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.
Dear Dr. Zhouzhou,
The reviewers appreciated the revised manuscript and now your paper is suitable for publication.
Ok with review that applied by the authors.
Ok with review that applied by the authors.
Ok with review that applied by the authors.
Ok with review that applied by the authors.
already submitted the reporting and no new comments are needed over and above the previous review.
already addressed
already addressed
none
no comment. Article is edited and ready for publication
no comment
no comment
none
Dear Dr. Zhouzhou,
The reviewers have raised some minor revisions.
Please, revise the manuscript following the comments reported, so that the manuscript will be suitable for publication.
Thank you
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and that 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
Thanks to the publisher and the authors for allowing me to review this scientific article.
The article is well written and needs minor revisions in my opinion before being published.
In my opinion, the comparison between the two systems needs to be conceptually analyzed and reported in more studies before validating this method on a large scale, as one instrument calculates the values indirectly, the other calculates them directly and the analyzed data can be altered and have important discrepancies, however the results of this study are really interesting.
These parameters used are very generic:
1) Sleep efficiency.
2) Total sleep time
I think they can be eliminated from the statistical analysis.
The experimental study was conducted excellently and rigorously, leading to a significant statistical analysis. it was well written.
I don't know how much impact this study has in terms of clinical practice, it is true that it is a less cumbersome non-invasive method compared to others, but it is also true that monitoring with the PSG instrument remains the "gold standard" for the diagnosis of sleep apnea and OSA/OHS. In my opinion, it is necessary to carry out studies on a larger population scale to consider the technology applicable on a large scale. My doubts remain about the validity in detecting central events, which in my opinion is not on a par with a tool like the PSG. However, it would be appropriate to specify this in the conclusions of the manuscript.
no comment
no comment
no comment
The article clearly states its objectives, which are to explore the diagnostic value of a non-contact optical fiber mattress for apnea and hypopnea and to compare it with traditional polysomnography (PSG).
The study’s design appears to be methodical. The comparison of non-contact optical fiber mattress readings with Gold standard PSG is a reasonable approach to validate the new technology.
The results indicate a clear distinction between the control group and OSAHS patients in terms of apnea and hypopnea frequency, as detected by PSG. The non-contact optical fiber mattress also reflected these differences, suggesting its potential as a diagnostic tool. after validity in a larger set of data
The article effectively highlights the limitations of PSG, such as cost, labor-intensiveness, and potential discomfort, which can impede timely diagnosis. The non-contact optical fiber mattress (ANVENUS SLEEP MONITOR) addresses these issues by offering a non-intrusive, comfortable, and convenient alternative for at-home diagnosis. Its ability to interface with a smartphone application for data analysis further enhances its user-friendliness and accessibility.
there are some minor grammatical errors for example
1.Line 27 “6 health” to “6 healthy”
2.Line 29 “ collected” to “Selected”
3.Line 32 remove the work big from “ big data”. Note check what big data means - this would not qualify as big data
4.Line 33 remove word intelligent-
5.Line 44 remove “detected by”
The manuscript is well written apart from a few grammatical mistakes and English language changes that can be improved. There are some edits that can be made to the manuscript that are mentioned below
For the conclusion recommend editing the sentence for grammatical error. Below is an example.
The efficacy of non-contact optical fiber mattress monitoring for OSAHS is not significantly different from PSG. Its specificity for diagnosing OSAHS was 95%, and its sensitivity was 93%, indicating high accuracy in diagnosing OSAHS.
The title for Figure 2 can be non-contact optical fiber mattress waveform diagram in comparison with PSG waveform.
The research question is well defined and relevant. The study fills and identifies a knowledge gap to assess apnea and hypopnea as an alternative to PSG.
The authors have not mentioned in detail the limitations of the study in the discussion. For example, small size of population. Absence of obese population in the study. Who often have a higher prevalence of sleep apnea hypopnea. The authors can also mention the cost benefit ratio of PSG vs the non-contact
optical fiber mattress
The study and its findings are novel. The statistical analysis is appropriate for the study objectives. The conclusion of the study state the study findings correctly.
Line 59 remove space after (AUC=0.944) in “(AUC=0.944) , specificity(83.4%) and sensitivity(100%) for the diagnosis of hypopnea”
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.