Radiomics Approach to the Detection of Prostate Cancer Using Multiparametric MRI: A Validation Study Using Prostate-Cancer-Tissue-Mimicking Phantoms

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Re:  Radiomics approach to the detection of prostate cancer using multiparametric MRI: A validation study using prostate cancer tissue-mimicking phantoms

 

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for reviewing our previously submitted manuscript. We greatly appreciate the comments and suggestions of the reviewer. Based on his comments, we have revised the manuscript accordingly. Please find attached a point-by-point response to reviewer concerns.

1) The abstract should be written in a continuous paragraph. As such, segmentations including “objectives:” in line 12, “Methods:” in line 16, “Results” in line 22 and “Conclusion” in line 26 are advised to be removed please

 

 Thanks for your comments. The abstract has been changed and a continuous abstract has been done.

Line 12 (remove objectives)

Line 16 (remove methods)

Line 22 (remove results)

Line 26 (remove conclusion)

2) Lines 66-71: The aims of the need not to be itemized. Please let them be part of the last.

Thanks for your comments. The sentence has been changed in the main text.

Line 64-68.

3) line 93: The chemical formular of Aluminium oxide needs to be corrected.

Thanks for your comments. The sentence has been changed in the main text.

Line 90.

4) Please revisit the last sentence

Thanks for your comments. The sentence has been changed in the main text.

Line 100-103.

5) Line 100: Please state the dimension

Thanks for your comments. The sentence has been changed in the main text.

Line 97.

6) Line 246: Please transfer part of the Figure 2 description to the text in section 3.1

Thanks for your comments. Part of description has been moved.

Line 240-244

7) The conclusion is extremely short. More details including the summary of the finding, its significance and the value of performance parameters need to be incorporated.

Thanks for your comments. The conclusion has been extended in the main text.

Line 407-417

 

Reviewer 2 Report

A very nice study, congratulations to the team and thank you for choosing this journal.

 

1. Figure A1, A2 and Figure A3 could not be found.

2. Table A2 not found.

3. Some spelling errors: 395-pramteres of

 

I'll reevaluate once these are complete.

Author Response

Re:  Radiomics approach to the detection of prostate cancer using multiparametric MRI: A validation study using prostate cancer tissue-mimicking phantoms

 

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for reviewing our previously submitted manuscript. We greatly appreciate the comments and suggestions of the reviewer. Based on his comments, we have revised the manuscript accordingly. Please find attached a point-by-point response to reviewer concerns.

1) Figure A1, A2 and Figure A3 could not be found.

 

 Thanks for your comments. The supplementary file has been attached.

2) Table A2 not found.

Thanks for your comments. The supplementary file has been attached.

3) Some spelling errors: 395-pramteres of

Thanks for your comments. The sentence has been changed in the main text.

Line 392

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The presented multi-parameter approach to prostate cancer diagnostic

is thoroughly conducted and of potential interest for futher research

related to the topic.

I reccoment acceptance of the paper.

However, the presentation can be improved, both at the level of language and at  the level of organisation. Some of the references need to be

re-formatted for proper reading within the text.

From such a complex studies, more conclusions should ne drawn.

Author Response

Re:  Radiomics approach to the detection of prostate cancer using multiparametric MRI: A validation study using prostate cancer tissue-mimicking phantoms

 

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for reviewing our previously submitted manuscript. We greatly appreciate the comments and suggestions of the reviewer. Based on his comments, we have revised the manuscript accordingly. Please find attached a point-by-point response to reviewer concerns.

1) The level of language and the level of organisation need improvement.

Thanks for your comments. Changes have been done in the main text for spelling words and the track changes were kept.

2) Some of the references need to be

re-formatted for proper reading within the text.

 

Thanks for your comments. Changes have been done in the main text.

Line 86

Line 88

3) More conclusions should be drawn

Thanks for your comments. The conclusion has been extended.

Line 407-417