An Endoscope Image Enhancement Algorithm Based on Image Decomposition
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors presented a framework for endoscopy image enhancement. The topic is well addressed. However, there are a few issues in the current form of the manuscript which need to be fixed before believing it as a competent publication.
Comments
1. 1. It would be better if some comparative results are shown in t abstract.
2. A sentence in line 140 is not complete “Convolution operation using a kernel composed of two Laplace masks”.
3. All notations in Eq 1 need to be explained For instance, Ic.
4. Authors should consistently refer to the proposed method with the same term instead of mentioning “this paper’s method”, “this algorithm” and so on.
5. Line 452, what does it means “Ave”.
6. The authors need to clearly mention which images are used to report the results in Table 1. For Instance, PSNR value. If multiple images are used, then how many and are the results averaged of all used images? Line 451 to 453 are not clear.
7. The sentence “Al-Ameen Zohair et al.[13] proposed a new algorithm to improve the low 65 contrast of CT images by adjusting the single-scale Retinex and adding a normalized Sigmoid function to improve the contrast of CT images.” Can be rewritten as “Al-Ameen Zohair et al.[13] proposed a new algorithm to improve the low contrast of CT images by adjusting the single-scale Retinex and adding a normalized Sigmoid function to improve the contrast of CT images. Similarly, Sitaula et.al in [1] enhanced the chest x-ray image classification with a fusion of multi-scale bag of deep visual words". ( [1] DOI:10.1038/s41598-021-03287-8)
8. The image acquisition procedure is not obvious in the paper.
9. It would be better to release the data and source code (on Github or any other platform) for reproducibility of this research.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Thanks to the authors for providing the revised version which answers now most of the previous questions in a sufficient way.
But most of the references (except 4, 9, 12, 16 and 24) are still incomplete as they don't give the name of the journal. As example
- Ref. 2 should be:
- (2017) Effective calibration of an endoscope to an optical tracking system for medical augmented reality, Cogent Engineering, 4:1, DOI: 10.1080/23311916.2017.1359955
Ref. 8 should be:
Hayat, N. and Imran, M. (2019), Multi-exposure image fusion technique using multi-resolution blending. IET Image Processing, 13: 2554-2561. https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-ipr.2019.0438
I don't want to do it for all other references.
Some minor points:
- line 242: should be information instead of informatios
- line 439 and 442: do you mean image pixels for 3x3 and 50x50. Please indicate this.
- line 503: which software platform?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Review of electronics-1780876 entitled An Endoscope Image Enhancement Algorithm Based on Image Decomposition prepared by Wei Tan , Chao Xu * , Fang Lei , Qianqian Fang , Ziheng An , Dou Wang , Jubao Han , Kai Qian , Bo Feng
The paper presents the image decomposition-based endoscopic image enhancement method that effectively avoids the interference of high bright spots and noise in endoscopic pictures. Adaptive enhancements were applied to the brightness of the base layer pictures and stretching of the detail layer vascular lesions and other information in subchannels suited for endoscopic image characteristics. So the article's aim is the actual topic. It suits to Electronics journal scope.
Recommendations to improve the paper:
-> Literature review must be extended with 5 actual positions (from 2021-2022 year) to assure that the indicated novelty is still novel.
-> Please add adequate references for equations when some indicators are proposed.
-.> please justify in the text the application of Adaptive bilateral gamma correction. what features of this assured that it's suitable to solve the indicated in paper research problem.
-> in conclusion please add the future research directions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Some of the comments have been successfully addressed, But still, some of the comments from the previous revision are remaining. I have checked point by point and compared it with the previous version and found that there are some comments that have not been addressed (For example, point-7, point-1). Please take it seriously and correct all of them.
Reviewer 3 Report
Revision improved the paper. Now can be accepted.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors attempt to present a study on endoscope image enhancement based on image decomposition. However, the paper is mostly descriptive, with a limited review of the literature and novelty. The presentation of the paper is not well organized. Also, the method presented by the authors is very brief and insufficient. Hence It is not worthy to publish in its current form.
Reviewer 2 Report
see attached file
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is interesting and well-written. It addresses a relevant topic, such as medical instruments and image-supported diagnosis. In general, I think the paper may be accepted.
However, in my opinion, for this kind of papers is critical to analyze the validity threats and limitations of the proposed technology. At least the internal and external validity must be analyzed, considering your experiments are based on simulations. Limitations regarding different ethic groups, gender perspective, etc. must be also described.
