Personalized Beauty: How Clinical Insights Shape Tailored Aesthetic Treatments

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the revised manuscript, the authors have responded to my concerns, so I express a positive opinion for acceptance of the submitted work.

Author Response

Comments 1: In the revised manuscript, the authors have responded to my concerns, so I express a positive opinion for acceptance of the submitted work.

Response1: We thank the reviewer for the comments that helped us to improve the paper.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 The paper describes an algorithm designed to propose and personalize cosmetic treatments to maximize clinical and aesthetic results. The work is novel and is of considerable interest to the readers of cosmetics journal. References are adequate and up to date. The work addresses a knowledge gap which is the integration of AI to improve the outcomes of cosmetic treatments. I only have some minor comments before the manuscript can be considered for publication:

1- The pdf is in the "edit" mode, some paragraphs are red and black and blue, other paragraphs are cancelled, so please unify all.

2- Figures 5 and 7 need to be clearer.

3- Please state of there were any reported side effects by participants.

4- Please elaborate more on the appropriateness of the utilized clustering methods to the sample size and data type.

Author Response

Comment 1: The pdf is in the "edit" mode, some paragraphs are red and black and blue, other paragraphs are cancelled, so please unify all.

Response 1: Thanks for the comment. the reason why the pdf was with different underlinings is due to comments responses expressed by other reviewers

Comment 2: Figures 5 and 7 need to be clearer.

Response 2: We have enlarged images 5 and 7 to improve readability.

Comment 3: Please state of there were any reported side effects by participants.

Response 3: None of the participants have reported side effects. We added this information in the text in the "Data acquisition and analysis" subsection

Comment 4: Please elaborate more on the appropriateness of the utilized clustering methods to the sample size and data type.

Response 4: We added a short paragraph about it in the  "Data analysis" subsection

Comment 5: The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Response 5: We have carefully proofread the article to improve the quality of the English and rephrased some sentences to make them more understandable.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors present an article regarding the effects of "various cosmetic procedures and assess their effectiveness", as declared in the abstract. I think that this definition is not precise, because they use a single machine, T-Modella, wich includes different techniques, and an instrument to measure bioimpedance. All these informations should be briefly and clearly described in the abstract, as well the number of patients enrolled etc. Authors have also to declare the type of study (interventional study, prospective , etc.). 

In the Introduction section, I think that the sentences from line 56 to line 70 should be removed and eventually included in the discussion. 

I have not well understood the paragraph "literature review": in this paragraph you mention some papers, but you do not declare the type of literature search you performed and the web sources employed (pubmed, embase etc). 

I Table 1: I can't find a BMI numeric range regarding "normal weight, overweight, obese" ; you should also insert a legend regarding abbreviations

in Data Analysis, I think that the sentences "The central adiposity reflected in this ratio 
highlights the critical need for targeted lifestyle changes to mitigate these health risks" and "This type of fat distribution is considered less harmful, as it significantly reduces the likelihood of experiencing cardiometabolic complications. Maintaining a lower  W/H ratio is not only beneficial for overall health but also underscores the importance  of adopting a balanced diet and regular physical activity to preserve this healthier fat  distribution pattern" should be removed and eventually included in the discussion. 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The authors use an average level English language, I think the paper should be written in a more "fluent" way. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents an interesting approach to the integration of AI and clustering methods in the field of aesthetic treatments. Several aspects of the study require substantial revision before the manuscript can be considered for publication.

- The study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of aesthetic treatments through clustering methods and AI algorithms. However, the research question and hypothesis are not clearly formulated. The authors should explicitly state their research question and provide a strong justification for why AI-based clustering is necessary in this context.
- The methodology section lacks sufficient details to ensure reproducibility. For example, it is unclear how clustering results were validated and how the effectiveness of the treatment personalization algorithm was assessed.
- The sample size (n=36) is quite small, which limits the generalizability of the results. The authors should provide a justification for why this sample size is sufficient and discuss limitations due to the small dataset.
- The manuscript reports mean values and standard deviations but does not indicate whether statistical tests were used to determine the significance of differences between groups. The authors should apply statistical significance tests (e.g., ANOVA, t-tests) to support their claims.
- The use of synthetic data (via SDV Synthesizer) raises concerns about the validity of the clustering results. The authors should provide a detailed explanation of how synthetic data were validated against real data.
- The manuscript states that K-means clustering was used, but no rationale is given for selecting this algorithm over other clustering methods (e.g., hierarchical clustering, DBSCAN). The authors should compare different clustering methods or provide justification for why K-means was the best choice.
- The manuscript includes several figures, but their captions and explanations are not always clear. For example, Figures 5 and 6 (BMI vs W/H diagrams) require better annotation to clarify their significance.
- Tables should include p-values or confidence intervals to support statistical conclusions.
- The manuscript contains several grammatical errors and awkward phrasing. A thorough language revision is needed to improve clarity and readability.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx