Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

There are too many figures and information that are not important presented in the current paper. The readers will find it very difficult to identify the novel results that the authors want to report. The authors should consider re-write the paper concentrating more on the important figure and contents.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable advice,

Please see the attachment.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

the author investigate the cuff-less estimation of continuous BP through pulse transit time (PTT) and heart 5rate (HR) using regression techniques, which is intended as a first step towards continuous 6 BP estimation with a low error.

I have the following comments

 

1)  some figures can be merged

 

2) add conclusion section

 

3) "The next step will involve the application of this algorithm on the signals recorded through 310 modules developed with the European SINTEC project"         can you decribe more

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable advice,

Please see the attachment.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Overall, the paper looks sound with good delivery in both textual and figurative representations and equations. However, I had some comments:

1. It should be made clear in the introduction how this work stands out from similar works done by others using PTT methods.
2. In the end, authors perform comparison but it would be great if the authors show side by side data with the "gold standard" equipment in the medical industry for blood pressure, instead of using a wearable health watch. 

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable advice,

Please see the attachment.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf