Chauhan Weighted Trajectory Analysis Reduces Sample Size Requirements and Expedites Time-to-Efficacy Signals in Advanced Cancer Clinical Trials

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper introduces Chauhan Weighted Trajectory Analysis (CWTA) as a novel approach to analyzing advanced cancer clinical trials. CWTA is designed to incorporate and analyze multiple rank-ordered health status endpoints, such as complete response, partial response, stable disease, disease progression, and death, in a single analysis. The study conducted simulations of solid tumor systemic therapy randomized clinical trials, comparing CWTA with traditional Kaplan-Meier (KM) analysis for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). I would suggest revisions as listed below:

1.      What are the specific clinical endpoints or health status indicators that are most influenced by CWTA in the analysis of cancer treatment trajectories?

2.      Some references of medical AI for healthcare to build the related work: Etp: Learning transferable ecg representations via ecg-text pre-training; Med-UniC: Unifying Cross-Lingual Medical Vision-Language Pre-Training by Diminishing Bias; M-FLAG: Medical vision-language pre-training with frozen language models and latent space geometry optimization

3.      What are the potential cost savings and time efficiencies associated with implementing CWTA in the design and analysis of cancer clinical trials?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article "Chauhan Weighted Trajectory Analysis Reduces Sample Size Requirements and Expedites Time-to-Efficacy Signals in Advanced Cancer Clinical Trials" looks interesting, but the authors should address the following concerns:

1. I encourage you to include a literature review section after the introduction to identify the research gap for your work.

2. Include a block diagram describing your complete methodology to provide clear and visual readability for the readers.

3. Authors should include mathematical equations to support their findings and analysis, such as for the statistical analysis and other metrics.

4. I recommend including a state-of-the-art table in the discussion section to compare your work with similar literature.

5. Authors should also include the limitations and challenges of their study, as well as the future scope.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the paper has been improved

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have made all the required recommendation.