Exploitation of Emerging Technologies and Advanced Networks for a Smart Healthcare System
, Vasileios A. Memos, Christos L. Stergiou, Konstantinos D. Stergiou, Andreas P. Plageras, Maria P. Koidou and Konstantinos E. Psannis *Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors attempted to present a thorough review of Emerging Technologies and Advanced Networks for a Smart Healthcare System. This is a very broad topic, and in other words, it is pretty hard to make up a qualified review. To be frank, it seems that this submission could be a section of the literature review for a Ph.D. thesis. Although there is no page limit for this journal, it is not appropriate to have general writing included.
If the authors are interested, I would like to suggest:
The objective of this paper is the “Exploitation of Emerging Technologies and Advanced Networks for a Smart Healthcare System” according to the title of the paper. I need to say that some of the topics covered by the authors are presented in a generic way and the cutting edge of each type of technology is not exploited but just mentioned.
Specifically, in 5.1.3 Fiber and Wireless Technologies (Fi-Wi) the authors must be specific and need to specify which are the latest standards in this area. They must also include the characteristics that describe the cutting-Edge technology.
As an example: The statement (334-336) “Hence, optical fibers allow transmission over longer distances at very high bandwidths, supporting higher data transmission than conventional electrical cables.” The whole statement is very subjective and the authors need to provide numbers for:
i)Longer distances, ii) High bandwidths, iii) High data rates according to the latest standards, and also which is the newest type of Fiber technology? Single-mode? Multi-mode?
Line:332 : “Optical fibers are very thick, flexible, and transparent fibers from drawing glass or plastic” What is the meaning of the word “thick”, It is well known that the core diameter of single-mode fiber is 8–10 μm and the core diameter of Multi-mode fiber, is as small as 50 μm. (They have to carry out the same type of description as they have done in 5.1.4. “5G Networks” where they have included numbers and cited the “ITU-R. (2015)”)
On the other side in 5.1.4. “5G Networks” the authors are mentioning in line 379 “Wireless Local Area Networks (WLAN)”, and they refer to 802.11X (X=a, b, g, n, ac) standards, Again here they have to clarify which is the latest standard and what are the main characteristics of the latest standard by mentioning again data rates, Operational Frequencies, justifying their writings with the use again of the necessary citations/standards. Additionally, the authors should consider creating a new section 5.1.5 in order to separately cover Wi-Fi technology (as now is under “5G Networks”
I kindly suggest the authors should do the same review/changes with the rest of the subjects that are covered.
As far as the figures are concerned more informative figures should be used. As an example, I would like to mention Figure 5. Cloud Computing. According to the description of the authors in the text (413-415): “Cloud Computing (CC) is a useful technology, which provides the chance to store, manage, and transmit data through various platforms (desktops, mobile devices, etc.) and applications, as depicted in Figure 5”., but from my point of view Figure 5. is very simplistic and does not provide any information. There are excellent figures on the internet and they could be used with the necessary permissions taken.
Author Response
Manuscript ID: applsci-1706697
Exploitation of Emerging Technologies and Advanced Networks for a Smart Healthcare System
Dear Editor,
Thank you for allowing a resubmission of our manuscript, with an opportunity to address the reviewer’s comments.
Following is our response to the reviewer’s comments. Furthermore, we have uploaded (a) an updated manuscript with yellow highlighting indicating additions, and (b) a clean updated manuscript without highlights.
Best regards,
The authors
Reviewer 1:
The authors attempted to present a thorough review of Emerging Technologies and Advanced Networks for a Smart Healthcare System. This is a very broad topic, and in other words, it is pretty hard to make up a qualified review. To be frank, it seems that this submission could be a section of the literature review for a Ph.D. thesis. Although there is no page limit for this journal, it is not appropriate to have general writing included.
If the authors are interested, I would like to suggest:
The objective of this paper is the “Exploitation of Emerging Technologies and Advanced Networks for a Smart Healthcare System” according to the title of the paper. I need to say that some of the topics covered by the authors are presented in a generic way and the cutting edge of each type of technology is not exploited but just mentioned.
