Novel Elastography-Inspired Approach to Angiographic Visualization in Optical Coherence Tomography
, Lev A. Matveev *, Dmitry V. Shabanov and Vladimir Y. Zaitsev
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review is attached
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for the constructive and insightful comments. Please find attached our revised manuscript and our point-by-point responses to the comments, including resultant changes (file attached).
Sincerely,
- Lev Matveev
(on behalf of the authorship team)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is devoted to development of a new approach to angiographic visualization using infra-red optical technique known as optical coherence tomography. The approach seems to be innovative, the results presented are convincing, presentation is constructive and consistent. The paper may be published in MDPI Photinics.
However, there were discovered some minor defects, predominantly mistypes, which would be better to be corrected prior to publication.
1. The corresponding author on the review page is highlighted to be LM, while VZ is underlined in the text. Also authors initials in rows 5-6 do not match to in rows 583-588.
2. “Gaussian shapes” presented on figure 2 are far from real Gauss. This reduces the impression of the paper. I guess it shouldn't be a problem to redraw curves to achieve greater credibility.
3. Some color choices seem to be unfortunate. Yellow scale bars and contours are almost invisible on yellow-red background (figs 3, 5, 8). Why not use bold white lines?
4. Also I’d ask to specify the used OCT device parameters. There are mentioned axial resolution of 10 um and imaging depth of 2 mm while source claimed bandwidth is 100 nm (rows 217-219). For general reasons, one of these parameters should be changed.
5. In accordance with the established notation in OCT, the label under the x-axis on the graphs of figure 3 will more correctly look like ‘ “Frequency”, 1/Bscan’
6. The sentence “The initial B-scans are high-pass filtered along the horizontal direction of slow scanning.” (row 257) should be reformulated to exclude the possibility of interpretation as "the figure 3.a-1 shows an already filtered image"
7. In row 291 maybe a suggestion was missed.
8. The term “quantity” in rows 302, 303, 310 for d(m,j) (and for a number of other variables) – does it mean “value”?
9. Row 329 – bracket is missed.
10. In my opinion, figure 8 is a subject of reconstruction. Panels (b) and (c) are shown to demonstrate th advantage of proposed technology over the another method. The image from panel (a) illustrates phase information from a small part of the image (c) and is mentioned after (b) and (c) both in text and caption. It seems appropriate to place this image on the right side of the figure. In addition, the different-sized color scales for the figures (b) and (c) are somewhat confusing. It may be reasonable to adjust the scale for both (b) and (c) figures.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for the constructive and insightful comments. Please find attached our revised manuscript and our point-by-point responses to the comments, including resultant changes (file attached).
Sincerely,
- Lev Matveev
(on behalf of the authorship team)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
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.
