Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

Dear authors,

First of all, I would like to congratulate to the authors for this work. Absolutely, it is an interesting topic multiscale brain network models consisting of microscopic neuronal activity and macroscopic functional dynamics can provide a mechanistic understanding for brain disorders.

In general terms, this work is not clear at all. The organization is not clear because cannot make a difference between the literature review part and the implementation.  For this reason, the introduction part, related work and experiments sections should be improved. One of the important points of this work is the comparison the “new improvement” respect to other techniques. In order to understand the proposal of the authors is important to take account the main features that should be studied for the comparison.

-        Why this strategy is better compared with another ones?. It could be nice if can make a description table using other models. In the discussion section it will be nice if can make a table comparison. I think that it is an excellent work but need to put in order your contribution.

-        It could be excellent for researchers to access to a GitHub repository with the code content. Maybe this code could be applied to another medical image field or segmentation purposes. It is important to share this expertise to other researchers. Moreover, it will provide more citations for the authors to reference this work and the proposed method.

-        Quality of the Figures can be improved. Generally, I can see some noise and poor quality or low resolution. Moreover, these figures ((e.g., Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3) should add the reference in case that they are extracted from another work.

As a conclusion, I have doubts in this proposal works because it is not clear for the readers. The structure of the manuscript should be improved. In order to make value and take advantage of the big effort to implement this technique, it is important to demonstrate why this technique is better compared to others. For this reason, in my concern requires a major revision. All my suggestions and comments are focused on a constructive way in order to improve the quality of your work.

Best regards,

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper is a review paper for the multiscale brain network model. It seems that the authors take a lot of effort into organizing the paper. However, I believe the paper is lacking high-level idea and comparisons. Here is my comments.

1. The high-level structure of the paper is not mentioned. For example, how many methods we introduced in the paper? Can we group them based on some properties? At first glance, I cannot find some summarization of the discussed methods.

2. Lacking of overall comparison. Given so many methods reviewed, a comprehensive table that compares each methods is needed and can help reader to better understand it.

3. Some section title is very hard to understand. For example, "Selection model working parameters through fitting". It is very hard to understand its meaning.

4. While the authors mentioned multiple applications. The connection between these applications and previously discussed methods should be emphasized.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

 

Dear authors,

First of all, I would like to congratulate to the authors for this work. Absolutely, it is an interesting topic multiscale brain network models consisting of microscopic neuronal activity and macroscopic functional dynamics can provide a mechanistic understanding for brain disorders.

After the second submission and taking account all the proposed suggestions, this work is well organized the introduction part and rest of the sections were successfully improved. Moreover, the “Comparison between multiscale BNMs and other BNMs” enforce your excellent work. In my concern, it is a very high-quality work. For this reason, I accept this paper to be accepted for publish. Really, I hope that this work helps and improve this essential area in the health care fields.

Best regards,

Reviewer 2 Report

I checked the revised manuscript. The revision successfully addresses my major concerns. I think the work could accept on current version.