Specifically, in 5.1.3 Fiber and Wireless Technologies (Fi-Wi) the authors must be specific and need to specify which are the latest standards in this area. They must also include the characteristics that describe the cutting-Edge technology.
As an example: The statement (334-336) “Hence, optical fibers allow transmission over longer distances at very high bandwidths, supporting higher data transmission than conventional electrical cables.” The whole statement is very subjective and the authors need to provide numbers for:
i)Longer distances, ii) High bandwidths, iii) High data rates according to the latest standards, and also which is the newest type of Fiber technology? Single-mode? Multi-mode?
Line:332 : “Optical fibers are very thick, flexible, and transparent fibers from drawing glass or plastic” What is the meaning of the word “thick”, It is well known that the core diameter of single-mode fiber is 8–10 μm and the core diameter of Multi-mode fiber, is as small as 50 μm. (They have to carry out the same type of description as they have done in 5.1.4. “5G Networks” where they have included numbers and cited the “ITU-R. (2015)”)
On the other side in 5.1.4. “5G Networks” the authors are mentioning in line 379 “Wireless Local Area Networks (WLAN)”, and they refer to 802.11X (X=a, b, g, n, ac) standards, Again here they have to clarify which is the latest standard and what are the main characteristics of the latest standard by mentioning again data rates, Operational Frequencies, justifying their writings with the use again of the necessary citations/standards. Additionally, the authors should consider creating a new section 5.1.5 in order to separately cover Wi-Fi technology (as now is under “5G Networks”
I kindly suggest the authors should do the same review/changes with the rest of the subjects that are covered.
Author response: Thank you for your comment. We have proceed in several changes in order to enhance our scientific study.
As far as the figures are concerned more informative figures should be used. As an example, I would like to mention Figure 5. Cloud Computing. According to the description of the authors in the text (413-415): “Cloud Computing (CC) is a useful technology, which provides the chance to store, manage, and transmit data through various platforms (desktops, mobile devices, etc.) and applications, as depicted in Figure 5”., but from my point of view Figure 5. is very simplistic and does not provide any information. There are excellent figures on the internet and they could be used with the necessary permissions taken.
Author response: We have updated the Figure to depict with relevance the corresponding technology.
--
Konstantinos E. Psannis
Professor of Communication Systems and Networking
Applied Informatics Dpt, University of Macedonia.
156 Egnatia Str., Thessaloniki 54636, Greece.
email: kpsannis@uom.edu.gr, Tel: +302310891737, mobile:306944302664 (viber), messenger konstantinos psannis, Skype : KostasPsannisGR
https://lnkd.in/gDDNAUbf
Consultant Professor
EU-JAPAN Centre for Cooperation- Nagoya Institute of Technology, JP
https://lnkd.in/g65e2y4
Session Chair, Next Generation (NG): 6G-Enabled Artificial Intelligence of Things - Digital twins- and Cobot Intelligence, 5th World Symposium on Communication Engineering (WSCE 2022), Nagoya University during September 16-18, 2022. [http://www.wsce.org/session1.html]
Invited Speaker, IEEE International Conference on Computer Communication and the Internet (ICCCI 2022), Nagoya Institute of Technology, Japan, 2022 [http://iccci.org/keynote.html]
Invited Speaker, Next G-IoT, The 10th International Conference on Computer and Communications Management, July 29-31, 2022, Okayama University, Japan [http://icccm.org/invited.html]
Keynote Speaker, Massive Internet of Things, Information Technology & Applications Symposium (ITAS), Chiba, Japan, during July 1-3, 2022 [http://www.itas.org/speaker.html]
Conference Chair
IEEE World Symposium on Communication Engineering (WSCE 2020 & WSCE 2021), Thessaloniki, Greece
British Government-Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO)- Ministry of Educations, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT)- EU-Japan Centre for Industrial Cooperation
Top 2% Scientists in the world (prepared by Stanford University USA, October 2020) https://lnkd.in/dhSwdgB
Top 2% Scientists in the world (prepared by Stanford University USA, October 2021) https://lnkd.in/gsuZnKrn
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is interesting and makes a useful review of emerging technologies that can be used to support medicine, while also providing a general picture of what exists. However, the work structure is overall not satisfactory and needs to be improved.
