A New Smartphone-Based Method for Remote Health Monitoring: Assessment of Respiratory Kinematics

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The primary objective of this study is to introduce a novel approach to monitoring respiratory kinematics utilizing the capabilities of five sensors embedded in smartphones. Specifically, a dedicated application was created to capture data from Inertial Movement Unit (IMU) smartphone sensors, facilitating the measurement of respiratory kinematics and guiding users through a structured acquisition session. This session was carefully designed to enable the observation of respiratory movement in five predefined positions. The application and its corresponding sequence underwent successful testing on a cohort of 77 healthy volunteers. Subsequently, the data obtained from accelerometers and gyroscopes were processed to assess the significance of variations based on participants' gender, vector components, and smartphone positioning, and, ultimately, to determine the respiratory rate. After reviewing this manuscript, I found this work exciting and applicable to many applications. These are comments that can improve this work:

 

1. The novelty of this study needs to be clarified. How does the approach proposed by the authors differ from other similar approaches? Many papers have been published that propose smartphone-based methods for respiratory kinematics assessment, with the development of an application dedicated to the remote monitoring of patients. What is your difference from the previous works and innovation? Clearly state the novelty of this study at the end of the introduction section.
2. What is the knowledge gap bridged by this study?
3. Authors should compare the results with the state-of-the-art studies.
4.  One notable limitation is the absence of direct validation for acquiring respiratory movement through smartphones. While the study successfully demonstrated the feasibility of the acquisition procedure by showcasing a satisfactory signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and significant differences in crucial accelerometer and angular velocity components, the lack of direct validation remains a notable gap. Please clarify.
5. The study did not anticipate deploying the application for real-time remote monitoring without operator supervision. Although user-reported scores indicated satisfaction with the application's usability, the actual implementation in unsupervised scenarios was not explored. This presents an avenue for future work to enhance the applicability of the technology in practical, real-world settings. Please clarify.
6. For example, ECG, many abbreviations have yet to be defined by their appearance.
7. Authors should consider template journals.

I consider that the authors need to address these issues before their paper can be published in the journal.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of the English language is required.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for his / her contribution in improving this work and for considering this manuscript as interesting and applicable in the context of wearable sensors. We understand that the current reviewer has considered the manuscript theme as suitable for the journal and we are glad to improve it according to his / her major revisions. In the attached PDF, we have listed and answered the different points highlighted by the reviewer.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study represents a preliminary study for respiratory monitoring based on smartphone IMU data acquisitions. Five smartphone positions on the subjects' bodies with a supine position on the bed and breathing normally. The accelerometers and gyroscope signals were processed to estimate the respiratory rate. Tested on 77 healthy volunteers, it also evaluated the differences according to participants' sex, vector components and smartphone position. The statistical results revealed the significance of information in the different acquisition positions.

There are some flaws and clarifications needed as a revision of this version, as marked in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for his / her contribution in improving this work and for considering this manuscript as suitable for the journal. We are glad to improve it according to his / her revisions. In the attached PDF file, we have listed and answered the different points as highlighted in the file attached by the reviewer.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors present a new method for respiratory kinematics monitoring via smartphone sensors in this work. It is quite impressive and very well written. I only have a minor suggestion that the authors should discuss similar studies in the literature and emphasize the novelty of the work clearly. Also, conclusion section should be extended by future directions.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for his / her contribution in improving this work and for considering this manuscript as relevant. We understand that the current reviewer has considered the manuscript theme as suitable for the selected journal and we are glad to improve it according to his / her revisions. In the attached PDF, we have listed and answered the different points highlighted by the reviewer.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article deals with a novel approach: employing a new method for respiratory kinematics monitoring via smartphone sensors. The content satisfactorily elaborates on the applicable method and presents implementational results, emphasizing result distinction.

I don't have any more objections.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Just some points need to be reviewed.