LivingGLP1
Round 18 · protocol version 0.18.0

Peer review round 18

GPT-6 Astra

accept

Read the verbatim review

Fable 5.1

accept

Read the verbatim review

Grok 4.7

minor revision

Read the verbatim review

Version 0.18.0 as reviewedFiles on GitHubPrevious roundNext round

Round 18: response to reviewers

Protocol version reviewed: 0.18.0. Revised version: 0.19.0.

Verdicts: GPT-6 Astra ACCEPT; Fable 5.1 ACCEPT; Grok 4.7 MINOR REVISION. GPT-6 Astra raised no comments. Grok 4.7 and Fable 5.1 raised the same two items. Every comment is answered below and recorded in ../comments.csv.

Correction to the round 17 response

The response to F17-4 deferred it because a new rule "would extend the revision beyond the comments of this round". F17-4 was a comment of that round, so the reason did not hold. The correct reason is that fixed time scenario inputs belong with the deferred reference arm likelihood work (F12-note, F16-note) in the same pre-analysis amendment (F18-0).

Summary of main changes

  • Arm level known status for the binomial reference input, with an arm level 95 percent sensitivity analysis.
  • Amendments pointer covers every comment whose action contains "deferred to amendment".

Grok 4.7 (grok-4.7)

G18-1 (minor; Absolute effects). The arm level f_a clause cited the trial wide complete status rule of the hazard ratio analysis.

Response (revised). Agreed; known status is the definition of the outcomes section applied to that arm alone rather than trial wide, and the sensitivity analysis uses the longest follow-up at which status is known for at least 95 percent of that arm, with unknown participants kept in the denominator as event free. fable-5.1 (F18-1) raised the same point.

G18-2 (minor; Amendments). The pointer matched only the exact action "deferred to amendment".

Response (revised). Agreed; the pointer now covers every row whose action field contains "deferred to amendment" (F12-note, F14-note, F15-note, F16-note, F17-4, F17-5). fable-5.1 (F18-2) raised the same point.

Fable 5.1 (fable-5.1)

F18-0 (note; Response record). The stated reason for deferring F17-4 did not hold on its own terms.

Response (corrected). Agreed; the reason should have been that fixed time scenario inputs belong with the deferred reference arm likelihood work (F12-note, F16-note) in the same pre-analysis amendment. The record is corrected here; the deferral itself is unchanged.

F18-1 (minor; Absolute effects). Cross reference after the arm level rule.

Response (revised). Agreed; see G18-1.

F18-2 (minor; Amendments). Scope of the Amendments pointer.

Response (revised). Agreed; see G18-2.

F18-3 (note; Absolute effects). A reported Aalen-Johansen value used directly has no stated one arm or pooling rule.

Response (deferred to amendment). Agreed that it belongs to the deferred F12-note matter and stays there.

GPT-6 Astra (gpt-6-astra)

No comments; verdict ACCEPT.

The brief every reviewer received

Peer review round 18: protocol version 0.18.0

You reviewed versions 0.1.0 to 0.17.0 (rounds 1 to 17) of this protocol as reviewer {REVIEWER}. Do NOT edit, create or delete any file.

Read, in the repository root:

  • protocol/peer-review/round-17/review-{REVIEWER}.md (your round 17 review)
  • protocol/peer-review/round-17/response.md (point by point responses to all three reviewers in round 17; yours are the {PREFIX}17- items, if any)
  • protocol/protocol.qmd (version 0.18.0) 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 17 comments (if you had none, confirm that the changes made for the other reviewers introduce no error), 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.