognostic score for endometrial cancer with staging operation
Or
A novel prognostic score for endometrial cancer
2
% in table 1
3
How etr model was made