Next Article in Journal
Quantitative Airway Assessment of Diffuse Idiopathic Pulmonary Neuroendocrine Cell Hyperplasia (DIPNECH) on CT as a Novel Biomarker
Next Article in Special Issue
Determining HER2 Status by Artificial Intelligence: An Investigation of Primary, Metastatic, and HER2 Low Breast Tumors
Previous Article in Journal
Lung Involvement in Systemic Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: A Narrative Review
Previous Article in Special Issue
Computational Pipeline for Glomerular Segmentation and Association of the Quantified Regions with Prognosis of Kidney Function in IgA Nephropathy
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Allred Scoring of ER-IHC Stained Whole-Slide Images for Hormone Receptor Status in Breast Carcinoma

Diagnostics 2022, 12(12), 3093; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12123093
by Mohammad Faizal Ahmad Fauzi 1,*, Wan Siti Halimatul Munirah Wan Ahmad 1, Mohammad Fareed Jamaluddin 1, Jenny Tung Hiong Lee 2, See Yee Khor 3, Lai Meng Looi 4, Fazly Salleh Abas 5 and Nouar Aldahoul 1
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Diagnostics 2022, 12(12), 3093; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12123093
Submission received: 16 November 2022 / Revised: 4 December 2022 / Accepted: 6 December 2022 / Published: 8 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Artificial Intelligence in Pathological Image Analysis)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I reviewed this interesting article which features an innovative automated scoring system to support pathologists' ability to identify breast cancer cases for hormone treatment.
The current results look promising, although some classification issues need to be addressed further.
In my opinion this work is well written and clear in the description of the methodology and in the presentation of the results.
I only suggest further increasing the number of input images in order to strengthen classification accuracy to make this system more acceptable to physicians, who are generally inclined to view automated systems as a threat.

Author Response

Dear Prof,

Please see the attachment.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

  1. The authors have yet to discuss much on state-of-the-art on the proposed approach. 
  2. What is the reason for selecting a 32*32 block size for the ROI?
  3. The authors have used their own dataset. However, to compare it with the existing literature, the authors are suggested to use at least one publicly available and widely used dataset. 
  4. As the data is not larger, why can’t authors try for any machine learning algorithm rather than a deep learning model to reduce the complexity?
  5. There is no state-of-the-art comparison with the proposed method justify it.
  6. Add some pros and cons of the proposed approach. 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Prof,

Please see the attachment.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop