[日本語から英語への翻訳依頼] また，C転移は162/325人に認めたが，実際に評価対象となっているのは111/208人であり，C転移があった患者のうち51名がD郭清をしていないため，研...

備考

査読の返事です．宜しくお願い致します。

Original text

また，C転移は162/325人に認めたが，実際に評価対象となっているのは111/208人であり，C転移があった患者のうち51名がD郭清をしていないため，研究から除外されている．約1/3の患者が評価対象外であり，作為的に除外した可能性も否定はできない結果に見える．仮にこの人数がD-陰性患者であれば，Bの結果も含め全体的に結果は大きく変わることが予想される． 0.9㎝という小リンパ節の指摘は術者の技量よる影響も排除できない．考察は若干冗長な印象です．

翻訳 / 英語

Also 162/325 people were recognised as transition C, but in reality the object of the evaluation was 111/208 people, and out the C transition patients, 51 aren't doing the D purification, so it's being eliminated from the research. About 1/3 of the patients are not targets of the evaluation, so it seems like we can not rule out the possibility that they were intentionally eliminated. For arguments sake, if these people are D-negative patients, we foresee that there will be quite a change in the overall results including the results of B. The indication of the 0.9cm small limph node can't exclude the influence of the ability of the practioner. The consideration is a few tedious impressions.

翻訳 / 英語

In addition, although the C metastasis was observed in 162 of 325 people, the actual subjects of evaluation were 111 out of 208, and 51 of the patients with C metastasis who did not have a D dissection were excluded from the study. Approximately one third of the patients fall outside of the evaluation, and it seems that the possibility of arbitrary exclusion can not be denied. Hypothetically, if this population is of D-negative patients, including the results of B the entirety of the results are expected to have a massive change. The identification of a 0.9cm small lymph node can not eliminate the influence of the skill of the practitioner. The consideration is somewhat redundant impression.