The introduction is devoid of bibliographic references, while it would have been useful to give definitions to the technologies and to the various statements contained. Perhaps the chapter "Limitations of conventional methods" motivates the purpose of the study and should be part of the introduction.
There is no methodological part that explains the criteria with which the works (connected works) subsequently examined were selected.
More data would be needed to support the effectiveness of the technologies presented. All these technologies can be implemented and used and could bring benefits, but it is necessary to better highlight their value in terms of effectiveness (e.g. reduction of errors). Finally, I would suggest a discussion rather than conclusions that defines the limits of this review and also considers how the doctor-patient relationship can change with respect to these technologies.
Author Response
Manuscript ID: applsci-1706697
Exploitation of Emerging Technologies and Advanced Networks for a Smart Healthcare System
Dear Editor,
Thank you for allowing a resubmission of our manuscript, with an opportunity to address the reviewer’s comments.
Following is our response to the reviewer’s comments. Furthermore, we have uploaded (a) an updated manuscript with yellow highlighting indicating additions, and (b) a clean updated manuscript without highlights.
Best regards,
The authors
Reviewer 2:
The article is interesting and makes a useful review of emerging technologies that can be used to support medicine, while also providing a general picture of what exists. However, the work structure is overall not satisfactory and needs to be improved.
The introduction is devoid of bibliographic references, while it would have been useful to give definitions to the technologies and to the various statements contained. Perhaps the chapter "Limitations of conventional methods" motivates the purpose of the study and should be part of the introduction.
Author response: Thank you for your review. We have included more references and we reorganized content of the Introduction.
There is no methodological part that explains the criteria with which the works (connected works) subsequently examined were selected. More data would be needed to support the effectiveness of the technologies presented. All these technologies can be implemented and used and could bring benefits, but it is necessary to better highlight their value in terms of effectiveness (e.g. reduction of errors).
Author response: The authors explained the selection of relevant studies in their manuscript and the effectiveness of the technologies.
Finally, I would suggest a discussion rather than conclusions that defines the limits of this review and also considers how the doctor-patient relationship can change with respect to these technologies.
Author response: The authors added a discussion section regarding the assistance of emerging technologies in the healthcare sector.
-
Konstantinos E. Psannis
Professor of Communication Systems and Networking
Applied Informatics Dpt, University of Macedonia.
156 Egnatia Str., Thessaloniki 54636, Greece.
email: kpsannis@uom.edu.gr, Tel: +302310891737, mobile:306944302664 (viber), messenger konstantinos psannis, Skype : KostasPsannisGR
https://lnkd.in/gDDNAUbf
Consultant Professor
EU-JAPAN Centre for Cooperation- Nagoya Institute of Technology, JP
https://lnkd.in/g65e2y4
Session Chair, Next Generation (NG): 6G-Enabled Artificial Intelligence of Things - Digital twins- and Cobot Intelligence, 5th World Symposium on Communication Engineering (WSCE 2022), Nagoya University during September 16-18, 2022. [http://www.wsce.org/session1.html]
Invited Speaker, IEEE International Conference on Computer Communication and the Internet (ICCCI 2022), Nagoya Institute of Technology, Japan, 2022 [http://iccci.org/keynote.html]
Invited Speaker, Next G-IoT, The 10th International Conference on Computer and Communications Management, July 29-31, 2022, Okayama University, Japan [http://icccm.org/invited.html]
Keynote Speaker, Massive Internet of Things, Information Technology & Applications Symposium (ITAS), Chiba, Japan, during July 1-3, 2022 [http://www.itas.org/speaker.html]
Conference Chair
IEEE World Symposium on Communication Engineering (WSCE 2020 & WSCE 2021), Thessaloniki, Greece
British Government-Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO)- Ministry of Educations, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT)- EU-Japan Centre for Industrial Cooperation
Top 2% Scientists in the world (prepared by Stanford University USA, October 2020) https://lnkd.in/dhSwdgB
Top 2% Scientists in the world (prepared by Stanford University USA, October 2021) https://lnkd.in/gsuZnKrn
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript shows a system architecture that combines technologies. This paper aims to describe the integration of a mixture of emerging technologies in assistance with advanced networks to provide a smart healthcare system. The topic is interesting and pertinent given the current context; however, the manuscript has several flaws including a poor contribution, lack of method, and citation issues that make it unsuitable for publication.
