Classification Prediction of Alzheimer’s Disease and Vascular Dementia Using Physiological Data and ECD SPECT Images
, Pai-Yi Chiu 5, Chiung-Chih Chang 6, Ya-Ting Chang 6, Guang-Uei Hung 7, Kun-Ju Lin 8,9, Ing-Tsung Hsiao 8,9, Chia-Yu Lin 1 and Hui-Chieh Yang 1
Sönke Langner
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is well written and the research is useful for the society.
The discussion section is well written but the conclusion is too short. Elaborate the conclusion with the outcome of the research and include major future scopes.
Figure 1: After feature selection, directly the prediction result is mentioned. Check.
Explain RFECV method of feature selection in short and tell the need/significance of the same.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for giving me the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled "Classification Prediction of Alzheimer’s disease and Vascular Dementia using Physiological Data and ECD SPECT Images" in which the authors present a SVM-based algorithm to differentiate between AD und VaD. To Train and test the model, the Taiwanese Nuclear Brain Imaging Database.
The manuscript is well written and structured, material and methods are described clearly and the results are presented in a structured way. The figures and tables are of good quality.
However, there are some concerns that need to be addressed:
- in the introduction please mention the benefit and the impact of arterial spin labeling for the differential diagnosis of AD
-p3l114 - M.-C.P - please explain in more details; also add references for the database, that demonstrate the representative values of the database you mentioned in the manuscript. How many datasets are included in the database? What percent of the patient in the database was used for this study or was the entire database used? If not, how did you select the patients.
- although it is a common disease, the number of subjects for training and testing is relatively small. Why did the authors not include a larger number of datasets?
- IRB - the approval was for the database or for the presented study? Was informed consent necessary?
-p3l134 - 57:28 - numbers or percent?
Comments on the Quality of English Languageno editing necessary
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
