Next Article in Journal
Comparison between Sugammadex and Neostigmine after Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery–Thymectomy in Patients with Myasthenia Gravis: A Single-Center Retrospective Exploratory Analysis
Next Article in Special Issue
AI-Driven Decision Support for Early Detection of Cardiac Events: Unveiling Patterns and Predicting Myocardial Ischemia
Previous Article in Journal
Quantitative ADC: An Additional Tool in the Evaluation of Prostate Cancer?
Previous Article in Special Issue
Intelligent Clinical Decision Support System for Managing COPD Patients
 
 
Opinion
Peer-Review Record

Redesigning Primary Care: The Emergence of Artificial-Intelligence-Driven Symptom Diagnostic Tools

J. Pers. Med. 2023, 13(9), 1379; https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm13091379
by Christian J. Wiedermann 1,2,*, Angelika Mahlknecht 1, Giuliano Piccoliori 1 and Adolf Engl 1
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
J. Pers. Med. 2023, 13(9), 1379; https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm13091379
Submission received: 4 September 2023 / Revised: 13 September 2023 / Accepted: 14 September 2023 / Published: 15 September 2023

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The contributions of this study should be stated.

2. How many patients received feedback?

3. Was a survey administered to the patients?

4. If a survey was conducted, why were these survey samples not presented?

5. If more results on demographic information are obtained, they should be added.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This opinion paper discussed the function of AI in primary care. It mainly focused on the published paper, which investigated the attitudes of patients and general practitioners to AI-based symptom checkers. I have the following concerns.

 

1. The full name of AI should be provided in the text.

2. As an opinion paper, authors’ opinion is not clear. For or disagree AI-based symptom checkers. If agree, please list the merits and disadvantages and further give brief opinions to overcome these disadvantages.

3. The focused paper (Ref. 7) stated different attitudes of patients and general practitioners. This paper gave the reasons why the different attitudes were generated. Could authors give some opinions for eliminate differences.

4. I do not know whether other studies on the similar topics of Ref. 7 exist. If exist, could authors employed them to strengthen the current manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The publication of the article is appropriate.

Reviewer 2 Report

All my comments have been addressed. The current version can be accepted.

Back to TopTop