Title: Performance and comparison of artificial intelligence and human experts in the detection
and classification of colonic polyps
Version: 2 Date: 20 Jun 2022
Reviewer's report:
Some of authors’ feedbacks are off the point.
Modified Tables summarise the details of settings in existing works. However, I couldn’t
confirm valid modification in Figures 3A-F and 4A-C.
Differentiation of detection and classification in Figures are necessary for easy interpretation of
readers. For example, presenting different colour of circles (or different markers) for detection
and classification, respectively, might be effective. Even though the table summarise the details,
it is still hard to understand the full contents from only Figures. Furthermore, in Figure 4A,
which circle express which work? Moreover, what the sizes of circles express in Figures is still
unclear. In Figs 4A-C, how to plot curves from given points as circles. In Figs. 4A-C, the size
of characters is too small. In Fig. 3A, Reference [17] contains an unnecessary space in bracket.
Presentations of the manuscript should be refined for the journal publication.
In Conclusion, the authors describe ‘The lack of external validation may lead to overly optimistic
evaluation of model performance. It is necessary to develop new reporting standards for deep
learning to better evaluate model generalization.’ This is common sense in the field of pattern
recognition and machine learning, and not a new outcome. Furthermore, recent works in polyp
detection (even in a medical journal) reported public datasets for external evaluation. Moreover,
how did the authors introduce Conclusion from their analysis is unclear. Please present clear
logical flow and describe the real outcome of this work.
Please present the definition of ‘external validation’. The current descriptions are unclear.
The authors need English grammatical check over whole the manuscript. There are several
ambiguous and wired sentences.
Title: Performance and comparison of artificial intelligence and human experts in the detection
and classification of colonic polyps
Version: 2 Date: 20 Jun 2022
Reviewer's report:
Some of authors’ feedbacks are off the point.
Modified Tables summarise the details of settings in existing works. However, I couldn’t
confirm valid modification in Figures 3A-F and 4A-C.
Differentiation of detection and classification in Figures are necessary for easy interpretation of
readers. For example, presenting different colour of circles (or different markers) for detection
and classification, respectively, might be effective. Even though the table summarise the details,
it is still hard to understand the full contents from only Figures. Furthermore, in Figure 4A,
which circle express which work? Moreover, what the sizes of circles express in Figures is still
unclear. In Figs 4A-C, how to plot curves from given points as circles. In Figs. 4A-C, the size
of characters is too small. In Fig. 3A, Reference [17] contains an unnecessary space in bracket.
Presentations of the manuscript should be refined for the journal publication.
In Conclusion, the authors describe ‘The lack of external validation may lead to overly optimistic
evaluation of model performance. It is necessary to develop new reporting standards for deep
learning to better evaluate model generalization.’ This is common sense in the field of pattern
recognition and machine learning, and not a new outcome. Furthermore, recent works in polyp
detection (even in a medical journal) reported public datasets for external evaluation. Moreover,
how did the authors introduce Conclusion from their analysis is unclear. Please present clear
logical flow and describe the real outcome of this work.
Please present the definition of ‘external validation’. The current descriptions are unclear.
The authors need English grammatical check over whole the manuscript. There are several
ambiguous and wired sentences.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Performance and comparison of artificial intelligence and human experts in the detection
and classification of colonic polyps
Version: 2 Date: 20 Jun 2022
Reviewer's report:
Some of authors’ feedbacks are off the point.
Modified Tables summarise the details of settings in existing works. However, I couldn’t
confirm valid modification in Figures 3A-F and 4A-C.
Differentiation of detection and classification in Figures are necessary for easy interpretation of
readers. For example, presenting different colour of circles (or different markers) for detection
and classification, respectively, might be effective. Even though the table summarise the details,
it is still hard to understand the full contents from only Figures. Furthermore, in Figure 4A,
which circle express which work? Moreover, what the sizes of circles express in Figures is still
unclear. In Figs 4A-C, how to plot curves from given points as circles. In Figs. 4A-C, the size
of characters is too small. In Fig. 3A, Reference [17] contains an unnecessary space in bracket.
Presentations of the manuscript should be refined for the journal publication.
In Conclusion, the authors describe ‘The lack of external validation may lead to overly optimistic
evaluation of model performance. It is necessary to develop new reporting standards for deep
learning to better evaluate model generalization.’ This is common sense in the field of pattern
recognition and machine learning, and not a new outcome. Furthermore, recent works in polyp
detection (even in a medical journal) reported public datasets for external evaluation. Moreover,
how did the authors introduce Conclusion from their analysis is unclear. Please present clear
logical flow and describe the real outcome of this work.
Please present the definition of ‘external validation’. The current descriptions are unclear.
The authors need English grammatical check over whole the manuscript. There are several
ambiguous and wired sentences.
assistant