Statistical Description of SaO₂–SpO₂ Relationship for Model of Oxygenation in Premature Infants

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article statistically describes the SpO2 measurement noise characteristic of continuous time recording of SpO2 based on the evaluation of available clinical data with the purpose of combining the noise description with the systematic bias between SaO2 and SpO2 into a plausible mathematical model of the pulse oximeter output signal. The obtained results better described by the authors in the article were intended to be use for integration into an overall computer model of premature infant oxygenation.

Although the subject of the article has been partially taken into account in previous work by the same authors, the new scientific contributions added in the present article are significant in quantitative and qualitative aspects.

The article is splitted into appropriate parts and its content is easy to track and understand.  

Further improvements of the described neonatal oxygenation model, applied in the real medical conditions would give an qualitative added value for the entire article.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Regarding the article electronics-1639260 entitled Analysis of SpO2 signal in premature infants for pulse oximeter model and they have not clearly shown the advantages in performance of their approach with respect to others from the literature in this field.

 

Authors use a readable English, since there are some parts that was easy to understand. So, Authors expose the justification, and it is easy the exposition of the main problem.

 

Furthermore, Authors expose the justification and I could find the explanation of the main problem in a clearly way.

Also, this paper is a research based on references of years 1991 to 2021, namely authors do not consider recent references, since the 31% of references of the last five years (from 2017 to 2022),  in addition References are according to the topic that they try to introduce.

 

Originality Report shows that this article has a similarity index of 13%, which can be considered as original work, this similarity report is attached to this review.

 

Please consider the following remarks to improve your article (in some cases, P refers to Page or Pages and L is the Line or Lines where you can find these remarks):

 

• Section References is not complete, since only 31%  of references can be considered as of recent works.

 

• The similarity Index of this work is 13%, so it can be considered as original work .

 

• The problem and justification are well described.

 

• The comparison between state-of-the-art algorithm is not complete at all.

 

• Well distribution of the elements to be described or analyzed

 

• There is not enought experimentation or comparison of the results that demonstrate the novelty of the project.

 

• Results improperly exposed

 

• Authors use comparative table of the characteristics of the related work, in addition use some plots that help the experimental results.

 

• Equations are not well described or defined

 

• Authors include general algorithm of the proposed work.

 

• So many details were omitted in the methodology that it is difficult to estimate the contribution of the article.

 

 

So, I suggest modifying, if it is the case, for the publication in the journal Electronics, since the paper by itself have a great potential to publish.

 

Regards.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

- The title of manuscript does not completely represent the study/experiments performed.  
- The manuscript lacks the clear and complete description on computational methods used. For example, 
  + It is unknown what the interpolation method used is. 
  + The SpO2 signal (stable and unstable parts) and the signal quality (good and low qualities) shown in Fig. 4 contradict to each other. 
- A main pitfall of this study is that the noise is determined using a median filter. 
- The detail on pathologies associated with the pathological neonates needs to be clearly provided. 
- Due to the so-called "unstable parts" of SpO2 signals are ignored, the authors need to clearly state this limitations. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Regarding the article electronics-1639260 entitled Analysis of SpO2 signal in premature infants for pulse oximeter model and they have not clearly shown the advantages in performance of their approach with respect to others from the literature in this field.

 

Authors use a readable English, since there are some parts that was easy to understand. So, Authors expose the justification, and it is easy the exposition of the main problem.

 

Furthermore, Authors expose the justification and I could find the explanation of the main problem in a clearly way.

Also, this paper is a research based on references of years 1991 to 2022, namely authors do not consider recent references, since the 44% of references of the last five years (from 2017 to 2022),  in addition References are according to the topic that they try to introduce.

 

Originality Report shows that this article has a similarity index of 12%, which can be considered as original work, this similarity report is attached to this review.

 

Please consider the following remarks to improve your article (in some cases, P refers to Page or Pages and L is the Line or Lines where you can find these remarks):

 

• Section References is not complete, since only 44%  of references can be considered as of recent works.

 

• The similarity Index of this work is 12%, so it can be considered as original work .

 

• The similarity Index of this work is can be considered as original work %, so it Section References is not complete, since only 44%  of references can be considered as of recent works..

 

• The problem and justification are well described.

 

• The comparison between state-of-the-art algorithm is complete and enough.

 

• Well distribution of the elements to be described or analyzed

 

• There is enought experimentation or comparison of the results that demonstrate the novelty of the project.

 

• Results properly exposed

 

• Authors use comparative table of the characteristics of the related work, in addition use some plots that help the experimental results.

 

• Equations are well described or defined

 

• All comments were addressed by authors.

 

• Now, this version of the article meets all the requirements to be published. Congratulations to the authors.

 

So, I suggest modifying, if it is the case, for the publication in the journal Electronics, since the paper by itself have a great potential to publish.

 

Regards.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for the comments and suggestions concerning our manuscript; they helped us to improve the manuscript significantly.

Best Regards,

Veronika Rafl-Huttova

Reviewer 3 Report

N/A

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for the comments and suggestions concerning our manuscript; they helped us to improve the manuscript significantly.

Best Regards,

Veronika Rafl-Huttova