DがPの予後改善に直接寄与しているかは不明であり(筆者も述べてはいるが)，OSのような予後を他因子と比較し、Dが予後を反映した独立因子として証明されない限り、以前の報告以上の有用性は評価できない。従ってこの結果をもって郭清術を行うべきというのは言い過ぎである．
統計解析の記述があまりにも簡潔すぎる印象です．
この文献は既存論文と比較し当雑誌に掲載するに値する，明らかな有用性は見いだせないと考える．筆者はDはCの構成要員と述べているが，図にCが独立して評価されており，定義が不明瞭．
It is unclear if D is directly contributing to the improved prognosis of P (the author also stated as such), but has been compared with other factors similar to the prognosis of OS, and as D hasn't been proven as an individual factor, we can't evaluate it as more useful than we previously thought. Therefore, with this result, it might be considered hasty to say that the purification operation should be undergone.
The description of the statistical analysis gives a far too simplistic impression.
This document deserves to be compared to existing thesis and published in this magazine. We think we will discover clearly it's usefulness. The author stated that D is Cs essential member, but in the illustration C is evaluated independently and the definition is obscure.
