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 addressed all the major concerns the reviewer(s) and editor raised. The paper can be accepted now.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jyotismita Chaki, a 'PeerJ Computer Science' Section Editor covering this Section #]
I appreciate the author's effort to address the reviewer's comments. Still, one of the reviewers has given suggestions for further improvement.
In addition, there are a few queries from my side to be addressed during the revision.
1. The authors mentioned using the open-source data available in Reference [17] for their work. In this case, how the authors have created a separate link for sharing the same dataset in different places?. Its not fair. Since the dataset is already available in the cloud, its preferred to include the link instead of creating your link.
2. The performance comparison reported in Table 7 does not include the performance of the proposed work. Include the performance of your work and compare the strengths and weakness of your method in contrast with other existing work and discuss why your proposed methodology achieves high/low accuracy compared to other works.
3. Include the major limitations of this present work.
no comment
no comment
no comment
1. The title should be changed as "Non-invasive Enhanced Hypertension Detection through Ballistocardiograph Signals with Mamba Model", which is much more suitable and readable.
2. The reviewers hope that the authors will improve the Mamba model in future works to verify the powerful effect of the Mamba model in human healthcare monitoring.
no comment
no comment
I strongly encourage the authors to review and address the reviewer(s) comments carefully. Some comments are critical and related to the need to conduct additional experiments and benchmarking.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should *only* be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services if you wish - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Your revision deadline is always extended while you undergo language editing. #]
-- The aim of the study is to develop a non-invasive and efficient approach for long-term hypertension monitoring, facilitating home-based health assessments.
-- The study is a study that contributes to literature in general. However, the following corrections are recommended.
-- The text should be revised in terms of English language.
-- There is an error in the use of abbreviations. It should be corrected.
-- References should be given in the same standard in the text. Some are capitalized and some are lowercase.
-- Figures and texts are given after the article. Tables and figures should be given in the first place after reference.
-- The introductory part of the study should be improved. It should be written in more detail. The literature review should be expanded.
-- Tables and figures are given in appropriate logical order.
-- There are many errors in the study. Errors need to be revised. It should be re-read in English, and references should be edited.
In this manuscript, authors apply the Mamba to monitor human hypertension with ballistocardiography (BCG) signal processing. There are some concerns that need to be addressed by authors.
1. Title: The title needs to be revised. A title something like the following might be more appropriate: "Enhanced hypertension detection through non-invasive ballistocardiography with Mamba"?
2. The quality of figures is really poor from both the perspective of aesthetics and information, the reviewer can not read the text clearly. Authors should revise it carefully.
3. In experiment, authors should add some latest methods for comparison to prove the progressiveness of the Mamba model.
4. It is recommended to conduct experiments based on more other public BCG datasets to verify the correctness and validity of the model.
5. It would be beneficial to further discuss the limitations of the study and potential future directions in more depth. A possible point could be "Non-Invasive Human Ballistocardiography Assessment Based on Deep Learning", https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10121645.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should *only* be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]
6. A more detailed comparison with other state-of-the-art models, including their advantages and disadvantages, could enhance the significance of the Mamba model.
7. The manuscript needs to be proof-read for better readability and proper grammar. There are some grammar problems in this manuscript.
no comment
no comment
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.