All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Regretfully both reviewers are now unavailable, however, I think that the authors responded to all the comments from them appropriately and the manuscript is ready for publication now.
I agree that the authors responded to the comments raised by the reviewers. However, they pointed out further concerns to be addressed then I believe another round would be required.
The work improved but the discussion section has lack of citations and critical thinking
well established
the impact of work can bring new knowledge to healthcare practitioners however the conclusion is too brief and needs to present how the study objectives were obtained and important to the nature of work
In General the work quality improved but I am concerned about discussion section
Comments to Editor/Authors:
The authors have made a serious attempt to improve the manuscript. However I would like to see the following changes to be made prior to final publication:
1. In my prior comment, I meant to compare the findings from the Chinese rural areas to the Western Urban areas. Please elaborate on this point as you are in a very good position to make a significant contribution about informing us about the risk factors leading to the differences in CHD morbidity between the Chinese and Western countries (e.g., UK/US).
2. You have talked about preventative efforts for CHD, can you please consider discussing the impactful variables from your model features which allow the treating physician to achieve positive intervention effects with the patient.
3. Please add a statement about the clinical insights of the study in the abstract.
4. This comment is outside my expertise. The authors are reporting an ROC =1 for training data. I do not believe that this is possible. You cannot build a perfect model even from a cross sectional cohort. There must be something wrong. Please investigate.
Nothing to report
Comments to Editor/Authors:
The authors have made a serious attempt to improve the manuscript. However I would like to see the following changes to be made prior to final publication:
1. In my prior comment, I meant to compare the findings from the Chinese rural areas to the Western Urban areas. Please elaborate on this point as you are in a very good position to make a significant contribution about informing us about the risk factors leading to the differences in CHD morbidity between the Chinese and Western countries (e.g., UK/US).
2. You have talked about preventative efforts for CHD, can you please consider discussing the impactful variables from your model features which allow the treating physician to achieve positive intervention effects with the patient.
3. Please add a statement about the clinical insights of the study in the abstract.
4. This comment is outside my expertise. The authors are reporting an ROC =1 for training data. I do not believe that this is possible. You cannot build a perfect model even from a cross sectional cohort. There must be something wrong. Please investigate.
I agree with the points raised by two reviewers. Each comment should be addressed appropriately.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the response letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the response letter. Directions on how to prepare a response letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
it is a very well written and focused article on a ver unique and necessary topic to address human health and urban design. the manuscript needs to update the references list on recent studies
very clear and well organised , just reproducibilities of data and resolution needs more elaboration
No comments
The paper carries interesting and important topic that is neglected in modern urbanisation. I suggest authors update their reference list based on recent studies and present the data based on each method separately to have a clear discussion
The study is a welcome addition to the clinical cardiovascular literature in to address an important notion of rural geographical areas vs urban areas as published in the US, UK etc.
The Chinese researchers have done excellent job from the ML technical demonstration, etc. However I feel that is a jewel hidden under ground due to the lack of clinical interpretation of this work from a practicing cardiologist standpoint.
For example, I would like to know more clearly how the CHD prediction differs in rural areas from those in urban areas. What are the important parameters or model features which would help the practicing cardiologist or provider in treating their. You are leaving me to guess this out. I would like to see this clearly stated and debated.
I feel that the discussion section is very weak with the above in mind. Remember that you are building a predictive mode in a clinical area so that I can use it in my practice.
The paper in its current format is not really providing the clarity which would allow to benefit scientifically from this rich data set.
Everything looks fine. Perhaps your paper may benefit from decision curve analysis so that I can get a pure estimate of true positives after discounting for the false positive.
I am not able to assess the findings in the current paper format due to the non rigor of discussion of current findings in the rural geographical areas relative to urban areas etc.
This is a good piece of work. But I feel that not enough work has been into this work to extract the clinical insights from a cardiologist or provider standpoint. A more elaborate treatment of the subject is highly recommended to bring clarity to the manuscript so that the reader would benefit from this rich data set.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.