Edge Devices for Internet of Medical Things: Technologies, Techniques, and Implementation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors should read carefully the paper before submitting it.  Also the references are numerated in a wrong way. Numbers start from 78! Some sentences are written two times …I suggest the authors to read their paper.

Author Response

Many thanks for your comments.  Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. It is my understanding that a lot of works have been done in studying the related issues [A]-[E]. To put their work into proper perspective, the authors should consider recently published leading-edge articles in the field, preferably from top journals or conferences.
2. The authors should consider more recent research done in the field of their study (especially in the year 2021 onwards). The reader may want to see how this work differs from other previous works.
3. Related work is briefly analyzed in section 2, authors do not adequately contrast their work to existing approaches. In the sense that they do not highlight what is missing from each of the other proposals.
4. The authors should clearly describe related work in more detail, contrasting the limitations of the related works. Moreover, the reviewer recommend to ease the overview related works by using overview tables.
5. The article missed presenting the research novelty. There is no discussion of user requirements, technological options and support for the decisions made at the design.
6. Some parameters and their values are unknown. It would be better to show all these parameters and explain the reason for those numbers in the table.
7. The work is too short for review journal submission. Please points out some insufficiency and limitation that needs further improvements in the conclusion. Moreover, formats of reference list lack consistency.

[A] L. Sun, Xin Jiang, H. Ren and Y. Guo, Edge-cloud Computing and Artificial Intelligence in Internet of Medical Things: Architecture, Technology and Application, IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 101079-101092, 2020.
[B] S. Amin and M. Hossain, Edge Intelligence and Internet of Things in Healthcare: A Survey, IEEE Access, pp. 1-15, 2020.
[C] L. Greco, G. Percannella, P. Ritrovato, F. Tortorella and M. Vento, Trends in IoT based Solutions for Health Care: Moving AI to the Edge, Pattern Recognition Letters, vol. 135, pp. 346-353, 2020.
[D] F. Qureshi and S. Krishnan, Wearable Hardware Design for the Internet of Medical Things (IoMT), Sensors, vol. 18, pp. 3812-3833, 2018.
[E] B. Pradhan, S. Bhattacharyya and K. Pal, IoT-Based Applications in Healthcare Devices, Journal of Healthcare Engineering, vol. 2021, pp. 1-18, 2021.

Author Response

The authors deeply acknowledge your constructive feedback in improving the scope and content of the paper. We have carefully considered those points in our manuscript. A list of modifications is described in the attached document. 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In this work the authors provide an overview of Medical IoT devices. First they briefly discuss the different layers of IoT technology from CMOS transistor, microprocessors, FPGAs/ASIC architectures, to cloud computing. The discuss the different approaches to make each layer low powered. Then they discuss energy harvesting technologies to power the Medical IoT devices. Finally they discuss use of deep learning with IoT and the difficulties in making the system low powered.

The review is quite broad but could be useful for non-expert in the field or someone entering the field. It can be published after some minor corrections as follows.

1. The references are not numbered correctly due to some software error. The numbers start from 78 onwards. Please correct the numbering manually to avoid error.
2. Some abbreviations are used without mentioning the full form. For example, ICT in figure 1, DNN algorithm, RIPp property, QRS complex, etc. It might be better to provide full form for clarity.
3. In section 2.2, the appropriate reference for equations should be provided. Also in the Sections 4.1, 4.2 references are missing. Finally, more details about the fog-based computing should given with references.
4. The issues relation to impedance matching with energy harvesting should be mentioned in section 3.2. The use of maximum power point tracking can complicate the circuit design and increase power consumption. In section 3.3 energy harvesting could be also used in an exercise system for medical rehabilitation as in this recent paper -> D. Bhatia, et al. Nano Energy, 80, 2021, 105508.
5. Minor corrections: Figure 2 caption- e-health system, line 134- nanometer regime, line 164- reconstruction algorithm, numbering of Introduction should start with 1, not 0.

Author Response

Many thanks for your valuable comments. We have addressed them one-by-one in the revised manuscript. All the revised part are highlighted. Also, the actions done are described in the attached report.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper titled "Edge Devices for Internet of Medical Things: Technologies, Techniques, and Implementation" discusses the technologies used in the health sector such as communication protocols, IoMT devices, energy generation techniques, deep learning etc. overall, the paper was able to cover and discuss the necessary things related to the title. The manuscript can be considered for acceptance after the minor revision.

1. The references are starting in random numbers, and the authors need to recheck it also; they were given two times.
2. The table font size is varying; the authors should keep a similar size in all cases.
3. In Fig.4 and 5, the authors are suggested to provide the original figure captions from the referred manuscript for betterment.
4. The energy harvesting part required more discussion about other than piezoelectric sources and how they are used in the health sector.

Author Response

The authors deeply acknowledge your efforts and time in reviewing our manuscript. We have carefully read them and revised the manuscript in accordance with your comments and suggestions.  A detailed actions list is attached. 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have improved the paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper has edited and revised according to the reviewer's suggestions.