My main concern is the poor contribution of the paper, the authors show a theoretical system architecture based on current technologies. This system architecture is only briefly described in section six without any type of procedure to test, simulate, and model such system architecture.
The authors proposed the use of widely used protocols to transfer data such XMPP, but they do not provide any source of validation on this and other stages such as communication or data analysis. Thus, what is the rationale to state that this theoretical system is a robust system?
Moreover, most of the paper focuses on describing current technologies. However, the paper does not state the method followed to obtain and analyze previous studies. In fact, several statements of such descriptions are not cited or the source is not mentioned. Thus, the authors fail to provide adequate references to previous authors who have worked with similar technologies. For example, the introduction section mentions several different technologies and their use in healthcare and other industries. However, this section has not a citation that supports any statement.
Later, in the related work section, the manuscript presents only nine studies that serve as a basis for comparative analysis. Thus, this section seems inconsistent because it does not mention any procedure to identify, select, extract, or analyze relevant literature. Instead, these studies seem to be selected randomly, without a specific and stated goal.
What was the rationale to use a few studies for a comparative analysis?
What was the selection criteria for studies to be included in Table 1?
What procedures were followed by the authors to avoid selection bias, publication bias, and similar bias?
In Section three “Limitations of Conventional Medical Methods”, the manuscript also seems to be unclear about the procedures to identify and include limitations of medical methods. The manuscript attempts to provide an introduction to problems allowing the reader to believe that they will be covered in this manuscript; however, this attempt is too broad and seems too ambiguous. For example, the manuscript mentions several problems related to health (demography problems, chronic diseases, Alzheimer’s disease, and the hereditary diseases), to healthcare service (the lack of health infrastructure and personnel, the organizational problem, data corruption), and different branches of medicine (microbiology and surgery). Providing such problems and limitations in a manner that seems random and unsystematic might confuse readers. Additionally, Section three does not provide any source or citation. In this way, this section might have a weak contribution.
The authors failed to provide consistent citations and references throughout the document, the following statements are examples of these weaknesses.
“It has been widely discussed in the scientific community, the fact that these two emerging technologies will be effective for testing vaccines that will eliminate the mortal viruses.”
“The aforementioned technologies have been used in many cases in the healthcare sector”
“The effectiveness of these technologies was tested by many researchers in the pharmaceutical sector with the use of predictive analytics”
“Some examples are the prediction of drug interactions, drug combinations, and drug toxicity”
“The market is estimated to share over 90 billion dollars by 2025.”
“Due to that fact, the doctors can have a better clinical picture of data and detect disorders or complications that could be potential.”
Additional observation are:
Revise the clarity of the text, e.g., “there is need of using ML and DL”
Please state the meaning of abbreviations used in the manuscript the first time they appear “DNN”
Please revise the following statement “MR, a combination of VR and MR” it might be a repeated concept.
What is the source for the statement? “A new trend of wired infrastructure known as optical fibers can be used alongside the use of wireless infrastructure in a medical center or a hospital”. The use of optical fibers is not new, thus, this statement without citation might be incorrect.
