Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic of the presented manuscript is important, relevant, and original. This is a well written manuscript but some issues could be improved. 

• Introduction seems enough but could achieve a deeper knowledge about state of art. 

• The research hypothesis are not described
• Where and how were the subjects recruited? Please, explain it with more detail

• The complete chronology is missing.

• Statistical analysis and results are clear enough. 

• Discussion section seems confused, needs to be rewritten in some paragraphs

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please include CT angiography images to explain how the ten segments are included in 4 degrees.

For this reviewer is not clear how the MLP considers the segment of lower-extremity arterial stenosis?,

the arterial calcification grade is related to the 4 degrees as the authors mentioned, this grade was given by two experienced radiologists, my question is if this value is given by a radiologist or it can be terminated by another technique?. This is because if a radiologist needs to analyze the images he/she can give a prediction

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

thank you for your answers