私はXが良性と悪性の鑑別に有効だと考えますが，この論文からは結局Xが臨床上必要なのかどうか全くわからないという結論に思える．RもSも意味のないものでしょうか？適切な撮像や評価法が示されなければ，読者はこの論文から今後の医療にどう役立てるべきかがわからない．
３つの論文のみから多くの新生物を一まとめにして評価するのは不適切と考えます．患者背景や腫瘍性状やサイズ等，他の要因の関与が多く，バイアスのリスクは避けられないと考える．
私にはこの論文の将来の腫瘍学に対する寄与が見いだせない．
Although I think that X is effective to the distinction of benign and malignant, eventually, I think that the conclusion is not clear whether X is needed on the clinical from this thesis at all. There is no meaning of both of R and S, right? If imaging and review is not shown properly, the readers cannot understand that how this thesis is useful for the medical care in the future.
I think that it is not proper that only three theses are reviewed a lot of neoplasm together. I consider that the risk of bias is not avoided because there are many involvement of the other factors such as patient background, tumor properties, size, etc.
I cannot find contribution for oncology in the future about this thesis.
