Hybrid Techniques of Analyzing MRI Images for Early Diagnosis of Brain Tumours Based on Hybrid Features
, Ebrahim Mohammed Senan 2,3,*, Talal Sarheed Alshammari 4, Abdulrahman Alreshidi 4, Abdulaziz M. Alayba 4, Meshari Alazmi 4 and Afrah N. Alsagri 4
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Reviewer’s Comments
A minor revision is being suggested for Manuscript No.: Processes-2101906, titled, "Hybrid Techniques of Analysing MRI Images for Early Diagnosis of Brain Tumours Based on Hybrid Features". The following are the observations/corrections that needs to be incorporated:
1. Abstract: Author must add 1-2 sentences with numbers (values) for the model performance and quality assessment.
2. Author must cite the equation number in standard cited style. The current style is confusing whether it is equation number or a part of equation. Check and correct thses kind of mistakes in complete manuscript.
3. Section 3.1.1: Check the sentence and rewrite, “The algorithm works in accordance with the bottom-up ةثفاخي with a seed represented by a pixel and ends with a whole region represented by many similar pixels.”
4. Section 3.3.4: “minimum quadratic error (MSE)”?, As per standard MSE stands for mean square error, kindly check and correct.
5. Figure 9(b) and Figure 10(b): check for the term “First block: GoogleNet CNN Model”, is this term right or “First block: ResNet-50 CNN Model” ?
6. Section 4: Title , “result experimental”, should be “Experimental results”.
7. Section 4.2: In the first sentence, “this worl”, shold be “this work”.
8. Section 4.3: Check the first sentence and correct for repetitive words, similarly for the caption of Figure 11.
9. Section 4.3.3: Check and rewrite the sentence, “Each stage contains four colours, where each colour for a class for the dataset”.
10. Section 4.4: Sentence, “CNN models face the problem of overfitting, which requires a large data set to be overcome.”, check here is it overfitting or under fitting. The reason selected mentioned is related to under fitting, check it and correct.
11. Table 5 and Figure 19, Table 6 and Figure 21, Table 7 and Figure 23, and Table 8 and Figure 26. Presents the same data, one is numerically in tabular form other in the graphical representation of the same. So repeatative presentation of the same data did not contribute anything additional to the manuscript. So author must remove either enlisted Tables or Figures.
12. Section 5: The authors presented and discussed the results obtained through the current simulations only. The standard practice/ expected under discussion section that authors must compare their result with the recently published articles/results in the domain. That comparative discussion make it clear to other researcher to identify their research directions. Which is totally missing. Author should refer recently published articles and compare their results with the obtained results.
13. Section 6: Conclusion, Is not this Conclusions?
14. The whole write up does not express and conclusive remark or the major takeaway for the readers. I did not find any difference in Abstract and conclusion here.
Author must rewrite the conclusions and summarize major findings in 150-200 words max. Conclusions must contain major findings of your work in numbers and major takeaway for the reader. The rest part can be removed.
I wish authors a great success.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
Please open the attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript classifies tumor by using hybrid features.
The authors need to conclude that if the dataset size increase how will effect the performance of the proposed approach.
Some Acronyms are missing.
Why authors are using SVM only with CNN what about other traditional approaches.
The drawbacks and limitations of the proposed approach need to be mentioned in the manuscript.
A line or two should be written at the end of conclusion to provide future direction.
Author Response
Please open the attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
