Xに示されているように、悪性といっても病理型によって集積度は異なる.対象臓器が異なるのに悪性としてひとくくりに検討するのはおかしいと思う．Kにおいて腫瘍と良性のS値が早期から有意差があることについて、筆者は重なりがあるので価値が少ないと言っているが、他のindexよりも比較的高い有意差があり、早期と形態的な詳細検討により、患者を被ばくさせ時間的拘束をしてまで後期をあえて撮像するメリットがないと思う．結果と考察が混在しており、考察が冗長になっている。大幅な改善が必要と考える。
評価
55
ネイティブ
翻訳 / 英語
- 2016/12/25 19:53:10に投稿されました
Just as shown in X, even though it is malignant, the degree of accumulation differs for differing target organs, I find it strange to lump it as a malignancy in general during examination. With regard to the tumor and significant differences in the benign lesion S values from the early stages, this writer has been saying that there is overlap therefore the value is low but, even according to other indices, there are comparatively significantly high differences in values, and from the early phase and minute morphologic examination, I think there is no merit in temporarily refraining from exposing the patient to radiation and purposely waiting until the delayed phase to take an image. The result and the examination is mixed up and the examination becomes redundant. I think a drastic improvement is needed.
nakayama718さんはこの翻訳を気に入りました
評価
50
翻訳 / 英語
- 2016/12/25 16:49:28に投稿されました
As shown in X, malignant cancer has different degrees of integration, which depends on its pathological type. It is not reasonable to investgate malignancy of organs excluded from a subject of the study. In K, although S values of malignant and benign cancers shows significant difference in early phase, the author described there was not worth studying the S values due to the overlap between them. However, the S value is more significant than other indexes. Therefore, I think it is not beneficial to take an image of patients who were selected by scrutiny of morphological changes in early phase, forced to be exposed to radiation and consume their time in late phase. This paper randomly mixes results and discussion. Furthermore, the discussion part is too long more than necessary. The paper needs major revision.
nakayama718さんはこの翻訳を気に入りました
