Pattern Recognition for Human Diseases Classification in Spectral Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Novelty or the contributions of this paper should be included in the introduction part

Figure 1 is incomplete

Table 2 is not necessary

Why many algorithms are described or presented in this, the motivation should be properly discussed

The overall comparison or results should be properly illustrated using graphs

The table form of result comparison is incomplete.

Overall the presentation should be improved

 

 

Author Response

All the comments from the reviewer have been addressed. We are grateful with the comments and suggestions. The response is attached here in a word file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors discuss some well known pattern recognition methods. They provide advatages and disadvantages of them. They also discuss the spectral analysis  for human disease classification. The article is well written and it is interesting.  I would like the autors to take care of the notation that they use. I some cases (section 2.5) vectors and matrices are in bold but in some others not. 

Author Response

All the comments from the reviewer have been addressed. We are grateful with the comments and suggestions. The response is attached here in a word file.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript gives literature review, covering several typical feature extraction methods and classification methods, for the applications on disease diagnosis using UV/Vis, IR, and Raman spectroscopy data.

Overall, the methods and techniques shown in the manuscript are very popular or are classical methods, which can be found in many textbooks. It is less useful to readers, who are looking for new ideas or interesting finds.

The main conclusions are also common knowledge to domain experts, and shows litter new messages.

Therefore, I would like to suggest a resubmission to this manuscript once the authors did more thorough research and got substantial new findings. 

Author Response

All the comments from the reviewer have been addressed. We are grateful for the comments and suggestions. The response is attached here in a word file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The comments given are addressed by the authors

Author Response

All the comments from the reviewer have been addressed. We are grateful for the comments and suggestions. 

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors addressed my concerns, and the manuscript has been revised accordingly. Overall, I think this review paper could be further enhanced by including more insights that can reflect the academic values from the authors’ work. For example, the research can be carried out by investigating a small number of techniques, such as SVM, P-LSR, deep learning related regressions, on a same data set with the same configurations. This could be more useful to readers than those results that are just picked up from literatures.

Author Response

All the comments from the reviewer have been addressed. We are grateful for the comments and suggestions. The response is attached here in a word file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf