近期收到杂志回信，文章要大修，审稿人意见如下：

Reviewer: 1 Comments to the Author In this manuscript, the authors analyzed the prognostic value of galectin-3 plasma levels in 298 AML patients from one treatment center in China. The authors found high galectin-3 levels to be associated with inferior survival in patients with intensive chemotherapy and integrated galectin-3 plasma levels into a prognostic scoring system together with other well established prognostic parameters such as age and cytogenetics. The methodology of the investigation is sound and transparent, the results are interesting and of moderate clinical relevance, the discussion is comprehensive and includes potential use of the results in the future. The manuscript is mostly well written. The following points should be considered to improve the quality of the manuscript. 

 Major 

 Discussion section, page 10, lines 12 ff: What do the authors mean when they state that their scoring system was more persuasive than a single marker to predict prognosis of patients? Did they perform any statistical analyses on that? 

 Discussion section, page 11, lines 34 ff: The authors mention relapse rates in AML1/ETO patients – these should be given in the results section first. Furthermore, can the authors provide relapse risk in relation to galectin-3 levels for all analyzed patients? 

 Discussion section, page 12, lines 14 ff: Can the authors further explain why galectin-3 targeted drugs will play a critical role in hematology patients or AML? 

 Figure 2: Can the authors explain the massive Kaplan Meier curve drop in OS by the time of 0 months? Why is this drop so much more pronounced in patients with high galectin-3 levels? Can the authors add the number of patients at risk at the different time points on the X axis? Why is median and 1-year OS, but not 3-year OS shorter in patients with high galectin-3 levels? 

 Minor 

 The English language of the paper should be revised. Here are some suggestions: 

Page 2, line 29, it must read “It predominantly exists in myeloid cells, such as neutrophils…” 

 Page 2, line 39, it must read “Increased galectin-2 expression…” instead of “Enfored galectin…” Page 4, line 14, it must read “… and chose…” instead of “… and chosen…” 

 Page 5, line 57, it must read “clarify” 

 Page 6, line 4, it must read “relapsing” instead of “recurrent” 

 Page 7, line 24, it must read “31 patients who refused chemotherapy…” 

 Page 7, line 34: What do the authors mean with “further reducing the number of censored cases may change this point.”? 

 Page 8, line 47, it must read “ELISA” Page 9, 

line 52, it must read “We confirmed that elevated plasma…”

不太明白审稿人的问题，请教各位老师？如何回复审稿人，万分感谢！！！  还有就是，文章大修，接受的几率大吗？？

审稿人 很肯定你的工作，提的意见和问题也很明确啊，按照审稿人的意见一条条的回复，态度真诚，接受希望很大呀。