Additional Typos:
“Thus, medical professionals have aν effective tool that visualize humans’ body”
A comma is missing “Such an integrated system could eliminate the potential threats, improving the Quality of Life (QoL) of the human population and minimizing their fear of infection.
Author Response
Manuscript ID: applsci-1706697
Exploitation of Emerging Technologies and Advanced Networks for a Smart Healthcare System
Dear Editor,
Thank you for allowing a resubmission of our manuscript, with an opportunity to address the reviewer’s comments.
Following is our response to the reviewer’s comments. Furthermore, we have uploaded (a) an updated manuscript with yellow highlighting indicating additions, and (b) a clean updated manuscript without highlights.
Best regards,
The authors
Reviewer 3:
The manuscript shows a system architecture that combines technologies. This paper aims to describe the integration of a mixture of emerging technologies in assistance with advanced networks to provide a smart healthcare system. The topic is interesting and pertinent given the current context; however, the manuscript has several flaws including a poor contribution, lack of method, and citation issues that make it unsuitable for publication.
My main concern is the poor contribution of the paper, the authors show a theoretical system architecture based on current technologies. This system architecture is only briefly described in section six without any type of procedure to test, simulate, and model such system architecture.
The authors proposed the use of widely used protocols to transfer data such XMPP, but they do not provide any source of validation on this and other stages such as communication or data analysis. Thus, what is the rationale to state that this theoretical system is a robust system?
Author response: Thank you for the review. We have provided details about the related protocol.
Moreover, most of the paper focuses on describing current technologies. However, the paper does not state the method followed to obtain and analyze previous studies. In fact, several statements of such descriptions are not cited or the source is not mentioned. Thus, the authors fail to provide adequate references to previous authors who have worked with similar technologies. For example, the introduction section mentions several different technologies and their use in healthcare and other industries. However, this section has not a citation that supports any statement.
Author response: The authors cited all relevant claims and statements in their manuscript.
Later, in the related work section, the manuscript presents only nine studies that serve as a basis for comparative analysis. Thus, this section seems inconsistent because it does not mention any procedure to identify, select, extract, or analyze relevant literature. Instead, these studies seem to be selected randomly, without a specific and stated goal.
What was the rationale to use a few studies for a comparative analysis?
What was the selection criteria for studies to be included in Table 1?
What procedures were followed by the authors to avoid selection bias, publication bias, and similar bias?
Author response: The authors explained the selection of related studies at the relevant section.
In Section three “Limitations of Conventional Medical Methods”, the manuscript also seems to be unclear about the procedures to identify and include limitations of medical methods. The manuscript attempts to provide an introduction to problems allowing the reader to believe that they will be covered in this manuscript; however, this attempt is too broad and seems too ambiguous. For example, the manuscript mentions several problems related to health (demography problems, chronic diseases, Alzheimer’s disease, and the hereditary diseases), to healthcare service (the lack of health infrastructure and personnel, the organizational problem, data corruption), and different branches of medicine (microbiology and surgery). Providing such problems and limitations in a manner that seems random and unsystematic might confuse readers. Additionally, Section three does not provide any source or citation. In this way, this section might have a weak contribution.
Author response: We have reorganized the content of the Introduction to highlight the limitations of conventional methods, as well.
The authors failed to provide consistent citations and references throughout the document, the following statements are examples of these weaknesses.
“It has been widely discussed in the scientific community, the fact that these two emerging technologies will be effective for testing vaccines that will eliminate the mortal viruses.”
“The aforementioned technologies have been used in many cases in the healthcare sector”
“The effectiveness of these technologies was tested by many researchers in the pharmaceutical sector with the use of predictive analytics”
“Some examples are the prediction of drug interactions, drug combinations, and drug toxicity”
“The market is estimated to share over 90 billion dollars by 2025.”
“Due to that fact, the doctors can have a better clinical picture of data and detect disorders or complications that could be potential.”
Author response: We cited the appropriate references.
