LivingGLP1
Round 11 · protocol version 0.11.0

Peer review round 11

GPT-6 Astra

major revision

Read the verbatim review

Fable 5.1

accept

Read the verbatim review

Grok 4.7

minor revision

Read the verbatim review

Version 0.11.0 as reviewedFiles on GitHubPrevious roundNext round

Round 11: response to reviewers

Protocol version reviewed: 0.11.0. Revised version: 0.12.0.

Verdicts: GPT-6 Astra MAJOR REVISION; Fable 5.1 ACCEPT; Grok 4.7 MINOR REVISION. Every comment is answered below and recorded in ../comments.csv.

Summary of main changes

  • Uncertainty of curve inverted hazards: reported or author supplied joint covariance through the Jacobian of the inversion; no event counts inferred from curves; otherwise the route is unavailable.
  • Shared draw for subdivided intervals; separate Kaplan-Meier condition; the interval to the analyzed horizon; d_k defined for the exponential route.
  • Scenarios under a reported Aalen-Johansen source; data items for curves and their covariance; front matter date.

GPT-6 Astra (gpt-6-astra)

C11-1 (major; Competing risks). Curve derived counts and variances are not identified.

Response (revised). Agreed; your rule adopted. Counts are not inferred from curve increments and numbers at risk; curve inversion requires a reported or author supplied joint covariance of the curve ordinates, propagated through the Jacobian of the inversion and preserved in pooling; otherwise the route is unavailable and another eligible route is kept. Reported counts with valid person time keep the 1/d_k approximation. fable-5.1 (F11-2a) and grok-4.7 (G11-1) proposed explicit reconstruction formulas; we did not adopt them because, as your counterexample shows, within interval censoring leaves the counts unidentified, and even known counts do not give the variance of a curve inverted log hazard.

C11-2 (minor; Absolute effects). Scenario wording required hazards for the reported incidence route.

Response (revised). Agreed; scenarios use the reported Aalen-Johansen value when that is the source, otherwise the cumulative incidence from the arm own qualifying hazards.

Fable 5.1 (fable-5.1)

F11-1 (minor; Competing risks). Shared uncertainty across subdivided grid intervals.

Response (revised). Agreed; hazards are carried onto grid intervals with their uncertainty and as one draw.

F11-2 (minor; Competing risks). Count reconstruction; Kaplan-Meier condition; final partial interval; number at risk rule.

Response (partly revised). Partly adopted. (a) Count reconstruction was replaced by the joint covariance requirement of C11-1, so no counts are reconstructed from curves; (b) the Kaplan-Meier condition 0 < S_k(t_e) < S_k(t_s) is stated; (c) the interval from the last published time to the analyzed horizon is a reported interval when the curve extends to it; (d) count intervals do not need a published number at risk (the number at risk rule no longer exists).

F11-3 (minor; Absolute effects). Scenario wording.

Response (revised). Agreed; see C11-2.

F11-4 (minor; Front matter). Date.

Response (revised). Agreed; dated 2026-10-13.

Grok 4.7 (grok-4.7)

G11-1 (minor; Competing risks; data items). Curve count equation; Kaplan-Meier condition; number at risk rule; exponential count; data items wording.

Response (partly revised). Partly adopted. The reconstructed count equations were not adopted (see C11-1: curve inversion now requires reported or author supplied joint covariance); the separate Kaplan-Meier condition, count intervals without a number at risk, the definition of d_k for the exponential route, the data items wording and one shared draw for subdivided intervals are adopted.

G11-2 (minor; Absolute effects). Scenarios under a reported cumulative incidence.

Response (revised). Agreed; your wording adopted (see C11-2).

The brief every reviewer received

Peer review round 11: protocol version 0.11.0

You reviewed versions 0.1.0 to 0.10.0 (rounds 1 to 10) of this protocol as reviewer {REVIEWER}. Do NOT edit, create or delete any file.

Read, in the repository root:

  • protocol/peer-review/round-10/review-{REVIEWER}.md (your round 10 review)
  • protocol/peer-review/round-10/response.md (point by point responses to all three reviewers in round 10; yours are the {PREFIX}10- items)
  • protocol/protocol.qmd (version 0.11.0) and the tables it declares authoritative: protocol/populations.csv, outcomes.csv, windows.csv, agents.csv, nodes.csv, node_classes.csv, effect_modifiers.csv, harms_nrs.csv, priors.csv, reference_sd.csv, turner_map.csv, registry_dose_candidates.csv, amendments.csv
  • search/strategies/concepts.yaml (version 1.2.0) and R/search_strategy.R

Tasks:

  1. For each of your round 10 comments, state whether the response and revision resolve it (resolved, partly resolved, not resolved), with a short reason. Where a response declines or partly adopts your proposal with a stated reason, judge the reason.
  2. List any new errors, inconsistencies or non-executable rules introduced by the revision, ordered by severity (major, then minor), with the exact file, section or row, and concrete replacement text or values.
  3. Administrative items that only the review owner can supply (team names, affiliations, funding, competing interests, confirmation of Embase access, PRESS review by a human information specialist, verification of Chinese terms by a Chinese-reading team member, confirmation and locking of provisional thresholds by clinical advisors and patient partners) are tracked as pre-registration conditions in the administrative checklist. Do not withhold acceptance for their absence alone; judge whether the methods are acceptable for registration once they are completed.

Use American English and do not use dashes as sentence punctuation. Keep under 1,500 words.

End with exactly one line: VERDICT: ACCEPT or VERDICT: MINOR REVISION or VERDICT: MAJOR REVISION ACCEPT means you would approve the methods of this protocol for registration once the administrative pre-registration conditions are completed.