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 Doctor, I am pleased to inform you that your article has been accepted for publication in our journal. I hope that the results of your study will be useful to oncology researchers and pharmacologists in various fields.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vladimir Uversky, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Thank you for perfect revision.
Perfect clinical design
good
The author has sufficiently addressed all my comments including improving clarity to the manuscript.
All experimental design addressed.
N/A
Dear authors,
I ask you to carefully correct the manuscript in accordance with the reviewers' fundamental comments. In the material and methods, you write that you calculated the median, first and third quartiles. I ask you to show the data in the figures, where possible, in the form of a box analysis (median, first and third quartiles, minimum and maximum values). The article needs to be made more familiar to readers (add data to the tables in the form of mean value +- standard deviation and reference values with a link to the source of literature), which is also indicated by one of the reviewers.
**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 [email protected] 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
.
.
.
Platin (P) is an important drug in treating patients with cancer. The current report closes up the gap between P levels and development of clinical ailments. The study protocol is excellent, data are well presented and discussed. Paper reads nicely and refreshing but additional scientific power would be welcomed like focusing on DILI. I have some suggestions for improvements.
Minor points:
Please add a table with actual results, include reference range.
Readers might be interested to see a discussion on liver tests approaching the question whether P causes DILI. Search for published case reports with DILI by P and verified diagnosis using RUCAM.
What kind of DILI is caused by P, are there cases with HSOS?
Expand legends to figures and tables, also explain abbreviations.
Expand discussion on molecular steps leading to toxicity; ROS, Haber Weiss reaction, Fenton reaction, adduct formation, and role of ferroptosis leading to programmed cell death.
Line 24-26: Please review the grammar in the objective statement- I would just say it directly this way: We aimed to explore the correlations between platinum accumulation, hematological indices, and clinical toxicity in patients after a metabolism period following platinum drug chemotherapy, to better understand real-world clinical toxicity caused by platinum accumulation.
Line 27-30: I would rephrase methods this way: We enrolled patients receiving platinum chemotherapy, specifically cisplatin, oxaliplatin, or carboplatin. On the 25th day post-chemotherapy, we measured serum platinum concentrations and hematological indices, documented clinical toxicities, and subsequently performed correlation analyses.
Line 39-41: I would rephrase these lines as "Platinum accumulation, by disrupting the red blood cell system and liver and kidney function, influences fatigue severity and common adverse reactions in patients during the post-chemotherapy recovery period."
For stats: don’t day P=0.000 ; say P<0.0001
Line 45: should be "types" of cancer.
Line 48-49: I would not say cisplatin "always" causes gastrointestinal reactions and nephrotoxicity.
Line 100: showed?
Line 132: should be OR (instead of and)
Please consider professional revision to address the language and structural issues present in the manuscript.
- Overall experimental design and methods look good. I do like figure 4 with Pairwise correlations between platinum, fatigue, adverse reaction, treatment effect and surgery situation.
- I would recommend the authors to have a graph depicting lines 132-136. Maybe a pie/3-D chart.
- Could the authors you generate a heatmap for the correlation between serum platinum and hematological indices?
-While figure 3 presents the concentration differences among the three groups stratified by gender, it fails to account for variations in age, BMI, treatment concentration, and related variables. The figure's analytical scope and, consequently, its informative value would be substantially improved by incorporating these factors.
- Fig 5 graph says: Reverse Reaction instead of Adverse Reaction
- Please also improve the quality of the images.
- Please give general characteristics of the study population in a table; I would also give the enrollment and exclusion criteria in a table.
- Could the authors also talk about which adverse reactions were most common?
The study seems statistically sound. Underlying data is provided.
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.