Numerical Modeling of the Major Temporal Arcade Using BUMDA and Jacobi Polynomials
, Arturo Hernández-Aguirre 1, Martha Alicia Hernández-González 3, Luis Miguel López-Montero 3 and Sergio Eduardo Solorio-Meza 4
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this paper, a modeling of the Major Temporal Arcade in fundus images was carried out using a linear combination of the first four Jacobi polynomials. The proposed method consists of using an evolutionary algorithm BUMDA for the determination of the five coefficients of the polynomial serie, in addition of the two parameters (α, β) that come with each polynomial.
Comments and Suggestions for improvement:
1. The original contributions need to be much better presented in the
last paragraph of section “INTRODUCTION”. All improvements, if they
are, and new results must be described in this paragraph. The advantages
of the work are not discussed in the text.
2. A brief description of the structure (layout) of the paper may be added
to the end of the Introduction.
3. The Abstract should modified by adding advantages of the proposed method.
4. Check the manuscript carefully for typos and grammatical errors.
5. Please clarify the novelty of this paper with respect to the published
paper.
6. The references list is not at all updated with latest developments and
publications related subject. I suggest the authors to keep up to date with
the relevant literature such as
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2021.113695
http://dx.doi.org/10.22436/jmcs.025.02.08
7. In general, the typeset equations should be regarded as parts of a
sentence and treated accordingly with the appropriate grammatical conven-
tion and punctuation. More editing for writing is needed. At the end of all
equations must be put “COMMA” or “POINT” according to the typing
rules.
8. I suggest the authors summarize the proposed method as an algorithm
(e.g. Algorithm 1) in the pseudo-code style.
9. At the beginning of the numerical results section, authors should present the configuration of the personal computer used to perform the simulation results.
10. Please interpret the obtained numerical results in different tables. It is important what you conclude to them.
11. Please improve the quakity of figures.
12. All acronyms should be defined before.
13. Section Conclusion should be added and elaborated more in detail.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The subject of this article corresponds to the direction of the journal and it can be published in Axioms after revision.
1. The background should be improved, it is necessary to see more clearly the main purpose of the study and the tasks that scientists set for themselves. Only 4 (from 15) reviewed articles in the background are not older than 5 years. For such a progressive industry as modern medicine, this is very little (perhaps the topic considered by the authors is no longer relevant).
2. Database question. Unfortunately, I lost the logic and thread of the data usage. First you write that you are using 40 retinal fundus images from [16] (Staal, J., Abràmoff, M. D., Niemeijer, M., Viergever, M. A., & Van Ginneken, B. Ridge-based vessel segmentation in color images of the retina. IEEE transactions on medical imaging, 2004, 23(4), pp. 501-509, although as I understand it is a database of another author, which he made public (written in ACKNOWLEDGMENT)), but to check the convergence (4. Experimental results and discussion) you use only 20 retinal fundus images (Figure 2) and for Figure 3 you use a total of 9 retinal fundus images. Why not use all 40? More experiments, more accurate solutions? Moreover, the database is known and has been used in practice for a long time.
3. Figure 1 is misleading and needs to be improved in quality. At the moment, I don't understand how 2 and 3 are obtained, and how the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution is determined (need axes labels).
4. The conclusions should be improved by focusing on the goals and objectives that the authors set for themselves and how they managed to achieve them. The conclusions are not supported by the results. Describing one of the methods in the background, you say that it has an average accuracy of 0.85, and what is your result? How ethical is it to recommend a "raw" product for use in practice?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have responded to all my comments and the current version of the manuscript may be published. I wish the authors continued success in their work.
