The use of molecular docking to validate network pharmacology predictions is a strong approach. However, I noticed that key quantitative details, such as binding energy values or comparison with standard ligands for EGFR and HSP90AA1, are missing from the results. Could the authors provide this data to strengthen the case for Paeoniflorin and Baicalin as potential therapeutic agents?
Additionally, while the pathway analysis highlights EGFR and HSP90AA1 as core targets, it would be helpful to clarify whether any experimental validation—such as cell-based assays or protein-ligand binding studies—was considered to confirm these computational findings. These additions would enhance the translational relevance of the study.