Hough Transform Sensitivity Factor Calculation Model Applied to the Analysis of Acne Vulgaris Skin Lesions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this work, authors try to objectify the automatic procedure of skin lesion diagnosis, by suggesting an objective way of determining the sensitivity factor related to circular Hough transform (CHT). Although their argument makes sense, not much significance can be found as its scope is too narrow. It is suggested that authors strengthen its applicability in actual clinical setting and resubmit it. The quality of this manuscript as is doesn’t seem to reach the level that MDPI expects.

 

<Major Comments>

In the first place, why would one want to use monochromatic image to accurately diagnose a dermotological disease? One should try his or her best to increase the contrast of lesion to normal tissue by using appropriate color filters, guided by the known spectral features of the lesion. But there is no indication that authors have considered it to diagnose acnes vulgaris.

Also, the images are showcased very poorly, despite the fact that this paper is about image analysis. Show at least one example image that displays the result of CHT, so readers can see how well the CHT has detected acnes vulgaris.

Another important question is whether CHT is the right algorithm for counting acnes vulgaris in the first place. Most of the acnes on the patients’ images look like a dot, and there is a big chance that CHT, being specilized in detecting circle, might miss them a lot. Authors should first summarize the features of acnes vulgaris in terms of its physiology and shape, and make a case that CHT is indeed the method of choice.

 

<Minor Comments>

• Figure 4 : It is unclear what ‘S – Num Points – W’ means. Better elaborate it.
• 2^nd para of Section 4 : Doesn’t ‘we are faced with’ need to be replaced with ‘we have come up with …’?
• Table 4 : There is a confusion between Sensitivity and Sensibility. It is not clear if ‘Sensibility’ used in Table 4 means ‘SEN factor’ described in the text. The word ‘Sensibility’ does not appear in the text at all. Please make the usage of words consistant.
• When the S-factor-based automatic result is compared to manual result, was the manual examination performed with the same printed image? If so, neither S-based or manual result will be close to the ground truth, and there is no point in comparing between two not-too-good methods. Actually no image analysis (based on pictures) can beat medical doctor’s performance with direct examination by eye, so authors will need to carefully address the merit of this methodology. To me this work is only meaningful in the situation where tele-diagnosis is inevitable.
• The references should be cited in text with appropriate numbers so readers can easily look it up in the Reference section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see the attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper deals with a very important subject. However, some improvements are needed, namely:

• Authors must better present the problem and justify the interest of the used approach;
• Introduction must focus the problem and must show how much the adopted approach is better than others;
• The comparison with higher number of other similar works must be performed;
• The main scientific added value of this work must be highlighted; as it is, this paper is not showing scientific added value to the scientific community;
• The data from 6 patients seems not enough; authors must show that this low number of people, considered for the study, is enough;
• Conclusions must be significantly improved showing the main achievements and real added value of this study;
• The references list must be improved with more recent works in this domain;
• As it is, this paper is, somehow, of weak quality for this journal.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The part of the manuscript that has led to a big misunderstanding has been revised, and the paper finally makes sense. Agreed to proceed for publishing.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed this reviewer's earlier comments and improved the paper's quality in the process. Therefore, the recommendation to the editor is to publish the authors' work

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper has been changed acording comments and suggestions. Quality of the paper has been improved.