Dual-Tree Complex Wavelet Input Transform for Cyst Segmentation in OCT Images Based on a Deep Learning Framework
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1、The manuscript is not logical enough. Careful revisions are needed to make the paper fluent to read.
2、The summary part lacks a discussion on the direction of improvement of the proposed method in this paper.
3、The description of the existing problem is not clear enough.
4、The introduction section of this paper does not make enough in-depth analysis of the motivation of this paper.
5、DTCWT Subbands are used to extract some critical features in the image. Why the critical feature can achieve more accurate segmentation performance in regular and noisy cases?
Author Response
Please see the attached file for answers.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The article designed the Dual-Tree Complex Wavelet Input Transform for Cyst Segmentation in OCT Images Based on a Deep Learning Framework. The topic is relevant and appropriate. But some points that I proposed need to be improved.
1 The paper is well written and ideas explanation is satisfactory with enough literature backing.
2 The main contribution of the paper should be explained briefly.
3 How redundant data are identified and reduced?
4 Author have to compare different transform method and justify why DTCWT have beem selected for this research work.
5 There are few recently published works in this area which are not referred
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attached file for answers.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
1. Confirm the subheadings in the Results of the third part, which are all 2.4 in the manuscript;
2. Clearly explain each parameter in all formulas in the order in which they appear, especially pay attention to whether the parameters expressed by the same letter in formula (5) and formula (8) express the same meaning. If the parameters are the same, make a clear explanation in the order in which they appear.
3. In the third part of the results, the experimental analysis is not detailed enough. Please explain it to the readers in detail so as to make the study more rigorous and detailed.
Author Response
Please see the attached file for answers.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The author has revised relevant issues and can publish them in the current version.