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.
All the comments and suggestions of the reviewers have been properly addressed. The manuscript may be accepted for publication in its current form.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jyotismita Chaki, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The manuscript may be accepted now as it is. All the points/comments/suggestions raised have been addressed.
no comment
no comment
The authors have improved the changes as per my previous suggestions. No further changes or suggestions from my end.
The authors have improved the changes as per my previous suggestions. No further changes or suggestions from my end.
The authors have improved the changes as per my previous suggestions. No further changes or suggestions from my end.
The authors have improved the changes as per my previous suggestions. No further changes or suggestions from my end.
The reviewers find merit in the paper, however, they recommended a major revision before it can be accepted for publication. You are required to address all the comments and suggestions of reviewers and submit a revised manuscript. I will suggest to improve the English language of the manuscript, and correct grammar and typos. Further, One of the reviewers suggested that you cite specific references. You are welcome to add it/them if you believe they are relevant. However, you are not required to include these citations, and if you do not include them, this will not influence my decision.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors agree that they are relevant and useful.
**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
Authors have used Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) and
Random Forest (RF) algorithms to identify BRCA-related cancer high-risk genes speciûcally
in saudi population.
Work needs certain improvements
Give dataset snopshot in manuscript
How was fine tuning of ML classifier performed.
May abbreviate BRCA at the beginging
was any benchmark dataset used for validation purposes
The algorithnm used for feature extraction needs to be incorporated in the manuscript and discuss the process with the help of any sample sequemce example.
May include the following as well Machine Learning classification algorithms section:PMID: 35215090,PMID: 35552469
**PeerJ Staff Note:** It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors agree that they are relevant and useful.
The methodology should be reproducable to used.
English needs corrections and improvments at no of places.
Authors must add the contribution statement at the begining added in detailed manner.
The above points must be addressed before finalizing about its publication
May add differentiating section at the end of the results which shall describe how this work is different and outperforms the exisitng methods. May mention the bench mark methods as well.
a) Please check and correct for uppercase and lowercase typos in the entire manuscript.
b) It is suggested to improve the figure resolutions ~300DPI.
c) Improve introduction section by adding GLOBOCAN 2022 statistics.
d) Instead of giving a snapshot in figure 4, authors can draft a table for the same.
e) Why was Gene ontology (GO) executed? Has the analysis added any value to this methodology?
f) Why didn't the authors validate their findings from KEGG pathways by generating a new regulatory pathway using some other software/tool available?
g) The authors should add a table encapsulating their keyfindings (genes) and mention about their pivotal functions.
h) How does the machine learning pipeline aid in the bioinformatics pipeline?
i) The authors can include a differential expressed gene (DEGs) analysis too for the datasets retrieved from TCGA.
a) Improve introduction section by adding GLOBOCAN 2022 statistics.
b) How does the machine learning pipeline aid in the bioinformatics pipeline?
c) The authors can include a differential expressed gene (DEGs) analysis too for the datasets retrieved from TCGA.
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.