Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author,

Thank you for the opportunity to read your manuscript.

I am writing to you regarding your commentary, "Emerging and Pioneering AI Technologies in Aesthetic Dermatology: Sketching a Path Toward Personalized, Predictive, and Proactive Care."

- please, revise the abstract. For example, the objectives,  main results, and conclusions, as well as perspectives, could be addressed.

Overall, what the author classified as a commentary seemed like a review manuscript, however, with a limited number of references. As presented, this text must be restructured to achieve clarity. Was this commentary an invitation from Cosmetics to the author? There were only 16 references and 1/4 of them were self-citation.

Despite an interesting issue, it was not clear what kind of scientific dissemination it would be.

Author Response

Dear Editorial Board and Reviewers,

 

Thank you for your review and feedback.

I appreciate the valuable feedback provided by the reviewers, which has helped me to strengthen the clarity, depth, and balance of the article. I have carefully considered each comment and made the necessary revisions as outlined below. Detailed responses to each point raised by the reviewers are provided below.

Reviewer 1:

Comment: Please revise the abstract. For example, the objectives, main results, conclusions, and perspectives could be addressed.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. I have revised the abstract to clarify the objectives, outline the main findings, and provide a balanced conclusion along with future perspectives. The revised abstract now emphasizes AI’s potential to enhance diagnostics and treatment personalization in aesthetic dermatology, while also addressing the technical, ethical, and financial challenges that require attention for responsible implementation.

 

Comment: The manuscript reads more like a review rather than a commentary, especially given its broad coverage and limited number of references.

Response: I appreciate the insight. Initially, the manuscript was drafted as a commentary to introduce the scope of AI applications in aesthetic dermatology. However, based on your observations and to better align with the feedback, I have reframed it as a review article. Additionally, I have expanded the reference list to include more recent studies on AI applications, limitations, and patient perspectives, while reducing self-citations to ensure a broader, unbiased literature base.

 

Reviewer 2

Comment: The commentary is overly optimistic without addressing specific challenges. The author needs to present a more balanced view by discussing both the achievements and challenges of AI in clinical practice.

Response:  Thank you for highlighting this. I have incorporated a more balanced discussion throughout the manuscript, including sections on the limitations and challenges of AI. Specifically, I now address technical limitations such as algorithmic transparency and data diversity issues, ethical considerations like privacy concerns, and financial challenges that may affect the accessibility of AI in smaller practices. This revised structure helps present a comprehensive view of both the benefits and potential obstacles.

 

Comment: Integrate examples of real-world applications and challenges faced by practitioners using AI tools.

Response: In response, I have added specific real-world examples to illustrate the practical applications and limitations of AI in aesthetic dermatology. These additions help ground the discussion in clinical reality, offering a tangible view of both the benefits and constraints practitioners encounter.

 

Comment: Broaden the limitations to discuss technological, financial, and patient-related factors that may hinder AI adoption in clinical practice.

Response: I have expanded the limitations section to address the technological, financial, and patient-related factors that may impact AI adoption. Technological limitations now include issues like dataset diversity and algorithm robustness, while financial limitations address the significant costs of AI systems and maintenance. Additionally, I discuss patient-related concerns, such as trust in automated decision-making and data privacy, and how clear communication can help alleviate these worries.

 

Comment: Expand references to include studies that address issues with algorithmic bias, security, and data quality.

Response: In response to this suggestion, I have included additional references that cover topics like algorithmic bias, data quality, and security concerns. These references provide a broader context for understanding AI’s limitations and complement the discussion on creating more inclusive, diverse, and secure AI models in aesthetic dermatology.

 

Comment: Incorporate patient perspectives on AI use.

Response: To address this important aspect, I have expanded the section on patient perspectives, highlighting both the appeal of AI-assisted personalization and the potential concerns around privacy and the perceived depersonalization of care. I have also included examples from studies indicating that clear communication about AI’s role, limitations, and benefits can enhance patient trust and satisfaction. This additional content aims to provide a well-rounded view of patient attitudes, ensuring the article reflects the impact of AI from multiple angles.

 

I hope these revisions meet your expectations and improve the manuscript’s clarity, depth, and balance.

Thank you again for your consideration.

 

Sincerely,

 

The author

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

This commentary is overly optimistic without addressing specific challenges. The author needs to present a more balanced view by discussing both the achievements and challenges of AI in clinical practice.

1. Integrate examples of real-world applications and challenges faced by practitioners using AI tools.

2. Broaden the limitations to discuss technological, financial, and patient-related factors that may hinder AI adoption in clinical practice.

3. Expand references to include studies that address issues with algorithmic bias, security, and data quality.

4. Incorporate patient perspectives on AI use

Author Response

Dear Editorial Board and Reviewers,

 

Thank you for your review and feedback.

I appreciate the valuable feedback provided by the reviewers, which has helped me to strengthen the clarity, depth, and balance of the article. I have carefully considered each comment and made the necessary revisions as outlined below. Detailed responses to each point raised by the reviewers are provided below.

