An Embedded System Based on Raspberry Pi for Effective Electrocardiogram Monitoring

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This work was focused on  the development of an embedded system based on Raspberry Pi that enables faster and more efficient monitoring of electrocardiogram (ECG). It seems to be interisting and have a scientific value. However, there is minor comments needed to be carried as:

1- the literature survey must be updated till this year as the work was based on the development of of an embedded system based on Raspberry Pi. So, it is not acceptable to be not cover the recent three years

2- It is better to make table of the development in the introduction part to make this article as a references for the upcomming work in the same field  

3- The conclusion must be more informative 

The language seems to be good 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This author(s) aims to address the demand for affordable and user-friendly medical diagnostic devices by developing an embedded system based on Raspberry Pi for efficient monitoring of ECG. The device in the final version successfully measured ECG signals at different heart rates, capturing peaks indicative of health conditions. Moreover, the proposed system aims to be portable, cost-effective, and user-friendly in diverse environments. The manuscript has a clear logic line and is straightforward which can help the readers have a better understanding of the topic. However, some revisions are needed. The detailed comments are as follows.

1. The significances of this work remain the biggest concern. Although the author(s) claim that their design enables faster and more efficient monitoring of ECG, the system’s performances and unique strengths are still ambiguous. I suggest the author(s) directly added the data to prove how much faster and more efficient/accurate the system is and compare these with other state-of-the-art technologies/devices.

2. The size information for the final device is missing. The size is essential if the author(s) aims at portable or even wearable devices for ECG monitoring.

3. Scale bars are missing in Figures 4 a, b, and Figure 7g. I suggest the author(s) add more explanations and detailed information to the signals since the necessary peaks (P, Q, R, S, T) waves are unclear.

4. Figure 7 showed the ECG signals from human subjects collected by the final device. However,

5. Is good to see that the author(s) has IRB to conduct the human trials. In Figure 8, the author(s) showed the signals from four different students. Is there any specific reason to conduct the experiments on students? If yes, please justify. If not, just pointing out the participants’ age and gender is enough.

6. The references are not sufficient and need to be updated. Only 6 out of 29 references are after 2020 which reinforces readers' concerns about the significance and advancement of this work

N/A

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf