All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
The current version is a substantially improved version of the original manuscript.
Methods are well reported with sufficient amount of details.
All underlying data has been provided and conclusion supports the results.
In my opinion, in the current revised version, a substantial amount of improvement can be noticed. Authors seems to have work hard to make all the necessary changes. Writing style is much better and it facilitates reading.
Appreciate use of an English language service and corrections to grammar. No other concerns.
No additional comments
No additional comments
Recommend English language service for assistance with grammar. There are instances in the introduction (lines 40-42, 52-54, 59-61, 64-68), methods (lines 84-85, 93-94, 104 [the plural of index is indices]), and results (lines 134-135,153-154) that do not use acceptable English grammar.
Please attach a VALID English certificate on this manuscript!
Authors have provided answer to my previous question in a satisfactory manner.
Methods are robust and meet the ethical standards. Also, there is sufficient detail to replicate the experiments. In addition. authors have addressed the issues raised in previous review.
The underlying data supports notion that study is novel, statistically sound, and controlled.
Conclusions support results.
From my perspective, study has been improved substantially and its suitable for publication.
Recommend English language service for assistance with grammar. There are instances in the introduction (lines 40-42, 52-54, 59-61, 64-68), methods (lines 84-85, 93-94, 104 [the plural of index is indices]), and results (lines 134-135,153-154) that do not use acceptable English grammar.
Added background is appreciated and adds to the manuscript.
Appreciate corrections to statistical modeling methodology.
Conclusions are well-stated and supported by statistical analysis.
Appreciate the hard work the authors put into making revisions to this manuscript. However there are a few grammatical issues that should be addressed prior to publication.
Please follow strictly the suggestions and concerns of the reviewers.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the response letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the response letter. Directions on how to prepare a response letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
In my opinion, it is a very well written, novel, relevant paper. Introduction section provides sufficient details although I suggest expanding information on nomogram in the last paragraph, and briefly describe if nomogram has been used for this condition before, if yes, what were the problems? How this study is better?
In discussion section, authors may want to comment on the short median length of follow up, if this is another limitation, also will it be to conduct a prospective study?
This part is also well written, within the aims and scope of this journal. the research question has been clearly defined and its relevant to the field. Methods are robust and meet the ethical standards. Also, there is sufficient detail to replicate the experiments.
I have a minor comment here, would it be possible to elaborate on was there any history of smoking in patients with lung cancer or any other collateral history that may be a risk factor for respective malignancy?
The underlying data have been provided, which proves study to be novel, statistically sound, and controlled.
Conclusions address the original research question and support results.
Recommend hiring an English language service to assist with academic prose. The term "periochia" is not a generally accepted term in the English literature - recommend use of the term "periungual" instead.
Background, structure, raw data, hypotheses are all acceptable.
Research question well defined and investigation performed to technical and ethical standards. Methods sufficiently described.
Use of CXR alone may be underdiagnosing ILD in DM patients – could have much higher rates among both cohorts (malignancy-associated and non-malignancy-associated) which could affect model.
Usually build multivariable analysis from univariable analyses where p<0.1 rather than p<0.05; a variable which may not be important in univariable analysis may occasionally become important in multivariable analyses, thus larger p-values than the traditional p<0.05 are typically used. Correcting this in univariable analysis could introduce factors such as sex (as has been found in previous studies) and poikiloderma, both of which have 0.05<p<0.1.
In addition to its current form, would consider an alternative figure/table depicting the points assigned to each criterion in the nomogram, so the point total can be more easily calculated without the need for a straightedge.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.