Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please see the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you so much for your detailed analysis of our paper.

Your comments allow us to improve the paper.

We resctuctured text needs. Section 2 is divided into subsections.

We refined the paper contribution (l99-116).

The architecture of the neural network (Fig 5) is described in more detail. Trained process is detailed too

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting study with promising results. The authors compared different types of backbone networks for machine learning architectures which perform classification of knee MRI images.

Methods, results and conclusions are reported clearly and concisely.

English language and style are fine. However, the text would need some minor corrections and editing.

Detailed comments are provided in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you so much for your hard work!!! Your comments are very important to us.

We have restructured the paper, check your suggestions.

The main contribution is improved too. In addition, we have added more detailed information about the training process.