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.
Dear Authors, your manuscript is acceptable in its current form.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Valeria Souza, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Dear Authors,
Make revisions as suggested by reviewer #2 and return your revised paper or write a detailed rebuttal.
Everything was corrected as requested.
No comment.
Everything was corrected as requested.
Line 123 – ypical – please correct…
The manuscript is much improved.
Experimental design is modified as suggested.
Impact and novelty is fair.
1. Please correct the spelling error "ypical" (Page 5, Line 123).
The current edition of the revised manuscript could be accepted for publication.
There is no need to improve the design.
Those findings need to be validated in an external cohort. However, the author could not provide it now.
Dear authors,
After reading the reviews it was decided that you need to make a major revision to your manuscript. You should rewrite the manuscript in line with the reviewers' comments or write a detailed rebuttal on a point-by-point basis.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff 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.
Np comment
No comment
Discussion should be rewritten. First start with the results you got and then compare each with results from previous studies. Also explain what is the underlying pathophysiological mechanism.
First sentence should be line 201 … - In this study….
1.Reference is needed for the sentence ‘The central nervous system infection caused by cryptococcus accounts for 80% of cryptococcal infection’ (Page 6, Line 53).
2. Spell out the word ‘PC’ at its first appearance. (Page 7, Line 54)
3. Please modify the expression more precisely as hematology malignance, not hematological tumors. Similarly, disseminated infection, not infection metastasis; neurological symptom, not psychiatric symptom.
4. The expression is quite confused as you said ‘the best treatment scheme is mainly to use antifungal drugs or select an appropriate therapy according to individual conditions in clinical practice’. What do you mean by appropriate therapy other than antifungal treatment?
5. There’re many effective methods to diagnose cryptococcosis including detection for cryptococcal antigen, lung biopsy, cerebral spinal fluid examination, et al. Despite non-specific clinical symptoms, I don’t think the diagnostic methods are limited as the author said. (Page 7, Line 64-65)
1. Cryptococcal meningitis is not included in the predictive model although it’s considered as a severe complication of pulmonary cryptococcosis. Why? And please clarify how the potential risk factors shown in Table 2 were identified, from statistical analysis or clinical experience only?
2. In method section, what do you mean by hormone therapy? Is it treatment with glucocorticoids?
3. The diagnostic criteria for cryptococcosis including pulmonary cryptococcosis and cryptococcal meningitis needs to be described as clearly as possible.
4. How long were the patents followed up?
5. How was the onset time defined in this study?
No comment
The author tried to establish a predictive model for poor prognosis of cryptococcosis. The major problems are shown above.
Dear Authors,
Thanks for your effort in this field. You constructed and validated a nomogram model to predict
the poor prognosis in patients with pulmonary cryptococcosis. The language was clear. The article included sufficient introduction and background to demonstrate how the work fits into the broader field of knowledge. The article structure was good.
The experimental design was appropriate. However, the study lacked an external validation cohort.
The impact and novelty of the article were general. You could add a table to detail the score based on the nomogram.
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.