Dynamic OCT Signal Loss for Determining RPE Radiant Exposure Damage Thresholds in Microsecond Laser Microsurgery
, Alessa Hutfilz 3, Lorenz Grimm 1, Simon Salzmann 1, Patrik Arnold 1, Boris Považay 1, Christoph Meier 1, Andreas Ebneter 4, Dirk Theisen-Kunde 3 and Ralf Brinkmann 3,5
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In 'Dynamic OCT signal loss for determining RPE radiant exposure damage thresholds in microsecond laser microsurgery' Burri et al. investigated the use of OCT dosimetry to detect RPE cell damage. The algorithm shows very high sensitivity and specificity. The manuscript is well written and presented.
There's a few typos throughout the text. I would like some of the acronyms to be explained in the text.
Line 48 - the 2 sentences should be 1
Line 109 - This
Line 250 - which esterase? Maybe write esterases
Line 313 - Please list all acronyms (PPV, NPV etc.) in the text.
Line 424 - Space between )values
Author Response
Thank you for your feedback and comments on our manuscript. All points raised have been incorporated into the manuscript. In addition, we have revised the document again internally and submitted it to an external review by a renowned native English-speaking science writer
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper entitled “Dynamic OCT signal loss for determining RPE radiant exposure damage thresholds in microsecond laser microsurgery” presents the results of the experiments, in which authors used the system that implements optical coherence tomography (OCT) in order to detect intentional elimination of RPE cells.
First and foremost, I found this paper interesting and valuable. I am truly impressed with the figures and content readability and understandability. In my opinion, all the figures have been carefully prepared, with very high attention to details.
Secondly, the title of the paper is concise, however in the title authors indicates that the method is dynamic, while the algorithm is automated (see lines 271-272). For me, the words “dynamic” and “automated” have completely different meanings.
Thirdly, the abstract is well written, however, it is a good practice to indicate the recipients of the results obtained from the research.
The structure of the paper is appropriate and relevant, if one takes into account the type of the research performed.
Last but not least, regarding subsection 2.5, the pseudocode of the algorithm should be given in order to clarify its construct.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In this manuscript, the author used OCT dosimetry to quantify the RPE cell damage during selective retina therapy. Overall looks good to me. My only concern is the OCT beam diameter. The beam diameter for OCT imaging is 12μm, while the treatment spot is a region of 120X120 μm2. Since the beam diameter of OCT imaging is smaller than single RPE cell, how the author confirm that the OCT M-scan results can quantify the RPE damage of a large treatment spot. As shown in the figure 4, when the laser energy is lower, the damage is not happening in the center of the treatment region. The author needs to clarify.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
