A Microwave Imaging Procedure for Lung Lesion Detection: Preliminary Results on Multilayer Phantoms
, Bilal Khalid 1, Navid Ghavami 2,3, Giovanni Raspa 2, Mohammad Ghavami 1, Sandra Dudley-McEvoy 1 and Gianluigi Tiberi 1,2,3
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This article is well written and could be accepted for publication.
I have two minor comments:
1) Please shortly explain the Huygens principle in the Introduction, since the readers are not necessary familiar with this.
2) The structure of your phantom is "homogeneous", but the real human chest is heterogeneous. Do the authors suggest that the similar results may be obtained on the "heterogeneous" human body? Please add some comments in the Discussion.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for his/her comments which gave us the occasion to improve the paper. We have been aware that the comments were very appropriate. We believe we have met all reviewers’ comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Using microwave imaging for lung lesion detection is a good idea for early lung lesion detection. However, there still several questions for this article:
1. In designing the phantoms, the human body bone and muscle alternate distribution was not considered in real scenario. It may not work particular in bone presence. I suggest authors to increase a part on phantom bound.
2. Since microimaging is not so harmful, can validation be performed on human body even on some animal?
3. Can you design different kinds of lung lesion for testing and validation?
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for his/her comments which gave us the occasion to improve the paper. We have been aware that the comments were very appropriate. We believe we have met all reviewers’ comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors proposed HP-based MWI validation for lung lesion detection in fabricated phantom. The microwave imaging from 1 to 5 GHz is useful to get the image. English grammar are good.
Literature search and background looks a little bit fine. Organization of the proposed paper looks fine. It is quite hard to find some errors in entire manuscript. Therefore, the manuscript could be minor revision.
1. Data availability section is missing.
2. Please use abbreviated journal names in the reference section.
3. Please provide the city and country for book in the reference section.
4. If possible, please provide some measured data vs. frequency.
5. Please correct Fig. to Figure in entire manuscript according to MDPI styles.
6. Why authors select 1 to 5 GHz ranges and 5 MHz sampling ?
7. Please provide the information of the equipment such as city and country information in Lines 98 - 101.
8. Please provide ref.(Therefore, a lot of research~) with ref.(https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0249034)
9. Please correct depict to Depict in Figure 6 label.
10. Please correct Fig to Figure in Line 206.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for his/her comments which gave us the occasion to improve the paper. We thank the reviewer for his/her comments which gave us the occasion to improve the paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
