Next Article in Journal
Few-Shot Object Detection: Application to Medieval Musicological Studies
Previous Article in Journal
Topological Voting Method for Image Segmentation
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
J. Imaging
Volume 8
Issue 2
10.3390/jimaging8020017
Review Report
jimaging-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Fluoroscopic 3D Image Generation from Patient-Specific PCA Motion Models Derived from 4D-CBCT Patient Datasets: A Feasibility Study

J. Imaging 2022, 8(2), 17; https://doi.org/10.3390/jimaging8020017
by Salam Dhou 1,*, Mohanad Alkhodari 2, Dan Ionascu 3, Christopher Williams 4 and John H. Lewis 5
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
J. Imaging 2022, 8(2), 17; https://doi.org/10.3390/jimaging8020017
Submission received: 22 November 2021 / Revised: 6 January 2022 / Accepted: 12 January 2022 / Published: 18 January 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Medical Imaging)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

  1. How the PCA and optimization method differ from previous studies?
  2. Justify why demon registration method is chosen?
  3. It is recommended to elaborate on the process to reduce the noise and the low quality of 4D CBCT images. Selection of ROI ? (page 5, line 176-183)

The write up: English writing and style is good.

Self citation: There are 13 papers (journals/conferences) that include the main author as part of the authors. Possibly reduce the self citation in particular for conference papers.

Ethical approval: It is suggested to include a brief explanation on the ethical approval regarding the two datasets taken from real patients. 

Turnitin report: 89% similarity (84% is from   https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202111.0519/v1)

Author Response

Dear Respected Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. The manuscript has been revised and benefited substantially from these insightful suggestions, for which we are grateful. We have made every attempt to accommodate your comments, and we have hopefully addressed all of them satisfactorily.

Point-by-point replies to all comments have been added. Please see the attachment below. The manuscript has been revised accordingly with changes tracked as requested.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

You made a great work in terms of methodology and the paper sounds scientific and well written.

However, some improvements are mandatory before acceptance.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Respected Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. The manuscript has been revised and benefited substantially from these insightful suggestions, for which we are grateful. We have made every attempt to accommodate your comments, and we have hopefully addressed all of them satisfactorily.

Point-by-point replies to all comments have been provided. Please see the attachment below. The manuscript has been revised accordingly with changes tracked as requested.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop