Performance of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Models Designed for Application in Pediatric Dentistry—A Systematic Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Following revisions are to be incorporated before publication-

(1)     The English and typo errors of the paper should be checked in the presence of native English speaker.

(2)     All equations should be clearly explained with explanation on all associated variables.

(3)     Author should add one section “Related Work” in the paper.

(4)     The methodology of the paper should be clearly explained with appropriate flow charts.

(5)     What are the major issues with the proposed work?

(6)     How data sets are established for doing this research work?

(7)     Which files of datasets are using in this paper? Mention these websites.

(8)     What are the strong features of this research work? Author must explain.

(9)     Author should add the motivations, problem, and solution statement in the abstract.

(10)   How the parameters for simulations are selected?

(11)   How the performance of proposed technique is better than existing techniques.

(12)   All tables and figures should be explained clearly.

(13)   Highlight the more applications of the proposed technique.

(14)   What are motivations behind this research work?

(15)   Add more explanation on obtained results with critical analysis.

(16)   Author must explain pros and cons of the work.

(17)   Author must cite suggested papers for enhancing the quality of the paper. These are based on realted techniques and confusion matrices-

(a)     Real-time estimation of hospital discharge using fuzzy radial basis function network and electronic health record data

(b)     An efficient ALO-based ensemble classification algorithm for medical big data processing

(c)     Non-invasive assessment of fractional flow reserve using computational fluid dynamics modelling from coronary angiography images

(d)     Bone metastatic tumourminimisation due to thermal cementoplasty effect, clinical and computational methodologies

(e)     Multiscale Graph Cuts Based Method for Coronary Artery Segmentation in Angiograms

(f)     Bio-medical analysis of breast cancer risk detection based on deep neural network

(g)     Assessment of qualitative and quantitative features in coronary artery MRA

(h)     A frugal and innovative telemedicine approach for rural India – automated doctor machine

(i)      Study of murmurs and their impact on the heart variability

(j)      Analysis of salivary components as non-invasive biomarkers for monitoring chronic kidney disease

(k)     Coronary three-vessel disease with occlusion of the right coronary artery: What are the most important factors that determine the right territory perfusion?

(l)      An improved graph matching algorithm for the spatio-temporal matching of a coronary artery 3D tree sequence

(m)    Development of ANN and ANFIS Classifier for Betel Leaf Pathogen Detection

(n)     Multi-Feature Fusion Method for Identifying Carotid Artery Vulnerable Plaque

(o)     Development of Intelligent Transportation System and Its Applications for an Urban Corridor During COVID-19

(p)     An efficient AR modelling-based electrocardiogram signal analysis for health informatics

(q)     Cardiac Care Assistance using Self Configured Sensor Network—a Remote Patient Monitoring System

(r)      Prediction of atherosclerosis pathology in retinal fundal images with machine learning approaches

(s)     3D Coronary Artery Reconstruction by 2D Motion Compensation Based on Mutual Information

(t)      Robust retinal blood vessel segmentation using convolutional neural network and support vector machine

 Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Greetings!

Firstly I would like to thank you for your valuable inputs, and would like to inform you that we have considered all the valuable comments suggested by you and have modified the manuscript as per your suggestions.

We have modified the manuscript to best of our knowledge, kindly consider the same and oblige,

Thank you and regards

Sincerely yours,

Dr. Sanjeev B Khanagar (Corresponding Author)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The aim of this study was to investigate the performance of AI models designed for application 18 in pediatric dentistry. However, there are some major concerns:

1. Abstract: abbreviations should be avoided (AI); The method of evaluating the quality of the studies must be mentioned; primary and secondary databases should not be mixed. the secondary ones ( Google Scholar, Saudi Digital Library) should be included in the grey literature.

2. Materials and Methods: Is there a record of the protocol of this RS, for example in PROSPERO?; Specify the date when each source was last searched or consulted; The search phrases presented in table S1 are not sufficient to replicate the search. Present the full search strategies for all databases, registers, and websites, including any filters and limits used; Specify the methods used to decide whether a study met the inclusion criteria of the review, including how many reviewers screened each record; "Articles published in languages other than English." is not an exclusion criterion but a filter of search; Specify the methods used to collect data from reports, including how many reviewers collected data from each report, whether they worked independently;

3. Results: Authors should use the most recent prism flowchart (https://www.prisma-statement.org//PRISMAStatement/FlowDiagram)

4. Discussion: Must be improved. Discuss any limitations of the evidence included in the review eg. the Correlation between results and the risk of bias of the included studies; Discuss implications of the results for practice, policy, and future research; Discuss any limitations of the review processes used.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Greetings of the day!

Firstly I would like to thank you for your valuable inputs, and would like to inform you that we have considered your valuable comments and have modified the manuscript as per your suggestions.

We are also providing point to point clarifications for the comments suggested by you. "Please see the attachment."

We have modified the manuscript to best of our knowledge, kindly consider the same and oblige,

Thank you and regards

Sincerely yours,

Dr. Sanjeev B Khanagar (Corresponding Author)

 Reviewer 2

The aim of this study was to investigate the performance of AI models designed for application 18 in pediatric dentistry. However, there are some major concerns:

1. Abstract: abbreviations should be avoided (AI); The method of evaluating the quality of the studies must be mentioned; primary and secondary databases should not be mixed. the secondary ones ( Google Scholar, Saudi Digital Library) should be included in the grey literature

Response: We have considered the valuable suggestion and we have avoided the abbreviations and made all the suggested changes and have mentioned primary and secondary data bases separately

 We have mentioned regarding the quality assessment as suggested

2. Materials and Methods: Is there a record of the protocol of this RS, for example in PROSPERO?; Specify the date when each source was last searched or consulted; The search phrases presented in table S1 are not sufficient to replicate the search. Present the full search strategies for all databases, registers, and websites, including any filters and limits used; Specify the methods used to decide whether a study met the inclusion criteria of the review, including how many reviewers screened each record; "Articles published in languages other than English." is not an exclusion criterion but a filter of search; Specify the methods used to collect data from reports, including how many reviewers collected data from each report, whether they worked independently;

Response: We have made the suggested changes. However we would like to bring it to your kind notice that we had applied for PROSPERO registration but unfortunately we have still not received the registration number (PROSPERO acknowledgement of receipt [360175].

We have updated Table S1 as suggested by the reviewer.

 We have added information on the review process and modified the eligibility criteria

3. Results: Authors should use the most recent prism flowchart (https://www.prisma-statement.org//PRISMAStatement/FlowDiagram)

Response: Thank you for pointing this out, we have updated the flowchart as per the reviewers suggestion

4. Discussion: Must be improved. Discuss any limitations of the evidence included in the review eg. the Correlation between results and the risk of bias of the included studies; Discuss implications of the results for practice, policy, and future research; Discuss any limitations of the review processes used.

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion, we have made the suggested changes and have added a paragraph on this

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a well prepared paper with clear objective, appropriate method. My only concern is Table 2. It is unnecessary to describe all details of the studies included and most readers want a summary of these studies (ie all studies in preferably one page or max 2 pages). Thus it can be revise as 1) Authors (year), 2) method, and 3) main findings. Authors may put their detials as appendix if they wish to.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Greetings of the day!

Firstly I would like to thank you for your valuable inputs, and would like to inform you that we have considered your valuable comments and have modified the manuscript as per your suggestions.

We are also providing point to point clarifications for the comments suggested by you. "Please see the attachment."

We have modified the manuscript to best of our knowledge, kindly consider the same and oblige,

Thank you and regards

Sincerely yours,

Dr. Sanjeev B Khanagar (Corresponding Author)

 Reviewer 3

This is a well prepared paper with clear objective, appropriate method. My only concern is Table 2. It is unnecessary to describe all details of the studies included and most readers want a summary of these studies (ie all studies in preferably one page or max 2 pages). Thus it can be revise as 1) Authors (year), 2) method, and 3) main findings. Authors may put their detials as appendix if they wish to.

Response: We highly appreciate your valuable suggestion, we have prepared this table based on the PICO components, so we sincerely request you to consider the same.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Accepted in current form

Reviewer 3 Report

Accept