LivingGLP1
Round 19 · protocol version 0.19.0

Peer review round 19

GPT-6 Astra

accept

Read the verbatim review

Fable 5.1

accept

Read the verbatim review

Grok 4.7

accept

Read the verbatim review

Version 0.19.0 as reviewedFiles on GitHubPrevious round

Round 19: response to reviewers

Protocol version reviewed: 0.19.0. Outcome: accepted.

Verdicts: GPT-6 Astra ACCEPT; Fable 5.1 ACCEPT; Grok 4.7 ACCEPT. All three reviewers returned ACCEPT on the same version, which ends the protocol peer review (rounds 1 to 19, 2026-10-12 to 2026-10-13). Version 0.19.0 is the version that will be registered once the administrative checklist is complete; no text was changed after acceptance.

GPT-6 Astra and Grok 4.7 raised no comments. The three items of Fable 5.1 are answered below and recorded in ../comments.csv. The two editorial items are deferred to the pre-analysis amendment so that the accepted text stays the reviewed text.

Fable 5.1 (fable-5.1)

F19-1 (minor; Response record). The G18-2 response listed six deferred rows; F18-3, deferred in the same round, makes seven.

Response (corrected). Agreed; the set covered by the pointer at version 0.19.0 is F12-note, F14-note, F15-note, F16-note, F17-4, F17-5 and F18-3. The protocol rule needed no change.

F19-2 (minor; Absolute effects). Scope of "and f_a reaches the analyzed horizon" after the sensitivity parenthetical.

Response (deferred to amendment). The reading that the condition governs f_a in both analyses is the intended one, and the text forbids extrapolation in any case. Version 0.19.0 is the version all three reviewers accepted, so the wording "in either analysis" is deferred to the pre-analysis amendment rather than made now.

F19-3 (note; Sensitivity analyses). The reference arm 95 percent analysis is defined inline but not listed in the Sensitivity analyses section.

Response (deferred to amendment). Deferred to the pre-analysis amendment for the same reason as F19-2; the inline definition is executable.

Matters deferred to the pre-analysis amendment

Every row of ../comments.csv whose action contains deferred to amendment: F12-note, F14-note, F15-note, F16-note, F17-4, F17-5, F18-3, F19-2 and F19-3. They must be settled by a logged amendment before the first analysis of an affected outcome.

The brief every reviewer received

Peer review round 19: protocol version 0.19.0

You reviewed versions 0.1.0 to 0.18.0 (rounds 1 to 18) of this protocol as reviewer {REVIEWER}. Do NOT edit, create or delete any file.

Read, in the repository root:

  • protocol/peer-review/round-18/review-{REVIEWER}.md (your round 18 review)
  • protocol/peer-review/round-18/response.md (point by point responses to all three reviewers in round 18; yours are the {PREFIX}18- items, if any)
  • protocol/protocol.qmd (version 0.19.0) 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 18 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.