Next Article in Journal
Cutaneous Management after Extravasation of High-Concentrated Amino Acid Solution Administered for Renal Protection in PRRT
Next Article in Special Issue
Long-Term Stability of Gradient Characteristics Warrants Model-Based Correction of Diffusion Weighting Bias
Previous Article in Journal
Missed Breast Cancers on MRI in High-Risk Patients: A Retrospective Case–Control Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
Convolutional Neural Network Addresses the Confounding Impact of CT Reconstruction Kernels on Radiomics Studies
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

AI-Radiomics Can Improve Inclusion Criteria and Clinical Trial Performance

Tomography 2022, 8(1), 341-355; https://doi.org/10.3390/tomography8010028
by Michal R. Tomaszewski 1,†, Shuxuan Fan 1,2, Alberto Garcia 1, Jin Qi 1, Youngchul Kim 3, Robert A. Gatenby 4, Matthew B. Schabath 5, William D. Tap 6,7, Denise K. Reinke 8, Rikesh J. Makanji 4,*, Damon R. Reed 9,* and Robert J. Gillies 1,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Tomography 2022, 8(1), 341-355; https://doi.org/10.3390/tomography8010028
Submission received: 23 August 2021 / Revised: 3 December 2021 / Accepted: 16 December 2021 / Published: 2 February 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Quantitative Imaging Network)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I wish to commend the Authors for this interesting and well-written article. In particular, the radiomics application proposed is novel and supported by a robust pipeline.

I only have some minor comments:

 

1) In the final paragraphs of the Discussion, the Authors briefly mention two very relevant issues (could SRE be the key radiomic feature for selective patient inclusion in different maligancies and drugs too? Could this be performed before a trial begins?). While I feel that the present study does not allow to make strong claims one way or the other, I believe that the Authors should try to wider discuss this points, to offer a more comprehensive view to the readership and guide future research.

 

2) Please, check the manuscript for typos (e.g. page 2 line 75 "thee")

 

3) There is an inconsistency between the number of included patients as reported in the abstract and table 1 (296) and on page 3 lines 97-98 (294). Please, check and clarify.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Perhaps it is worth changing the arrangement of fragments of Figures 1 - 3 in order to increase their geometric dimensions and improve the quality of images. In the proposed version, the images are fuzzy. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop