The article investigates Lynch syndrome (LS) diagnostic pathways in endometrial cancer across England, highlighting significant regional disparities, delays, and high attrition rates in testing. While the study establishes a baseline for evaluating the impact of the 2020 NICE guidelines, only 17.8% of patients received functional mismatch repair (MMR) testing, with fewer completing subsequent steps. Given the missing germline MMR testing records, could the authors clarify how this limitation might affect their conclusions? Additionally, could they elaborate on the systemic factors driving regional disparities and consider visual enhancements, such as a summarized flowchart of the testing attrition, to improve clarity?
The comment brings up critical points about the study, particularly regarding the 10% deviation between FEM and analytical results. My understanding is that this deviation falls within acceptable ranges for structural engineering applications, given the inherent simplifications in analytical models compared to the detailed FEM approach. However, the practical implications of this deviation could indeed be elaborated further, especially in terms of design safety margins.
Regarding the CFRP properties, I believe the study referenced standard industry-grade materials without detailing specific brands to maintain generalizability of the results. If this assumption is incorrect, I encourage the authors to clarify this aspect. Finally, while Figures 11 and 12 effectively illustrate load-strain and load-displacement behaviors, combining these into a single comparative chart could provide a clearer overview of the differences across configurations, as suggested.
Authors, please correct me if I have misunderstood or overlooked any details in this regard.