Next Article in Journal
Personalized Genetic Diagnosis of Congenital Heart Defects in Newborns
Next Article in Special Issue
Automatic Segmentation of Mandible from Conventional Methods to Deep Learning—A Review
Previous Article in Journal
Enhanced Anticancer Activity of Nanoformulation of Dasatinib against Triple-Negative Breast Cancer
Previous Article in Special Issue
Machine Learning to Predict In-Hospital Mortality in COVID-19 Patients Using Computed Tomography-Derived Pulmonary and Vascular Features
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Mandible Segmentation of Dental CBCT Scans Affected by Metal Artifacts Using Coarse-to-Fine Learning Model

J. Pers. Med. 2021, 11(6), 560; https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm11060560
by Bingjiang Qiu 1,2,3, Hylke van der Wel 1,4, Joep Kraeima 1,4, Haye Hendrik Glas 1,4, Jiapan Guo 2,3,*, Ronald J. H. Borra 5, Max Johannes Hendrikus Witjes 1,4 and Peter M. A. van Ooijen 2,3
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
J. Pers. Med. 2021, 11(6), 560; https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm11060560
Submission received: 21 May 2021 / Revised: 10 June 2021 / Accepted: 14 June 2021 / Published: 16 June 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Application of Artificial Intelligence in Personalized Medicine)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a well-written paper addressing an important issue of dental CBCTs. I feel their approach can help in developing the quality of dental radiographs in the future.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors

  • Abstract is good but keywords should revise or carefully generate MeSH term.
  • Line 38-55: Authors reported many studies but the flow of work is not well reported. Try to write in a good way. 
  • 3.1.1. CBCT dataset: this heading need careful attention. reference them. 
  • Before the conclusion, the heading tries to add the limitations of this work so research will process for further way. 
  • Double-check the references. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The research is well designed and carried out.

Abstract: it is a good summary of the paper, and it is well organized.

Introduction contains enough background informations regarding the techniques involved and adequate references.

Figures and tables are adequate.

I will appreciate if you state in discussion section drawbacks and clinical application of your study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop