Cognitive Hybrid Intelligent Diagnostic System: Typical Architecture
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic is important and the content is solid. But presentation is very poor. For example, a strange letter is found (and should be removed) in Line 233 Page 006, Line 264 Page 007, Line 266 Page 007 and Line 275 Page 007. Indeed, the issue of external validation should be discussed in the section of Discussion.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to submit a revised draft of my manuscript titled “Сognitive hybrid intelligent diagnostic system. Typical architecture” to the Journal Computation, Special Issue “Control Systems, Mathematical Modeling and Automation”, Section Computational Engineering. I appreciate the time and effort that you have dedicated to providing your feedback on my manuscript.
I am grateful for your comments and valuable improvements to my paper. All changes are highlighted within the manuscript. Please see the attachment, in red, for a point-by-point response to your comments and concerns. All page numbers refer to the revised manuscript file with tracked changes.
Sincerely,
Sophiya Rumovskaya
PhD Candidate of Sciences in technology
Scientist, Kaliningrad Branch
Federal Research Center “Computer Science and Control”
of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Kaliningrad, Russia
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The research refers to the modeling of the meaningful and relatively stable visual-figurative and verbal-sign representation of the real problems in medical diagnostics of the human organs and systems. Within the research, a new visual metalanguage was developed. It describes the solution of a diagnostic problem by combining several interconnected processes of reasoning in different languages, including the developed within the project languages of the schemes of role visual relationships of the images “state of human organs and systems”, "diagnostic problem" and the elements of its decomposition. The paper is organized well. However, there are some points to be considered.
- The model parameters are not fully presented, which makes the reproduction difficult.
- Words in Figures are too small. Please enlarge the small words.
- Please introduce some representative studies of spike-based machine learning approach in the Introduction Section, including: Efficient spike-driven learning with dendritic event-based processing; Neuromorphic context-dependent learning framework with fault-tolerant spike routing.
- Please discuss the hardware implementation of the proposed model. Some researches can be discussed in terms of this point, including: CerebelluMorphic: large-scale neuromorphic model and architecture for supervised motor learning; Scalable digital neuromorphic architecture for large-scale biophysically meaningful neural network with multi-compartment neurons; Scalable implementation of hippocampal network on digital neuromorphic system towards brain-inspired intelligence.
- The proposed algorithm is not well justified in the paper, which needs more theoretical analyses. I cannot understand why this method can improve the performance.
- Grammar is expected to be further improved.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to submit a revised draft of the manuscript “Сognitive hybrid intelligent diagnostic system. Typical architecture” for publication in the Journal Computation, Special Issue “Control Systems, Mathematical Modeling and Automation”, Section Computational Engineering. I am grateful to you for your insightful comments on my paper. I have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the suggestions provided by you. I have highlighted the changes within the manuscript. Please see the attachment, in red, for a point-by-point response to your comments and concerns. All page numbers refer to the revised manuscript file with tracked changes.
Sincerely,
Sophiya Rumovskaya
PhD Candidate of Sciences in technology
Scientist, Kaliningrad Branch
Federal Research Center “Computer Science and Control”
of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Kaliningrad, Russia
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Manuscript computation-1639746- "Сognitive hybrid intelligent diagnostic system. Typical architecture." This study concerns modeling meaningful and relatively stable visual-figurative and verbal-sign representation of fundamental problems in the medical diagnosis of human organs and systems. Within the research, a new visual metalanguage was developed. It describes the solution of a diagnostic problem by combining several interconnected processes of reasoning in different languages, including the languages developed within the project of the schemes of visual relations of images "state of human organs and systems," "diagnostic problem," and the elements of their decomposition. The method and models for forming the representation of methods of solving functional and technological subproblems based on a decomposition of the diagnostic problem are also proposed. A subject-figurative model of the cognitive hybrid intelligent diagnostic system, typical architecture, and a synthesis algorithm is presented in the paper. Future implementation of such a system prototype will address the smoothing of conflicting indications of equipment and reduce the number of medical errors.
To improve their work, I suggest.
- Change the title to give a better view to the reader.
- Includes in the abstract section the most relevant results and a paragraph with the limitations of this research and future work.
- Check the English grammar and spelling of the entire paper.
- The introduction is too long; I suggest restructuring it into two sections, e.g., I) Introduction and II) Literature review.
- Include a paragraph presenting the content of each section, for example. This document is structured as follows. Section 2 introduces readers to Materials and Methods. Section 3 explains the main results. Section 4 incorporates Discussion... Review the works (as examples)
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/11/12/5707/htm
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/12/6/3033/htm
- Improve the resolution and quality of figure 1
- Improve the resolution and quality of figure 2
- To make your research more supportive, place the study data in a dataset; you can create one at https://data.mendeley.com/.
- Separate the Discussion section and create a new section for Conclusions.
- Reinforcing the Conclusions section is very poor.
- Update the references of the 36 used; 75% are out of the five years of validity.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I appreciate you for your precious time in reviewing my paper and providing valuable comments. It was your insightful comments that led to possible improvements in the current version. I have carefully considered the comments and tried my best to address every one of them. Please see the attachment, in red, for a point-by-point response to your comments and concerns. All modifications in the manuscript have been highlighted. All page numbers refer to the revised manuscript file with tracked changes.
Sincerely,
Sophiya Rumovskaya
PhD Candidate of Sciences in technology
Scientist, Kaliningrad Branch
Federal Research Center “Computer Science and Control”
of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Kaliningrad, Russia
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Is there any simulation experiments and results to demonstrate the performance or efficiency this system? I did not see these in the paper. Please provide it or explain. Thanks!
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to submit a revised draft of my manuscript titled “Сognitive hybrid intelligent diagnostic system. Typical architecture” to the Journal Computation, Special Issue “Control Systems, Mathematical Modeling and Automation”, Section Computational Engineering. I appreciate the time and effort that you have dedicated to providing your feedback on my manuscript.
I am grateful for it. I have tried my best to address your comments. All changes are highlighted within the manuscript. Please see the attachment, in red, for a point-by-point response. All page numbers refer to the revised manuscript file with tracked changes. English-speaking colleague have checked it.
Sincerely,
Sophiya Rumovskaya
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
You revised the manuscript well based on my comments and I really thank you about it.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your contribution to the review of my manuscript!
Kind regards,Sophiya Rumovskaya
Reviewer 2 Report
No comments remained.
Author Response
Thank you for your feedback.
Reviewer 4 Report
The author has addressed my doubts in the response letter and explain. I don't have any other questions.
