Optimizing the Minimum Detectable Difference of Gamma Camera SPECT Images via the Taguchi Analysis: A Feasibility Study with a V-Shaped Slit Gauge
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In the paper entitled “Optimizing the minimum detectable difference of gamma camera SPECT images via the Taguchi analysis: a feasibility study with a V-shaped slit gauge” the authors describe a feasibility study of a method to optimize image quality in a gamma-camera for Nuclear Medicine applications, namely Bone Scintigraphy. Although this topic is not new or disruptive, the manuscript represents an experiment that seems very well designed and rigorous. However, the authors do not prove or discuss the novelty of the proposed method and why it deserves publication in a high impact factor journal such as Applied Sciences. In such context, I would like to inform that the paper could be acceptable only if these aspects be addressed and discussed by the authors.
Some more specific comments:
(line 50) The Introdution chapter begins with the description of the study undertake. In my opinion it should start with some generic background on the topic explored (for example, the concept of image quality, the interest of Nuclear Medicine imaging,…);
(line 53) Bone Scintigraphy is cited as a “common examination” in most Taiwanese hospitals without any reference or solid information that supports such information. I believe that it could be true, as it is in most of countries globally, but a scientific publication must be more than a simple generic comment;
(lines 64-65) Attention is provided to pre/post-processing as a way to improve image quality, however nothing is said about the role of acquisition parameters or other technical considerations. Also, it is not provided any solid definition of image quality, without the appropriate discussion on its impact in the clinical use of Nuclear Medicine imaging;
(line 75) Taguchi analysis is very briefly presented without a clear explanation about this method. Given the interest of this method for the work here presented it deserves more information and contextualization;
(lines 221-224) Image quality was visually evaluated by three radiologists. What is the criteria to classify Radiologists as “well-trained”? Years of clinical practice? Age? Level of education?
Also, more information on the practical aspects undertaken for the visual image evaluation would be important;
(line 393) Chapter is entitled “Clinical confirmation”. Don’t you think that “confirmation” is a word that is stronger than the work undertaken justifies? How many images were evaluated? How many patients were enrolled on the clinical study? Which is the clinical significance of the visual image appearance? Please justify accordingly because this issue is critical for the paper acceptance.
(line 408) Considering my doubts already presented and also the need to clarify some technical aspects, I believe that this conclusion also deserves a revision, demonstrating only solid results from the experimental work performed.
Globally, authors should also discuss the interest of the proposed method and its routine application (validation of new equipment? routine performance evaluation? Optimization of clinical practices?)
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In this paper, the authors have studied optimizing the minimum detectable difference of gamma camera SPECT images through Taguchi analysis. This work is the second version of the authors' previous work and has limited novelty. So, I have some major concerns about this paper. Here, I am mentioning a few of them.
1) Palagerism of the manuscript is very high that is totally unacceptable in high-quality SCI journals.
2) Abstract is mainly copied from the following two references.
[1] BING-RU PENG, SAMRIT KITTIPAYAK, LUNG-FA PAN, LUNG-KWANG PAN. "OPTIMIZING THE MINIMUM DETECTABLE DIFFERENCE OF COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY SCANNED IMAGES VIA THE TAGUCHI ANALYSIS: A FEASIBILITY STUDY WITH AN INDIGENOUS HEPATIC PHANTOM AND A LINE GROUP GAUGE", Journal of Mechanics in Medicine and Biology, 2019.
[2] Ching-Hsiu Ke, Wan-Ju Liu, Bing-Ru Peng, Lung-Fa Pan, Lung-Kwang Pan. "Quality Enhancement of Gamma Camera SPECT Images Via the Taguchi-Based Optimization of Their Minimum Detectable Difference And a
V-Shaped Slit Gauge", Research Square Platform LLC, 2021.
2) More than 20% of the text is directly copied from the following paper.
[1] BING-RU PENG, SAMRIT KITTIPAYAK, LUNG-FA PAN, LUNG-KWANG PAN. "OPTIMIZING THE MINIMUM DETECTABLE DIFFERENCE OF COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY SCANNED IMAGES VIA THE TAGUCHI ANALYSIS: A FEASIBILITY STUDY WITH AN INDIGENOUS HEPATIC PHANTOM AND A LINE GROUP GAUGE", Journal of Mechanics in Medicine and Biology, 2019.
2) Related work section is ignored.
3) Comparison table must be included after the related work that should highlight the pros and cons of the proposed work and previous works.
4) Novelty/Contributions of the work should be mentioned as a separate section.
5) In methodology, a table must be included that should highlight the difference of this method from the previously proposed method by the authors.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
- The abstract should be improved by including some introduction and problem statement as well as brief conclusion at the end.
- The sentence (line 55-59) is unclear.
- Include comments on previous methods that have been proposed to improve the image of gamma camera.
- Cite the reference in specific to the Taguchi analysis upon introduction.
- The titles for Table 1 and 2 can be simplified. Further explanations can be explained in the text.
- All variables/symbols in the equation need to be explained in the text. Also the symbols in equation must be similar in the text. example L and L.
- Figure 2 is not clear.
- Presentation of Figure 4 can be improved.
- 3.1 and 3.2 can be combined into 1 section. Data analysis? and ANOVA.
- In Table 4, is Factor E significant as well?
- Figure 5 can be improved.
- The English language and grammar can be improved.
- The number of references can be increased.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The review of this manuscript is now complete, and I have following comments:
1. The paper is well written and is interesting to the readers of the related research community. The authors should expand the literature review section a bit by including more competitor studies. At the end of this section, the authors should add the major contributions of the study.
2. Although the authors have added results related discussion, but my concern is that often the authors ignore a very important aspect: "how" and "why" the claimed results are better than the art studies? Having that said, I will recommend to add this discussion here.
3. Please make the abstract and conclusion sections more "crisp"
4. It will be appropriate if more graphical illustrations could be added.
All in all this paper needs a re-write to address these comments before publication in such a high quality journal.
Bests.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
I've appreaciatted your efforts in answering all the questions/topics of my review report. I believe that the paper was improved and is now acceptable to be published in Applied Sciences.
I wish all the best to you and your scientific work!
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Paper can be accepted in present form.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Keeping in view the high matching index, this reviewer is not satisfied with the overall quality of the work. I am of the view that the submission is not ready for publication in such a high quality journal, keeping in view the presented content.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
