Application of Wavelet Transform and Fractal Analysis for Esophageal pH-Metry to Determine a New Method to Diagnose Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease
, Grzegorz Redlarski 1,2, Jacek Szkopek 1, Mariusz Dąbkowski 1 and Maria Janiak 3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Application of Wavelet Transform and Fractal Analysis for 2 esophageal pH-metry to determine a new method to diagnose 3 gastroesophageal reflux disease
Manuscript Number: IJB-D-22-00255
General Comment: - Minor Revision
I suggest changes that, in my opinion, would improve the quality and readability of the article:
1. Remove all typos and grammar mistakes throughout the paper. Please pay attention to all punctuation marks in the text. Also, improve the introduction section.
2. The author should explain seriously, what the novelty of your results are. Are there any new insights? How do they complement the existing literature? Why should the readers read your article?
3. The author used old technique to solve the fractional Biochemical Reaction Model. It is advised to add the latest technique in Caputo sense to solve the proposed model. Few of efficient techniques are Toufiko Atangana, AB, ABM, Newton polynomial etc.
4. Motivation of the work should be improved in the introduction. It should be added clearly and precisely at the last part of the introduction.
5. Many important and recent papers are ignored by the authors. This research area is not new and there are many other papers in the literature. It should be added logically.
6. The important output of the graphical results of the paper needs to be improved and stated clearly.
7. The conclusion section should be updated with the major outcomes of this study. Also, include some future studies in the conclusion section.
8. The reference format is to be checked carefully.
9. The introduction needs to be improved by the recent developments in the field of modelling of calculus. For this purpose, the authors can add the following references to enrich the introductory section.
https://doi.org/10.3390/math8040558
https://doi.org/10.1002/mma.6297
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2020.109811
https://doi.org/10.1002/num.22577
Conclusion: Authors should improve the work according to comments.
After the above minor revisions, I recommended this paper for publication in your journal.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In this work, Dr. Tojza and colleagues explored the role of two computerized approaches for the classification of patients with gastro-esophageal reflux (GER). The two approaches, namely the Wavelet Transform (WT) and Wavelet-based Fractal Analysis (WBFA) were applied to 24-hour pH impedance monitoring performed in 20 patients with suspected GER. The authors found that the WT method provided a sensitivity value of 93.33% with 75% specificity.
The study is interesting and the topic is current. There are some concerns that should be addressed before considering the manuscript for publication:
- introduction is too long and should be changed in order to be more concise and clear.
- page 2, line 52: it could be argued that MII-pH is the gold standard for the diagnosis of GER in adults (whereas it could be the case in children). The authors could just state that MII-pH is one of the most informative tests that could be performed in patients with suspected GER, particularly in those with atypical symptoms or to assess response to therapy.
- introduction should end with the aim of the study after the justification for the hypothesis made by the authors.
- more details about the Methods (choice of the patients and so on) should be provided. The authors should probably specify that this is a pilot, preclinical study that needs to be confirmed in larger series.
- tables 2 and 3 do not show comparisons between groups (i.e. p-value).
- Much of the section 2.2 actually belongs to the introduction.
- Methodology: there is few information about statistical tests used with their justification. Moreover, it is not clear how the MII-pH tests were classified and by what researcher.
- The authors conclude that their approach can be implemented in medical programs for research as well as for clinical use. However, this conclusion needs further validation in larger studies before such an assessment can be made.
- A comparison of the time (and effort) employed in the "traditional" versus computer-aided approach should be more deeply provided.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
My comment as attached
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have addressed the raised comments. There are some typos remaining to be fixed.
Author Response
We would like to thank the Reviewer for another review of our work and the time devoted to its evaluation. We made linguistic corrections (changes marked in red in the text) according to the suggestions of the proofreader. We hope that the introduced changes will be in line with the Reviewer's expectations. Once again, we would like to thank the Reviewer for your time and commitment to reviewing our work.
Reviewer 3 Report
The confusion has been cleared
Author Response
We would like to thank the Reviewer for another review of our work and the time devoted to its evaluation. We made linguistic corrections (changes marked in red in the text) according to the suggestions of the proofreader. We hope that the introduced changes will be in line with the Reviewer's expectations. Once again, we would like to thank the Reviewer for your time and commitment to reviewing our work.
