Structured PREreview of A Novel Bispecific Antibody CVL006 Superior to AK112 for Dual Targeting of PD-L1 and VEGF in Cancer Therapy

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

Yes

The authors of the article were able to argue the importance of using bispecific antibodies in combination therapies as compared to monotherapies. Thus, they were able to explain their objective (To emphasize the unique features of CVL006) in the present context, bringing out the need to conduct the current study which was part of their innovative idea.

Are the methods well-suited for this research?

Somewhat appropriate

Their methods are highly scientific and reproducible. On a positive sense the methods of data analysis also included multiple cancer models rather than just using one cancer model. However, we recommend to the authors to work on the clarity to break down some of the terminologies to be better understood even among those who are not specialist in the field. The manner of presentation also needs to be improved for coherence.

Are the conclusions supported by the data?

Somewhat supported

Authors need to restructure statements made to make them concise. However, their conclusions statements provided specific understanding of the positive results achieved from the combined therapies which presented potential efficacy at reduced doses hence reducing chemotherapy-induced toxicity and improved patient tolerability.

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

Highly appropriate and clear

Authors used different presentation styles which provided clarification on their work and its highly commendable. Additionally, the color contract is good making them easily readable.

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

Somewhat clearly

The authors findings are not very concise and not easily understandable to "non-subject matter" people. However, they have identified clearly their study limitations and next steps in their concluding statement. Additionally, the authors should consider being uniformed in their referencing style.

Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge?

Highly likely

The study unwinds a lot of academic insights in the manner in which it is conducted and provides a knowledge gap which serves as a fuel for the academic sector. Additionally, the study is providing new knowledge that combined therapy is more beneficial than monotherapy for cancer treatment.

Would it benefit from language editing?

Yes

The study might benefit from language editing because of the previous issues raised on being concise and clear.

Would you recommend this preprint to others?

Yes, it’s of high quality

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.