NJN: A Dataset for the Normal and Jaundiced Newborns

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is poorly written. 

The introduction and discussion are not properly explained.

The material and method did not explain in an elaborate manner how to use these datasets for Artificial Intelligence research.

The article is very succinct. It should properly explain the data and usage.

Please use Grammarly and consult an English native speaker to ameliorate the language of the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

We extend our heartfelt appreciation for your invaluable comments and suggestions. We are pleased to have incorporated your recommendations, as we firmly believe they contribute to the strength of our manuscript. In response to your insightful feedback, we have addressed each of your comments and made necessary corrections to the manuscript to the best of our ability. The amendments have been indicated in the revised version by highlighting them in yellow.

We are confident that the revised manuscript now adheres to the publication's requirements, thanks to your invaluable input. We are sincerely grateful for the time and effort you have invested in reviewing our work.

 

Best regards,

 

Authors

Comments and Suggestions for Authors:

• The article is poorly written.

# We extend our sincere gratitude for your invaluable commentary, and we have undertaken the task of rephrasing the manuscript accordingly.

 

• The introduction and discussion are not properly explained.

# We express our appreciation for your significant remarks, and we have made the necessary revisions in response. Specifically, we have made modifications to the introduction, located on page 1, line 29 (highlighted in yellow), and have incorporated a new section entitled "Results and discussion," which can be found on page 7, line 243 (highlighted in yellow).

 

• The material and method did not explain in an elaborate manner how to use these datasets for Artificial Intelligence research.

# In compliance with this suggestion, we have implemented the recommended changes to the material and methods section, elucidating the machine learning techniques employed in this investigation along with their corresponding performance. These revisions can be found across pages 4, 5, 6, and 7, encompassing lines 139 through 242 (added subsection titles highlighted in yellow).

 

• The article is very succinct. It should properly explain the data and usage.

# We express our gratitude for your valuable comment. It is important to note that we have duly incorporated your suggestion by making revisions to various sections of the manuscript. Specifically, we have modified the introduction, located on page 1, line 29 (highlighted in yellow), and the Methods and Materials section, found on page 3, line 112 (highlighted in yellow). Additionally, we have introduced new sections titled "Results and Discussion" on page 7, line 243, and "Conclusion" on page 9, line 322 (highlighted in yellow).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

• Please use Grammarly and consult an English native speaker to ameliorate the language of the manuscript.

# We extend our genuine gratitude for your invaluable feedback and suggestion concerning the linguistic quality of our manuscript. We have diligently employed the Grammarly tool to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of our work. Moreover, we have actively sought the assistance and knowledge of a proficient English native speaker, complementing our efforts to enhance the language proficiency of the manuscript.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

 

Dear Author,

 

The data descriptor manuscript “NJN: A Dataset for the Normal and Jaundiced Newborns” contains data of unique value that could be used by other researchers to make new model or use as independent dataset to validate pre-existing AI model.

Manuscript is interesting however, is very confusing. Here are some recommendations for the authors to clear out the confusions.

 

1.     In abstract section line 17, age range is mentioned as 2 to 8 days but in method section line 103, it mentions 2 to 6 days. There is discrepancy.

2.     Line 89 says, 670 infant images (560 normal and 200 jaundiced). Not sure if the total is 760 or the number of normal images is different.

3.     In Table 1, it says “500 aseptic normal and jaundiced neonates.” However, in line 103, it says 600 newborns.

 

In addition to that, manuscript fails to comment upon the heterogeneity of the data such as ethnicity, threshold values that was used to diagnose the newborn as jaundiced, and the limitations of proposed conclusions.

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

We extend our deepest gratitude for your encouraging and highly valuable comments. Your suggestions have been of immense importance to us, as they have greatly contributed to the improvement of our manuscript. We have carefully considered and implemented your recommendations as outlined below, making the necessary revisions to the best of our ability. We believe that the revised version of the manuscript now aligns with the publication's requirements.

All amendments made to the manuscript have been highlighted in yellow for easy identification.

We would like to express our sincere appreciation for the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our work. Your input has been invaluable, and we are grateful for your contribution.

Thank you once again for your invaluable feedback.

 

Authors

 

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

• In abstract section line 17, age range is mentioned as 2 to 8 days but in method section line 103, it mentions 2 to 6 days. There is discrepancy.

