Abdominal MRI Unconditional Synthesis with Medical Assessment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The way of writing the manuscript is inadequate the authors should present the data in formal language and should follow the journal standards.

The introduction last paragraph should contain a paragraph related to novelty of this work

The drawbacks associated with this work should also be provided. As this tool can generate synthetic images so can this be used for some unethical purpose. The authors should emphasize on this point.

The methodology is not clear. Details of practitioners who accessed the real and synthetic images should be provided.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The way of writing is unprofessional and should be improved

Author Response

Thank you for your thorough review and valuable feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort you have put into evaluating our work and providing insightful comments and suggestions.
We have carefully revised the entire manuscript to improve the language syntax and ensure that the reference format meets the required standards. These changes were made to enhance the clarity and readability of our paper. Below, we address each specific point raised by you in detail:

• To support the presentation of our dataset, we introduced a table characterising the data. (Table 1 in section 2.1)
• The novelty of our paper is expressed in section 1.5, second to last paragraph.

• In Section 1.5, a paragraph was added addressing the ethical issues raised in your review.

• A flowchart was introduced to clarify the applied methodology, and improvements were made to the text description. (Figure 1, section 2)

Best regards.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please refer to the attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor corrections

Author Response

Thank you for your thorough review and valuable feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort you have put into evaluating our work and providing insightful comments and suggestions.
We have carefully revised the entire manuscript to improve the language syntax and ensure that the reference format meets the required standards. These changes were made to enhance the clarity and readability of our paper. Below, we address each specific point raised by you in detail:

• Following your recommendation, we added a pair of synthetic images in which the model performed poorly. Presenting those images also improved the description of our image selection criteria for the medical questionnaire. (section 3.2 and Figure 4)
• We clarify the question of the number of medical experts who evaluated our images. (section 3.3 and abstract)
• The methodology description was also improved by introducing a flowchart, and more details about the image selection criteria, dataset preparation, and characterisation (Table 1) were given in the text. (section 2, Figure 1)
• The discussion highlights the subjective nature of the visual evaluation of the synthetic images, as recommended.

Best regards

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Simply English language amelioration required. Rest of the article is scientifically sound.

This article provides a brief insight into the corresponding topic while it is well-written and well-executed.
1. The author can add graphics and illustrations to further enhance the visual and visibility of the study.

2. The graphical abstract or table of contents should be provided to further enhance the study. 3. Technical jargon should be avoided in the study for the readers to readily understand the study. 4. The Grammatical errors should be corrected throughout the study. 5. A few sentence structure errors present in the manuscripts at several points should be corrected. 6. The study design is amazing but kindly elaborate on it for reproducibility and clarity.

7. Provide the significance of the study and limitations of this very topic.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Use Grammarly or Ginger to correct typographical errors and slight grammatical mistakes.

Author Response

Thank you for your thorough review and valuable feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate your time and effort in evaluating our work and providing insightful comments and suggestions.
We have carefully revised the entire manuscript to improve the language syntax and ensure that the reference format meets the required standards. These changes were made to enhance the clarity and readability of our paper. Below, we address each specific point raised by you in detail:

• A graphical abstract was made and sent via email to the editor
• the explanation of the study design was also improved by introducing a flowchart and improvements in the text.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please refer to the attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing required

Author Response

Thank you again for your thorough review and valuable feedback on our manuscript.

The points of your review were considered, and the changes are tracked in the Word document.

Best regards