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.
Based on the reports received from the reviewers I recommend the acceptance of the manuscript.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vladimir Uversky, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
No comment
No comment
No comment
No comment
manuscript is well written, and the study's methodology and rationale are well-structured and scientifically informative
The experimental design is well executed
Conclusions read well and clearly with updated and supporting information
Please attend to the comments by the three reviewers and provide a detailed explanation of work revised or rebuttal. Also please check the manuscript thoroughly for grammatical errors. I agree with the reviewer that the sample size is small but you can comment on that in the manuscript.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**Language 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). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
No comments
No comments
No comments
Authors did really excellent job in ESCC analysis filed. However, lipid metabolism is a very complex process, especially for esophageal cancer patients, so I hope the authors can add BMI information of the patients in clinical information table.
No comment
No comment
1. Have you ever tried to explore the association between lipidomics/plasma lipids with patients' outcome, e.g., overall survival? If not, please do so.
2. Is it possible to measure the concentration of different plasma lipids?
requested for professional English editing.
The sample size is too small to draw conclusions
The manuscript “Plasma-based lipidomics reveals potential diagnostic biomarkers for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a retrospective study” provides valuable information about developing a convenient and diagnostic method for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) using plasma-based lipidomics analysis.
Following are some crucial concerns:
1. Could you elaborate on the specific mechanisms by which dysregulated fatty acids (FA), diacylglycerols (DG), and triglycerides (TG) contribute to the plasma lipid profile in ESCC patients? Additionally, are there any known regulatory pathways or molecular processes involved in the observed upregulation and downregulation of FA, DG, and TG?
2. Considering the study’s limitation of a small sample size from a single center, how might this affect the robustness and generalizability of the data?
3. How essential is it to include a control group comprising high-risk individuals with benign lesions, and how might their inclusion impact the study's outcomes?
4. The absence of a control group comprising high-risk individuals with benign lesions. Can you explain how crucial the inclusion of such a control group is concerning enhancing the validity?
5. Could you please provide a table presenting "The clinical and demographic characteristics of all subjects" (smoking, drinking, Hypertension, BMI, cholesterolemia) with three columns for control, ESCC samples, and p values?
6. As mentioned ML-based multiple-lipid models did not demonstrate markedly superior diagnostic performance compared to single-lipid models, how the model might be optimized/refined for larger samples or diverse patient groups?
7. The absence of this specific control group could potentially impact the interpretation of dysregulated lipid profiles and the development of the diagnostic model for ESCC?
8. Considering the promising results of the developed diagnostic model, what potential challenges and considerations are anticipated during the process of translating it into clinical practice?
9. Understanding the importance of validation, do the authors have plans to conduct further studies in diverse patient populations and clinical settings?
10. Compare the proposed diagnostic method using plasma-based lipidomics to existing diagnostic methods in terms of potential advantages, sensitivity, and specificity.
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.