[Translation from Japanese to English ] I think that X is effective for distinguishing the benign from the malignant,...

Additional info

査読の返事です．宜しくお願い致します。

Original text

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．

Translation / English

I think that X is effective for distinguishing the benign from the malignant, but it seems to me that the conclusion is that it is not known at all whether X is clinically necessary or not. Are both R and S meaningless? Unless an appropriate imaging and the way for evaluation is presented, the reader does not know how to use this paper for the future medical care.
I am afraid it is not proper to evaluate a lot of neoplasm in a lump from only three papers. I think the risk of bias would be inevitable because there are many other factors are involved such as the background of patients, the nature and the size of the tumor etc.
Unfortunately I cannot find any contribution of this paper to the future oncology.

Translation / English

I think it is valid for discriminating benign from malignant, but from this thesis the conclusion appears to be totally unknown to see if X is clinically necessary or not. Is neither R nor S meaningless? Without stating an appropriate image or evaluation method, readers cannot figure out from this thesis how to make them avail to the future medicine.
I think it is inappropriate to evaluate many of new growth in one merely from the three theses. There are many participating factors such as patient's background, tumor characteristics, size, and the like, so the biased risks are unavoidable.
I cannot find a contribution to the future oncology through this thesis.

Translation / English

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.