# We deeply appreciate your insightful comments, which we have taken into careful consideration. We have made the necessary corrections as suggested on page 1, line 18 and page 3, line 114. Your valuable feedback has greatly contributed to the improvement of our manuscript.

• Line 89 says, 670 infant images (560 normal and 200 jaundiced). Not sure if the total is 760 or the number of normal images is different.

# We express our gratitude for your invaluable comments and regret for the typographical error. We have rectified the mistake and updated the correct number as per your observation on page 3, line 127. Your valuable feedback has greatly contributed to the accuracy and integrity of our manuscript.

 

• In Table 1, it says “500 aseptic normal and jaundiced neonates.” However, in line 103, it says 600 newborns.

# We extend our sincere appreciation for your significant remarks, which have proven invaluable to the refinement of our manuscript. We also offer our apologies for the typographical error and assure you that the correct number has been duly updated as per your observation. The necessary corrections have been made on page 3, line 114, and in Table 1 on page 4. Your diligent feedback has greatly contributed to the accuracy and thoroughness of our work.

 

• In addition to that, manuscript fails to comment upon the heterogeneity of the data such as ethnicity, threshold values that was used to diagnose the newborn as jaundiced, and the limitations of proposed conclusions.

# We express our appreciation for your noteworthy remarks. Based on our investigation, we have identified distinct criteria for normal and jaundiced infants in both the RGB and YCbCr color models. For normal infants, the B component channel value in the RGB color model falls within the range of 101 to 200, while in the YCbCr color model, the Cb component exhibits values greater than or equal to 101. Conversely, for jaundiced infants, the B component channel value in the RGB color model ranges from 30 to 100, and in the YCbCr color model, the Cb component demonstrates values lower than or equal to 100. These findings enable us to differentiate between normal and jaundiced infants based on specific color model thresholds. Your astute observations have greatly contributed to our understanding of this subject matter.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

• Moderate editing of English language required.

# We would like to express our sincere appreciation for your invaluable feedback and insightful suggestion regarding the linguistic quality of our manuscript. In our earnest endeavor to ensure high-quality language usage, we have conscientiously utilized the Grammarly tool to conduct a thorough evaluation of our work.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revision seems to address the points.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Many thanks, we sincerely appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our work.

Best regards,

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The data presented in this manuscript (as data descriptor) could be useful for other researchers. All my previous comment are addressed.

Minor editing of figures is required.

For eg:

 

1. On page 5 Figure3, the proper convention would be "Final Class" instead of "Final Decision", as the previous naming convention in the figure is Class 1 and Class 2.
2. Similarly, on the same figure it is written Class 1, Class 2 and again Class 2 and Class 1, but it is incorrect. It should be Class 1 , Class 2, Class 3 and Class N.
3. Figure-2 is not intutive, authors need to revise the figure2.

 

Minor editing is still required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

We express our sincere gratitude for your invaluable feedback. We are pleased to have incorporated your suggestions, as we believe they strengthen our manuscript. In response to your comments, we have diligently made the necessary revisions and corrections to the best of our ability. We are confident that the revised manuscript now fulfills the requirements for publication.

Once again, we sincerely appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our work.

Yours sincerely,

Authors

 

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

1. On page 5 Figure3, the proper convention would be "Final Class" instead of "Final Decision", as the previous naming convention in the figure is Class 1 and Class 2..

# We extend our gratitude for your invaluable comment. In accordance with your request, we have implemented the necessary corrections to Figure 3 on page 5.

 

2. Similarly, on the same figure it is written Class 1, Class 2 and again Class 2 and Class 1, but it is incorrect. It should be Class 1 , Class 2, Class 3 and Class N.

# We greatly appreciate your valuable comment. As per your request, we have diligently made the required corrections to Figure 3 on page 5.

 

3. Figure-2 is not intutive, authors need to revise the figure2.

# We would like to express our gratitude for your valuable comment. In accordance with your request, we have appropriately updated the figure while ensuring proper citation.

  

Comments on the Quality of English Language

# We sincerely appreciate your insightful comment. In response to your feedback, we have taken significant steps to enhance the overall English language quality of the manuscript. To achieve this, we utilized the Grammarly tool and sought assistance from a proficient native English speaker.