Respiration Measurement in a Simulated Setting Incorporating the Internet of Things
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper fits the scope of the Journal it is submitted to. However, some points need to be clarified or modified before going further into peer-review process, as indicated below:
- Taking into account that the Journal is mainly technical/technological, the authors correctly focused more on the technical contribution of the solution implemented. However, a broader focus also on the medical part is needed
- The effective need for an IoT in NICU is quite debatable. In rather modern hospitals, NICUs architecture is already designed to make the operators carefully control the health status of any newborns hosted in the facility, and also the instrumentation is provided with sound alarms to facilitate the control by nurses and other operators. On the other hand, the challenges in terms of security protocols and external attacks IoMT currently suffer are particularly critical in ICU/NICU and could affect not only the quality of life, but also the life of people themselves. Please, take into account this issue and discuss carefully, as it might impact the overall feasibility of the approach proposed.
Minor points:
- Some typos/formatting issues are present throughout the text (e.g., the split of Figure 4 into two pages, with a cut in Figure 4a, typos within Figure 2, etc.)
- In the Introduction, the RR part comes suddenly after the part dedicated to IoT. The sudden change of topic can leave the reader suprised and should be somehow announced making it more nuanced and gradual
- The Abstract should be expanded and should better define the paper contents and aims. As such, it also states that "The paper highlights the growing potential of the IoT in healthcare monitoring and diagnosis", promising more than the paper actually delivers
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank you very much for kindly considering our paper and providing its highly constructive review. We found your comments very helpful. We have carefully considered each point raised and carefully amended the paper accordingly. The changes are outlined in the attached document (Responses to Reviewers. doc). The areas added or amended are also highlighted yellow on the revised journal paper. We hope these meet the expectations of the reviewers.
Many thanks for your assistance.
Yours sincerely
Professor Reza Saatchi
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper is presenting an in vitro set-up for testing US for measuring the breathing rate in infants in NICUs. The idea of the work is well described, and it can be of value in clinical settings.
The autors test the basic hypothesis by comparing the US signal with a sine wave generator in the the frequency region of [0,1] Hz. The comparison of the frequency components between the US and the signal generator show an excellent agreement with an excellent relationship between the frequencies in the two signals (slope 0,99). The only frequency of the 10 subdivisions where there was a significant shift was the 0,4 Hz. Is there a component in the H/W depicted in Fig 3 that could cause this significant shift?
I think that the title of the paper is misleading to the reader. I would recommend a title that would be focused to the respiration rate measurement, and the use of an US based system for in-vitro measurement of the RR instead of focusing in the IoT in the title.
Perhaps a more detailed and focused discussion can help clarify the merits of this work
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank you very much for kindly considering our paper and providing its highly constructive review. We found your comments very helpful. We have carefully considered each point raised and carefully amended the paper accordingly. The changes are outlined in the attached document (Responses to Reviewers. doc). The areas added or amended are also highlighted yellow on the revised journal paper. We hope these meet your expectation.
Many thanks for your assistance.
Yours sincerely
Professor Reza Saatchi
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper was improved with respect to the previous round.
However, few points still need to be clarified, including:
- The adoption of robust security systems in ICU/NICU when dealing with IoT and connected instruments are mandatory in order to keep the babies at bay from external, harmful cyberattacks eventually challenging their life. Apart from the Abstract, this part was not added by the authors.
- Description of the medical parts related to the NICU, including the physiological parameters to be controlled and why they need to be, is still missing and should be provided.
- At the end of the revision, a complete proofread is needed.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank you very much for kindly considering our paper and providing its highly constructive review. We found your comments very helpful. We have carefully considered each point raised and carefully amended the paper accordingly. The changes are outlined in the attached table. They are also highlighted yellow on the revised paper. We hope these meet your expectations.
Many thanks for your assistance.
Yours sincerely
Professor Reza Saatchi
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have addressed most of the concerns expressed in the previous version of the paper.
It seems that there is an artifact at f=0.3 Hz, since the peak there occurs at 0,397 Hz, while at f=0,4 Hz the peak occurs at 0,399. Obviously there is an artifact when calculating the DFT of the signal analysed, as well as probably some extra noise from the electronics.
In my view this is a minor issue for this MS, and thus my recommendation is positive for publication.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank you very much for kindly considering our paper and providing its highly constructive review. We found your comments very helpful. We have carefully considered each point raised and carefully amended the paper accordingly. The changes are outlined in the attached table. They are also highlighted yellow on the revised paper. We hope these meet your expectations.
Many thanks for your assistance.
Yours sincerely
Professor Reza Saatchi
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