Additional observation are:
Revise the clarity of the text, e.g., “there is need of using ML and DL”
Please state the meaning of abbreviations used in the manuscript the first time they appear “DNN”
Please revise the following statement “MR, a combination of VR and MR” it might be a repeated concept.
What is the source for the statement? “A new trend of wired infrastructure known as optical fibers can be used alongside the use of wireless infrastructure in a medical center or a hospital”. The use of optical fibers is not new, thus, this statement without citation might be incorrect.
Author response: We double-checked the whole manuscript and proceeded to error corrections.
-
Konstantinos E. Psannis
Professor of Communication Systems and Networking
Applied Informatics Dpt, University of Macedonia.
156 Egnatia Str., Thessaloniki 54636, Greece.
email: kpsannis@uom.edu.gr, Tel: +302310891737, mobile:306944302664 (viber), messenger konstantinos psannis, Skype : KostasPsannisGR
https://lnkd.in/gDDNAUbf
Consultant Professor
EU-JAPAN Centre for Cooperation- Nagoya Institute of Technology, JP
https://lnkd.in/g65e2y4
Session Chair, Next Generation (NG): 6G-Enabled Artificial Intelligence of Things - Digital twins- and Cobot Intelligence, 5th World Symposium on Communication Engineering (WSCE 2022), Nagoya University during September 16-18, 2022. [http://www.wsce.org/session1.html]
Invited Speaker, IEEE International Conference on Computer Communication and the Internet (ICCCI 2022), Nagoya Institute of Technology, Japan, 2022 [http://iccci.org/keynote.html]
Invited Speaker, Next G-IoT, The 10th International Conference on Computer and Communications Management, July 29-31, 2022, Okayama University, Japan [http://icccm.org/invited.html]
Keynote Speaker, Massive Internet of Things, Information Technology & Applications Symposium (ITAS), Chiba, Japan, during July 1-3, 2022 [http://www.itas.org/speaker.html]
Conference Chair
IEEE World Symposium on Communication Engineering (WSCE 2020 & WSCE 2021), Thessaloniki, Greece
British Government-Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO)- Ministry of Educations, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT)- EU-Japan Centre for Industrial Cooperation
Top 2% Scientists in the world (prepared by Stanford University USA, October 2020) https://lnkd.in/dhSwdgB
Top 2% Scientists in the world (prepared by Stanford University USA, October 2021) https://lnkd.in/gsuZnKrn
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have made a significant effort to improve their manuscript. Many of the observations were addressed, e.g., now, the manuscript presents citations for statements throughout the document. However, the manuscript still presents several flaws that were not appropriately addressed such as the deficiency in the contribution of the paper, the absence of methodology, a weak discussion section, and the lack of clarity in several passages within the text which still make it unsuitable for publication.
The authors did not include new information to highlight the contribution of the system architecture, which I believe is the novelty of the paper. Such theoretical system architecture is based on current widely used technologies; however, the manuscript did not present any type of procedure to test, simulate, and/or model such system architecture.
In a similar manner, the authors proposed the use of a widely used protocol (XMPP) to transfer data. Now the new version includes more details of how the protocol works. However, the manuscript still lacks any source of validation on this and other stages such as communication or data analysis. Thus, what is the rationale to state that this theoretical system is a robust system?
In addition, the authors stated “a framework was used for the implementation of the system and the communication of all devices, servers, and databases providing an abstraction of the network devices”
To what framework are the authors referring?
Where was this framework used?
Moreover, the manuscript continues to be unclear in relation to the procedure to include “relevant researches” within the section of “Related Work”. In fact, the new version includes a new paragraph that does not clarify the procedure followed to identify, select, extract, or analyze relevant literature.
As stated by the authors “Many studies, which make use of several technologies, have been proposed in the medical sector.” Thus, if there are “many studies”, what was the rationale to include only nine studies for a comparative analysis?
Since the reader might be interested to know the steps followed by the authors, what were the databases used for the search? Did the authors search for specific applications and publication dates?
