Stacked BiLSTM–Adaboost Collaborative Model: Construction of a Precision Analysis Model for GABA and Vitamin B9 in the Foxtail Millet
, Guoliang Wang 1,2,†, Jiahui Hu 2,3, Wenfeng Yan 2,3, Peiyue Zhao 1 and Aiying Zhang 1,2,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript investigates the variation in GABA and vitamin B9 contents across different foxtail millet varieties using near-infrared hyperspectral imaging. A stacked BiLSTM-Adaboost model is proposed to predict nutrient content based on extracted spectral features, achieving high accuracy through optimized wavelength selection strategies. The study highlights a novel, non-destructive approach for nutritional assessment and variety selection in foxtail millet breeding programs. Several comments have attached.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Overall, the manuscript is well written in English. However, there are minor issues that require attention, such as the use of “sow” in Figure 1, which should be corrected to “sowing.”
Author Response
Dear reviewer
Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript. We would also like to express our gratitude to the reviewers for their efforts in helping to improve our manuscript titled “Stacked BiLSTM-Adaboost Collaborative Model: Construction of a Precision Analysis Model for GABA and Vitamin B9 in the foxtail millet” (ID: agronomy-3781699). The comments were all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper. Our research team have studied each reviewers’ comments point by point and have made necessary modifications and supplements, which we hope will meet with your approval. Revised portion are mark by “Track Change” in bold font throughout the revised manuscript with track change (Please download the file "Revised Manuscript with track change"), and the point-by-point responses are listed as follows.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAbstract: It is recommended to clearly describe the objective of the work after introducing the topic. It is recommended to describe the design and treatments adopted. The conclusion should be based on the results. The conclusion should be related to the work.
Keywords should be different from the words in the title.
Introduction: It is recommended to remove Figure 1 from the introduction. The introduction should follow the "inverted pyramid" model, starting with general information about the topic and gradually specifying it, concluding with the objective of the work.
Materials and methods: Some paragraphs require citations to support the choice of methodology used. The methodology should be written directly, describing the steps in chronological order of how the procedures were performed and in a way that can be reproduced.
Results and discussion:
It is recommended to present the main differences observed in %. Depending on the modifications made to the results section, new citations can be added in the discussion to explain the results obtained.
Conclusion: It is recommended to write in a way that does not repeat the presentation of the results obtained. Write the conclusions obtained based on the results obtained.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageA review of the English by a fluent person with experience in scientific writing is recommended.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript. We would also like to express our gratitude to the reviewers for their efforts in helping to improve our manuscript titled “Stacked BiLSTM-Adaboost Collaborative Model: Construction of a Precision Analysis Model for GABA and Vitamin B9 in the foxtail millet” (ID: agronomy-3781699). The comments were all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper. Our research team have studied each reviewers’ comments point by point and have made necessary modifications and supplements, which we hope will meet with your approval. Revised portion are mark by “Track Change” in bold font throughout the revised manuscript with track change (Please download the file "Revised Manuscript with track change"), and the point-by-point responses are listed as follows.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
I have reviewed your manuscript and found several points, which are debatable.
1) This point is not directly related to the core of the study, but GABA from food does not penetrate blood brain barrier, or the share of penetration is so small that it could be neglected. Therefore, it is somewhat hastily and unjustified to claim that GABA promotes direct benefits for nervous system.
2) It is advisable (although not mandatory) to provide a figure depicting the study location on the map.
3) Figure 3 lacks error bars.
4) Also, you are writing about calibration data set, used for "model construction and cross-validation". It is a mistake in terminology or if not, it is a methodological issue. You cannot use one dataset for both tasks. You must use training set for model construction, and validation set for cross-validation or you may use the subset of training data for cross-validation. If you use the whole training set both for model construction and validation, it is a methodological mistake. Also, it is somewhat confusing to read about prediction set. Did you mean test set?
5) Discussion must be improved. Only 1 quotation per discussion section is not acceptable. Generally, you are expected to show at least 15-20 quotations to compare your work with the work of other researchers in this field and outline your advantages and limitations. In your case, almost no 9or very shallow and brief) reference to other related work is given.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript. We would also like to express our gratitude to the reviewers for their efforts in helping to improve our manuscript titled “Stacked BiLSTM-Adaboost Collaborative Model: Construction of a Precision Analysis Model for GABA and Vitamin B9 in the foxtail millet” (ID: agronomy-3781699). The comments were all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper. Our research team have studied each reviewers’ comments point by point and have made necessary modifications and supplements, which we hope will meet with your approval. Revised portion are mark by “Track Change” in bold font throughout the revised manuscript with track change (Please download the file "Revised Manuscript with track change"), and the point-by-point responses are listed as follows.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI agree with the corrections made by authors in order to improve the manuscript.
I feel that it should be accepted to publication in current state.
