肝のロイが全肝ではないので測定部位により誤差が出る可能性があり．提示画では患者毎のサイズが異なって見える
結果が全体的にわかりにくく表にすべき．後面像でのp値の記載がない．各群でのH値の記載がない
参考文献2は筆者の結論を支持する内容なので，Xまでは言いすぎだと思う．新たな結果が混在しておりまとまりない．結果に全て記載すべき
結論が重複している．最後の一文が長く不明瞭．H=2のcutoffの根拠が不明．HのP値が結果と異なっている
細かい点：(1)と①の表記が混在．7頁８行のXが余計
評価
50
翻訳 / 英語
- 2018/12/14 10:37:05に投稿されました
As the liver roy is not whole liver, there is possibility of difference of parts where we measure and we can see the size of each patient difference on the given screen.
The result is on the whole difficult to understand, there is no p value in the back of the image and no H value in each part written.
As the reference 2 document is content with support of the authors conclusion, I think it is too far to say X. It is not well summarized because of new results are included. Results should be all written.
Its conclusion are duplicated. The last one sentence is too long and not clear. H-2's cutoff evidence is not clear. H's P value is different from the result.
Details: (1) and ①'s notation is mixed up. X in the line 8 on page 7 is unnecessary.
nakayama718さんはこの翻訳を気に入りました
The result is on the whole difficult to understand, there is no p value in the back of the image and no H value in each part written.
As the reference 2 document is content with support of the authors conclusion, I think it is too far to say X. It is not well summarized because of new results are included. Results should be all written.
Its conclusion are duplicated. The last one sentence is too long and not clear. H-2's cutoff evidence is not clear. H's P value is different from the result.
Details: (1) and ①'s notation is mixed up. X in the line 8 on page 7 is unnecessary.
評価
50
翻訳 / 英語
- 2018/12/14 10:22:33に投稿されました
Since liver ROI is not whole liver, there is a possibility of error depending on the measuring site. In the presented picture, the size by each patient appears to be different
The result should be shown in a chart, because it is difficult to understand overall. There is no p-value in the image. There is no mention of H-value in each group
Since Ref. 2 supports the conclusion of the author, so I think that X is too extensive. New results are mixed up, and they are not unified well. All things should be stated in the result
Conclusions are overlapping. The last sentence is too long and unclear. The root cause of cutoff of H = 2 is unknown. The P-value of H is not matching with the result
Detailed points: Number of (1) and ① are mixed. X on the 7th page and 8th row is unnecessary
nakayama718さんはこの翻訳を気に入りました
The result should be shown in a chart, because it is difficult to understand overall. There is no p-value in the image. There is no mention of H-value in each group
Since Ref. 2 supports the conclusion of the author, so I think that X is too extensive. New results are mixed up, and they are not unified well. All things should be stated in the result
Conclusions are overlapping. The last sentence is too long and unclear. The root cause of cutoff of H = 2 is unknown. The P-value of H is not matching with the result
Detailed points: Number of (1) and ① are mixed. X on the 7th page and 8th row is unnecessary
評価
52
翻訳 / 英語
- 2018/12/14 10:32:08に投稿されました
There might be some errors in RIO depend upon parts of testing because it was not done for whole liver.
Given picture looks different view for each patient.
It is hard to see overall view from the tested result so that we advise you to make table instead because
there is no p value in back picture and H value in each section.
Reference document No.2 shows to support the conclusion by author so that saying X is too much.
Also looks mixed with new results as well makes ambiguous. Should state all the results.
Conclusiion was duplicated. It is unclear because the last sentence is too long.
There's no explanation regarding cutoff at H=2.
P value at H is apart from result.
Definite point:Mixed up with (1) and ①, No need for line 8 in page 7.
Given picture looks different view for each patient.
It is hard to see overall view from the tested result so that we advise you to make table instead because
there is no p value in back picture and H value in each section.
Reference document No.2 shows to support the conclusion by author so that saying X is too much.
Also looks mixed with new results as well makes ambiguous. Should state all the results.
Conclusiion was duplicated. It is unclear because the last sentence is too long.
There's no explanation regarding cutoff at H=2.
P value at H is apart from result.
Definite point:Mixed up with (1) and ①, No need for line 8 in page 7.
