Write a comment

Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint?

Yes

It gives a comprehensive overview of the current level of breast cancer management with Liquid biopsy as a potential diagnostic technique, and states the objective of the scoping review To synthesize the available evidence on all types of liquid biopsy–derived molecular biomarkers evaluated for the diagnosis of TNBC. This establishes the rationale for conducting a scoping review to map the current research landscape.

Are the methods well-suited for this research?

Highly appropriate

The scoping review was stated to be conducted in accordance with the methodological framework of Arksey and O'Malley and reported following the PRISMA-Scr checklist. Multiple major databases-PubMed (Medline), Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science-were searched using both controlled vocabulary and free-text terms related to TNBC, liquid biopsy, body fluids, and molecular biomarkers. This broad search strategy improves coverage of relevant studies and reduces the risk of missing important literature The study includes primary human studies evaluating molecular biomarkers in liquid biopsy specifically for TNBC diagnosis, while excluding non-diagnostic studies, animal/in vitro research, reviews, and studies without TNBC-specific data. These criteria help ensure that the included evidence directly addresses the research question. The review employed independent screening by multiple reviewers, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer, which strengthens methodological rigor and reduces selection bias.

Are the conclusions supported by the data?

Highly supported

Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data?

Somewhat appropriate and clear

The visualizations are limited and could be improved with additional figures or clearer graphical summaries of biomarker types and diagnostic findings to enhance readability and comparison across studies

How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research?

Somewhat clearly

The discussion section was clear and sequential in its approach, with the terminology appropriate for the subject matter; however, the discussion lacks deeper critical analysis and detailed guidance on future research directions, which makes the interpretation clear but not fully comprehensive

Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge?

Somewhat likely

This indicates the manuscript makes important contributions, but does not rise to the level of "significant" or "substantial" advancements in the synthesis of literature

Would it benefit from language editing?

No

Would you recommend this preprint to others?

Yes, but it needs to be improved

Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience?

Yes, after minor changes

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The authors declare that they did not use generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.