In order to provide a comprehensive section of related work, please answer the following questions.
What were the selection criteria for studies to be included in the comparative analysis?
How can the authors assure that the manuscript is not presenting selection bias?
How do the authors control the publication bias and similar bias?
In the related work section, the authors stated “The following works represent the most relevant researches related to healthcare innovation with the aim of emerging technologies”. This sentence seems contradictory since the previous sentence refers to “researches related to healthcare” and now refers to them such as “may be introduced in the medical sector.” In addition, the authors stated, “They provide frameworks and systems that may be introduced in the medical sector in order to provide effective and efficient patient treatment”. Thus, this text and others present inconsistencies, which might lead to confusion for readers.
In addition, the authors have used the passive voice in a manner that produces more questions than answers in regards to section 5 “System Architecture”. Since the authors are proposing a system architecture, the way they describe such a system might be understood as already implemented, but this is not the case.
Regarding the discussion, it is expected that this section provides an analysis of the findings and unexpected findings of the manuscript. It is also expected to contrast the paper with previous similar studies; thus, readers might note the progress of the topic. However, the manuscript fails to provide a rich discussion. In fact, it only included two citations.
Typos
“relevant researches” did the authors mean studies?
“with the aim of emerging technologies”
“The most of the data”
“Patients are able to maintain to gain ordinary clinical”
Author Response
Manuscript ID: applsci-1706697
Exploitation of Emerging Technologies and Advanced Networks for a Smart Healthcare System
Dear Editor,
Thank you for allowing a resubmission of our manuscript, with an opportunity to address the reviewer’s comments.
Following is our response to the reviewer’s comments. Furthermore, we have uploaded (a) an updated manuscript with yellow highlighting indicating additions, and (b) a clean updated manuscript without highlights.
Best regards,
The authors
Reviewer:
The authors have made a significant effort to improve their manuscript. Many of the observations were addressed, e.g., now, the manuscript presents citations for statements throughout the document. However, the manuscript still presents several flaws that were not appropriately addressed such as the deficiency in the contribution of the paper, the absence of methodology, a weak discussion section, and the lack of clarity in several passages within the text which still make it unsuitable for publication.
The authors did not include new information to highlight the contribution of the system architecture, which I believe is the novelty of the paper. Such theoretical system architecture is based on current widely used technologies; however, the manuscript did not present any type of procedure to test, simulate, and/or model such system architecture.
Author response: Thank you for your comment. We have proceed in a simulation scenario in order to enhance our scientific study.
In a similar manner, the authors proposed the use of a widely used protocol (XMPP) to transfer data. Now the new version includes more details of how the protocol works. However, the manuscript still lacks any source of validation on this and other stages such as communication or data analysis. Thus, what is the rationale to state that this theoretical system is a robust system?
Author response: We have provided details about the simulation and the corresponding data analysis.
In addition, the authors stated “a framework was used for the implementation of the system and the communication of all devices, servers, and databases providing an abstraction of the network devices”
To what framework are the authors referring?
Where was this framework used?
Author response: The authors explained the usage of the framework.
Moreover, the manuscript continues to be unclear in relation to the procedure to include “relevant researches” within the section of “Related Work”. In fact, the new version includes a new paragraph that does not clarify the procedure followed to identify, select, extract, or analyze relevant literature.
As stated by the authors “Many studies, which make use of several technologies, have been proposed in the medical sector.” Thus, if there are “many studies”, what was the rationale to include only nine studies for a comparative analysis?
Since the reader might be interested to know the steps followed by the authors, what were the databases used for the search? Did the authors search for specific applications and publication dates?
In order to provide a comprehensive section of related work, please answer the following questions.
What were the selection criteria for studies to be included in the comparative analysis?
How can the authors assure that the manuscript is not presenting selection bias?
How do the authors control the publication bias and similar bias?
