Scholarlink

<p>This manuscript presents a letter to the editor addressing the study by Lv et al. (J Mol Histol 56(2):129, 2025), which identifies PDZ-binding kinase (PBK) as a diagnostic and prognostic biomarker for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). While commending the article’s comprehensive approach—including bioinformatics integration and validation of PBK's role in immune infiltration and methylation—the authors highlight three critical areas for improvement to enhance the study's rigor and clarity. First, they identify methodological issues in differential gene analysis, recommending RNA-seq-specific tools (e.g., DESeq2) over misapplied microarray frameworks like limma. Second, they critique the presentation of statistical significance, urging clearer reporting of P-values (e.g., P &lt; 0.001) instead of P &lt; 0.000. Third, they dispute the unrealistic survival curve in Fig.&#xa0;<InternalRef RefID="Fig2">2</InternalRef>, suggesting evidence-based adjustments to reflect clinical plausibility. The letter emphasizes that addressing these concerns would strengthen the findings' impact on HCC research.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Letter to the editor comments on ʻPBK as a Novel Biomarker with Excellent Diagnostic and Prognostic Value in HCC Associated with Immune Infiltration and Methylationʼ

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年11月4日

查看全文
  • Guobing Wang,
  • Guoying Jiang,
  • Yongqiang Xu,
  • Wenqi Feng,
  • Gang Tian

摘要

This manuscript presents a letter to the editor addressing the study by Lv et al. (J Mol Histol 56(2):129, 2025), which identifies PDZ-binding kinase (PBK) as a diagnostic and prognostic biomarker for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). While commending the article’s comprehensive approach—including bioinformatics integration and validation of PBK's role in immune infiltration and methylation—the authors highlight three critical areas for improvement to enhance the study's rigor and clarity. First, they identify methodological issues in differential gene analysis, recommending RNA-seq-specific tools (e.g., DESeq2) over misapplied microarray frameworks like limma. Second, they critique the presentation of statistical significance, urging clearer reporting of P-values (e.g., P < 0.001) instead of P < 0.000. Third, they dispute the unrealistic survival curve in Fig. 2, suggesting evidence-based adjustments to reflect clinical plausibility. The letter emphasizes that addressing these concerns would strengthen the findings' impact on HCC research.