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.
The authors have successfully addressed all the comments and suggestions provided by the reviewers. Furthermore, the documentation provided regarding ethical committee approval complies with the journal's requirements.
Regards,
Dr. Pedrino
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jafri Abdullah, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The revisions and additions you have made, including the new tables and discussion section, have significantly enhanced the clarity and depth of your manuscript.
However, before we can proceed to publication, there is one remaining issue that must be addressed. We require confirmation that you have obtained the necessary consent from the patients to publish their images in your study. This is essential to ensure compliance with ethical standards regarding patient privacy and rights.
Please provide this documentation or a statement confirming that patient consent was obtained for the use of their images in your manuscript. Once we receive this confirmation, we will be ready to move forward with the final steps towards publication.
We appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to your prompt response.
Best regards,
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that you provide a copy of your ethical approval document and a blank copy of the consent form you used for the inclusion of patient notes and CT images in your manuscript.
Dear Chuanming,
Thank you for submitting your article titled "Research advances in predicting the expansion of hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage based on CT images: an overview" to PJeerJ. We greatly appreciate the effort and expertise you have put into this research.
Both reviewers have highlighted the significance of your study in providing insights into predicting hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage progression via CT imaging. They commend the structure of your review, noting the comprehensive literature research and synthesis of advanced methodologies. However, there are concerns raised regarding the validity of your findings. Reviewer 2 specifically suggests the inclusion of tables for clarity and questions whether the AI software considered clinical data, prompting the need for further clarification. Additionally, both reviewers emphasize the absence of a discussion section, which would greatly enhance the contextualization of your results and their implications for future research.
In light of these comments, I strongly recommend addressing the following points in your revision: i. Provide a deeper exploration of the specific causes and mechanisms of image formation to strengthen the validity of your findings; ii. Consider including tables to aid in the clarity and visualization of comparative results; iii. Clarify whether the AI software utilized in your study incorporates clinical data, such as age, GCS, and time to the initial CT scan; iv. Add a discussion section to your manuscript to contextualize your results within the broader field and highlight their implications for future research directions.
We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.
Best regards,
This clinical retrospective review provides significant insights into the research advancements concerning the prediction of hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage progression through the utilization of CT images. However, this review's big issue is: Can you directly use figures from other papers in your review paper? Use a reproduced figure or table, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner of the original figure or table (usually the publisher), and you must also include attribution to the source(s) in your manuscript in the Source notes below the reproduced figure or table.
This review's study design is well-constructed. The authors conducted a thorough literature search to identify various CT imaging features associated with hypertensive cerebral hemorrhage. Additionally, they summarized diverse advanced methodologies for detecting this condition.
The compelling findings are relatively weak regarding the validity of this review's findings. The author summarized the key findings of the cited literature without using his views and words to deeply explore the root causes and mechanism of particular image formation.
No.
no comment
Survey methodology is consistent with a comprehensive, unbiased coverage of the subject. Sources are adequately cited.
This is just a review article. Conclusions are well stated.
1. I suggest that the authors add some tables to help readers to understand the comparison results from different scholars in sections 4.2 and 5.
2. Line 412: 5.4 Evaluation of AI software for predicting HE
Except images, does the AI software predict HE using clinical information, such as age, GCS, time to initial CT scan?
3. The authors have not provided any discussion in this manuscript.
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.