In the related work section, the authors stated “The following works represent the most relevant researches related to healthcare innovation with the aim of emerging technologies”. This sentence seems contradictory since the previous sentence refers to “researches related to healthcare” and now refers to them such as “may be introduced in the medical sector.” In addition, the authors stated, “They provide frameworks and systems that may be introduced in the medical sector in order to provide effective and efficient patient treatment”. Thus, this text and others present inconsistencies, which might lead to confusion for readers.
Author response: We have made the appropriate clarifications in the related work Section.
In addition, the authors have used the passive voice in a manner that produces more questions than answers in regards to section 5 “System Architecture”. Since the authors are proposing a system architecture, the way they describe such a system might be understood as already implemented, but this is not the case.
Author response: We have corrected the passive voice in order to provide a comprehensive description.
Regarding the discussion, it is expected that this section provides an analysis of the findings and unexpected findings of the manuscript. It is also expected to contrast the paper with previous similar studies; thus, readers might note the progress of the topic. However, the manuscript fails to provide a rich discussion. In fact, it only included two citations.
Author response: We included a point of how this research differentiates from other similar studies.
Typos
“relevant researches” did the authors mean studies?
“with the aim of emerging technologies”
“The most of the data”
“Patients are able to maintain to gain ordinary clinical”.
Author response: We double-checked the whole manuscript and proceeded to error corrections.
-
Professor Konstantinos E. Psannis
SI (MDPI):
Special Issue in Applied Sciences: 5G Networks: Optimization, Machine Learning And Blockchain Technologies
Special Issue in Sensors: Compressive Sensing-Based IoT Applications
Special Issue in Information: ICCCI 2020&2021: Advances in Baseband Signal Processing, Circuit Designs, and Communications
Topical Collection in Applied Sciences: 5G Networks: Optimization, Machine Learning and Blockchain Technologies â…¡
Special Issue in Telecom: 6G Wireless Communication Systems
Special Issue in Telecom: Papers from the 4th World Symposium on Communication Engineering (WSCE 2021)
Special Issue in Applied Sciences: Application of Data Analytics in Smart Healthcare
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sensors/special_issues/6g_wireless_communication_systems
Konstantinos E. Psannis
Professor of Communication Systems and Networking
Applied Informatics Dpt, University of Macedonia.
156 Egnatia Str., Thessaloniki 54636, Greece.
email: kpsannis@uom.edu.gr, Tel: +302310891737, mobile:306944302664 (viber), messenger konstantinos psannis, Skype : KostasPsannisGR
https://lnkd.in/gDDNAUbf
Consultant Professor
EU-JAPAN Centre for Cooperation- Nagoya Institute of Technology, JP
https://lnkd.in/g65e2y4
Session Chair, Next Generation (NG): 6G-Enabled Artificial Intelligence of Things - Digital twins- and Cobot Intelligence, 5th World Symposium on Communication Engineering (WSCE 2022), Nagoya University during September 16-18, 2022. [http://www.wsce.org/session1.html]
Invited Speaker, IEEE International Conference on Computer Communication and the Internet (ICCCI 2022), Nagoya Institute of Technology, Japan, 2022 [http://iccci.org/keynote.html]
Invited Speaker, Next G-IoT, The 10th International Conference on Computer and Communications Management, July 29-31, 2022, Okayama University, Japan [http://icccm.org/invited.html]
Keynote Speaker, Massive Internet of Things, Information Technology & Applications Symposium (ITAS), Chiba, Japan, during July 1-3, 2022 [http://www.itas.org/speaker.html]
Conference Chair
IEEE World Symposium on Communication Engineering (WSCE 2020 & WSCE 2021), Thessaloniki, Greece
British Government-Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO)- Ministry of Educations, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT)- EU-Japan Centre for Industrial Cooperation
Top 2% Scientists in the world (prepared by Stanford University USA, October 2020) https://lnkd.in/dhSwdgB
Top 2% Scientists in the world (prepared by Stanford University USA, October 2021) https://lnkd.in/gsuZnKrn
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
