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.
My concerns were well addressed. I think this revised version could be considered for publication in this journal.
Issues that need to be revised:
1. The title should be revised to "Diagnostic Value of Artificial Intelligence Based on CT Density in Benign and Malignant Pulmonary Nodules: A Retrospective Investigation", because this study does not appear to evaluate the role of AI in the treatment of pulmonary nodules.
2. Similarly, in the Abstract, "increase the precision in early detection and therapy of lung carcinoma" could be also misleading. Please delete "and therapy".
3. The legend for Figure 1 was incomplete. Figures 1C and 1D represent malignant nodule? Please clarify it. [diagnosed as invasive ade] means what? Careful proofreading is required.
**Language Note:** The Academic Editor has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
no comment
no comment
no comment
The author has made detailed modifications and improvements to the abstract, methods, results, and experimental design of the article in response to my review comments. I believe that it has met the requirements of the magazine and can be published.
After modification, the structure of the article is clear and clear, and professional English is used throughout the entire process. Very good.
After modifications to the experimental design section, the research questions have become clearly defined, relevant, and meaningful, with sufficient details and information to replicate the described methods.
The author has provided all basic data; They are robust, statistically reliable, and controllable.
After modifying the results section, the conclusion statement is sufficient and relevant to the original research question.
I have no further opinions and support accepting this article.
Nice modification. I have no other objections to the article.
Nice modification. I have no other opinions on the experimental design part of the article.
Nice modification. I have no further comments on the results section of the article.
No comment. Agree that the article is accepted.
Please respond and make appropriate revisions based on the reviewers' suggestions and my comments (below). This will greatly improve the quality of the manuscript.
My comments:
1. The vast majority of the results of this study are not related to antioxidants/phytochemicals, and the title, abstract, and conclusion sections of the paper need to be adjusted and revised accordingly.
2. The Discussion could be enhanced by addressing the implications of the study's findings in the context of current literature on AI-assisted diagnosis in lung cancer research. Discussing potential limitations and biases, as well as avenues for future research, would contribute to a more well-rounded conclusion.
3. However, the presentation of AUC (Table 6) could be improved by presenting the data in a more organized manner, such as in graphs, for easy comparison.
4. It would be beneficial to include a brief rationale for the importance of accurate PN diagnosis in the context of lung cancer and the limitations of current diagnostic methods. This would provide readers with a clearer understanding of the study's significance.
5. The discussion of AI could be more specific about how AI helps with detecting nodules.
6. Acknowledge potential limitations of AI, such as its reliance on training data and potential challenges in handling complex cases.
7. Several sentences are quite long and complex, leading to a lack of clarity and coherence.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review and editorial 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.
**Language Note:** The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
In this study, authors had explored the diagnosis and treatment value of artificial intelligence based on CT density diagnosis combined with antioxidants/phytochemicals treatment in benign and malignant pulmonary nodules. This is an interesting study. Here, I just I give some suggestions to improve the manuscript.
1. The structure of the paper is not complete, please supplement some relevant CT images.
2. It is suggested that the title be changed to “Diagnosis and Treatment Value of Artificial Intelligence Based on CT Density Diagnosis Combined with Antioxidants/Phytochemicals Treatment in Benign and Malignant Pulmonary Nodules: A retrospective investigation”.
3. In the discussion section, authors should discuss the advantages and limitations of their study.
4. Please attach the cited literature for the method section.
1. The format of the paper is not standard, notes, punctuation, paragraphs (in many places, the lack of the basic specification of two spaces) and other aspects, it appears to be very imprecise.
2. The author needs to mention the study of a specific population in the object of study.
1. Literature collection of this study is weak, in fact, a lot of research in this area has been carried out, but this paper has not reflected it, resulting in the weak foundation of the paper.
2. The concepts of " pulmonary calcification " and " pulmonary nodule " are different. In this paper, there is a situation of stealing concepts and avoiding confusion.
3. The argument is lack of logic, for example, the third part of the paper has nothing to do with the problems to be studied, and the countermeasures proposed are lack of pertinence.
No.
Good.
The experimental design is reasonable and meets the requirements of the journal. I have no other comments.
The findings are basically valid and the results were supported by sufficient data and analysis.
Here are a few suggestions to improve the paragraph:
1. It is noticed that this manuscript requests thoughtful checking by somebody with proficiency English.
2. Providing more background and explanation in the introduction would make the introduction benefit from elucidating why the research is essential and what the research hopes to complete.
3. The word "difference is significant" appears in the article, and whether the difference is significant or not should be seen only after the data has been tested.
4. Clarify the significance of the observations and trials used in the Method section.
5. Evade prolonged sentences and paragraphs for easy legibility.
6. Does the conclusion reasonably answer the questions raised by the author in the introduction?
7. I strongly suggest that the author add some representative CT images to illustrate the advantages of AI in assisting manual examination of pulmonary nodules.
This paper provides an overview of the diagnosis and treatment value of artificial intelligence based on CT density diagnosis combined with antioxidants/phytochemicals treatment in benign and malignant pulmonary nodules. The basic reporting of this manuscript meets the requirements of the journal.
No comment.
No comment.
1. Please define in the manuscript why CT diagnosis combined with Antioxidants/Phytochemicals treatment in this study？
2. Provide a clear conclusion that summarizes the key findings of each result.
3. Whether it is appropriate to study the "method" of the main question (perhaps more than one)?
4. Please illustrate the research prospects of this manuscript at the end of the discussion section.
5. Must add 1-2 figures in the draft.
6. Add more citations
7. Add 3-4 paragraphs in the discussion section.
8. Give short summary of the tables data in the table caption.
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.