Reviewer 1:

Comment: Please revise the abstract. For example, the objectives, main results, conclusions, and perspectives could be addressed.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. I have revised the abstract to clarify the objectives, outline the main findings, and provide a balanced conclusion along with future perspectives. The revised abstract now emphasizes AI’s potential to enhance diagnostics and treatment personalization in aesthetic dermatology, while also addressing the technical, ethical, and financial challenges that require attention for responsible implementation.

 

Comment: The manuscript reads more like a review rather than a commentary, especially given its broad coverage and limited number of references.

Response: I appreciate the insight. Initially, the manuscript was drafted as a commentary to introduce the scope of AI applications in aesthetic dermatology. However, based on your observations and to better align with the feedback, I have reframed it as a review article. Additionally, I have expanded the reference list to include more recent studies on AI applications, limitations, and patient perspectives, while reducing self-citations to ensure a broader, unbiased literature base.

 

Reviewer 2

Comment: The commentary is overly optimistic without addressing specific challenges. The author needs to present a more balanced view by discussing both the achievements and challenges of AI in clinical practice.

Response:  Thank you for highlighting this. I have incorporated a more balanced discussion throughout the manuscript, including sections on the limitations and challenges of AI. Specifically, I now address technical limitations such as algorithmic transparency and data diversity issues, ethical considerations like privacy concerns, and financial challenges that may affect the accessibility of AI in smaller practices. This revised structure helps present a comprehensive view of both the benefits and potential obstacles.

 

Comment: Integrate examples of real-world applications and challenges faced by practitioners using AI tools.

Response: In response, I have added specific real-world examples to illustrate the practical applications and limitations of AI in aesthetic dermatology. These additions help ground the discussion in clinical reality, offering a tangible view of both the benefits and constraints practitioners encounter.

 

Comment: Broaden the limitations to discuss technological, financial, and patient-related factors that may hinder AI adoption in clinical practice.

Response: I have expanded the limitations section to address the technological, financial, and patient-related factors that may impact AI adoption. Technological limitations now include issues like dataset diversity and algorithm robustness, while financial limitations address the significant costs of AI systems and maintenance. Additionally, I discuss patient-related concerns, such as trust in automated decision-making and data privacy, and how clear communication can help alleviate these worries.

 

Comment: Expand references to include studies that address issues with algorithmic bias, security, and data quality.

Response: In response to this suggestion, I have included additional references that cover topics like algorithmic bias, data quality, and security concerns. These references provide a broader context for understanding AI’s limitations and complement the discussion on creating more inclusive, diverse, and secure AI models in aesthetic dermatology.

 

Comment: Incorporate patient perspectives on AI use.

Response: To address this important aspect, I have expanded the section on patient perspectives, highlighting both the appeal of AI-assisted personalization and the potential concerns around privacy and the perceived depersonalization of care. I have also included examples from studies indicating that clear communication about AI’s role, limitations, and benefits can enhance patient trust and satisfaction. This additional content aims to provide a well-rounded view of patient attitudes, ensuring the article reflects the impact of AI from multiple angles.

 

I hope these revisions meet your expectations and improve the manuscript’s clarity, depth, and balance.

Thank you again for your consideration.

 

Sincerely,

 

The author

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author,

I write you in regard to the revised version of your review "Emerging and Pioneering AI Technologies in Aesthetic Dermatology: Sketching a Path Toward Personalized, Predictive, and Proactive Care". 

- please, describe how biosensors quantify skin hydration, pH, skin biomarkers etc. Each biosensor could be described in detail in a table.

- please, correct the number of the reference in lines 153, 183.

- please, add practical examples in "Non-invasive epigenetic and genomic diagnostics".

- please, give real examples and tools of commercial AI.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback on my manuscript, "Emerging and Pioneering AI Technologies in Aesthetic Dermatology: Sketching a Path Toward Personalized, Predictive, and Proactive Care." I have carefully addressed your comments as follows:

1. Biosensors: I added a detailed section and a new table (Table 1) summarizing how biosensors quantify skin parameters such as hydration, pH, and biomarkers, including their mechanisms and clinical applications.

2. References: New references in lines 153 and 183 have been added.

3. Non-invasive Diagnostics: I included practical examples, specifically highlighting Mitra Bio's work in non-invasive epigenetic diagnostics using next-generation sequencing to guide personalized treatment plans.

4. Commercial AI Tools: Real-world applications of AI, such as SkinAI™, Visia® Skin Analysis, and DermaSensor®, have been integrated to illustrate the transformative role of AI in diagnostics and patient care.

I trust these revisions enhance the clarity and relevance of the manuscript.

Thank you for your valuable suggestions.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewers have thoroughly addressed the requested points, and the manuscript has been revised accordingly. I believe the article is now suitable for publication in its current form.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable review

Best regards

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the improvements in your manuscript. As a final suggestion, please, add a legend to Table 1 and references. If possible, add illustrations to your review.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your thorough review and insightful suggestions, which have significantly contributed to refining my manuscript.

In response to your request, I have added a legend and references for the table summarizing the types, parameters, technologies, and clinical applications of biosensors in aesthetic dermatology. However, I regret to inform you that I was unable to include illustrations as the technologies described are proprietary and owned by specific companies, which restricts me from using them due to copyright constraints.

I appreciate your understanding and look forward to your reply.

Sincerley