Title: Ultrasound Radiomics-Based Logistic Regression Model for Fibrotic NASH
Version: 4 Date: 01 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
1. I agree with the observations of the previous reviewers that it is crucial to provide additional
details regarding the translation of the rat model to human subjects. Unfortunately, the revised
manuscript does not address this concern adequately. Furthermore, no retrospective analyses
of clinical ultrasound scans, as suggested by Reviewer #1, were included. These omissions
significantly weaken the manuscript and make it difficult to generalize the proposed model to
clinical practice.
2. In the subsection on Ultrasound Data Acquisition, the authors stated: "In the 2D-SWE mode,
the adjacent liver-kidney section is selected, and liver and kidney elasticity values are measured
to calculate the liver-to-kidney elasticity ratio." This approach is not commonly employed
in clinical practice. Could the authors clarify why they chose to use the "elasticity ratio" in
this context? Additionally, are there any references supporting the use of this ratio in clinical
settings? Upon reviewing reference #40 (Zhang et al.), it seems that the hepatic/renal ratio in
their study was derived from grayscale intensities rather than elasticity measurements. If the
authors intend to use the elasticity ratio, could they explain how the region of interest (ROI) is
placed in the kidney? Is there an established protocol or guideline for this measurement?
3. The Discussion section would benefit from further refinement in terms of logical flow. For
instance, in the first paragraph, the phrase "As of September 2019..." is used. Could the authors
clarify the rationale for citing PubMed research results specifically from September 2019? It
would be helpful to explain why this time frame was selected.
4. It is intriguing that the authors have included the SWE values, which are part of the Ultrasound
Data Acquisition, in the "clinical model" rather than the "radiomics model". The "radiomics
model", as described, was constructed solely based on B-mode ultrasound images. Could the
authors please clarify the rationale for this choice? Additionally, do the settings of the B-mode
ultrasound have any impact on the feature extraction and selection process? If so, how did the
authors account for or minimize this potential impact?
Title: Ultrasound Radiomics-Based Logistic Regression Model for Fibrotic NASH
Version: 4 Date: 01 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
1. I agree with the observations of the previous reviewers that it is crucial to provide additional
details regarding the translation of the rat model to human subjects. Unfortunately, the revised
manuscript does not address this concern adequately. Furthermore, no retrospective analyses
of clinical ultrasound scans, as suggested by Reviewer #1, were included. These omissions
significantly weaken the manuscript and make it difficult to generalize the proposed model to
clinical practice.
2. In the subsection on Ultrasound Data Acquisition, the authors stated: "In the 2D-SWE mode,
the adjacent liver-kidney section is selected, and liver and kidney elasticity values are measured
to calculate the liver-to-kidney elasticity ratio." This approach is not commonly employed
in clinical practice. Could the authors clarify why they chose to use the "elasticity ratio" in
this context? Additionally, are there any references supporting the use of this ratio in clinical
settings? Upon reviewing reference #40 (Zhang et al.), it seems that the hepatic/renal ratio in
their study was derived from grayscale intensities rather than elasticity measurements. If the
authors intend to use the elasticity ratio, could they explain how the region of interest (ROI) is
placed in the kidney? Is there an established protocol or guideline for this measurement?
3. The Discussion section would benefit from further refinement in terms of logical flow. For
instance, in the first paragraph, the phrase "As of September 2019..." is used. Could the authors
clarify the rationale for citing PubMed research results specifically from September 2019? It
would be helpful to explain why this time frame was selected.
4. It is intriguing that the authors have included the SWE values, which are part of the Ultrasound
Data Acquisition, in the "clinical model" rather than the "radiomics model". The "radiomics
model", as described, was constructed solely based on B-mode ultrasound images. Could the
authors please clarify the rationale for this choice? Additionally, do the settings of the B-mode
ultrasound have any impact on the feature extraction and selection process? If so, how did the
authors account for or minimize this potential impact?
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Ultrasound Radiomics-Based Logistic Regression Model for Fibrotic NASH
Version: 4 Date: 01 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
1. I agree with the observations of the previous reviewers that it is crucial to provide additional
details regarding the translation of the rat model to human subjects. Unfortunately, the revised
manuscript does not address this concern adequately. Furthermore, no retrospective analyses
of clinical ultrasound scans, as suggested by Reviewer #1, were included. These omissions
significantly weaken the manuscript and make it difficult to generalize the proposed model to
clinical practice.
2. In the subsection on Ultrasound Data Acquisition, the authors stated: "In the 2D-SWE mode,
the adjacent liver-kidney section is selected, and liver and kidney elasticity values are measured
to calculate the liver-to-kidney elasticity ratio." This approach is not commonly employed
in clinical practice. Could the authors clarify why they chose to use the "elasticity ratio" in
this context? Additionally, are there any references supporting the use of this ratio in clinical
settings? Upon reviewing reference #40 (Zhang et al.), it seems that the hepatic/renal ratio in
their study was derived from grayscale intensities rather than elasticity measurements. If the
authors intend to use the elasticity ratio, could they explain how the region of interest (ROI) is
placed in the kidney? Is there an established protocol or guideline for this measurement?
3. The Discussion section would benefit from further refinement in terms of logical flow. For
instance, in the first paragraph, the phrase "As of September 2019..." is used. Could the authors
clarify the rationale for citing PubMed research results specifically from September 2019? It
would be helpful to explain why this time frame was selected.
4. It is intriguing that the authors have included the SWE values, which are part of the Ultrasound
Data Acquisition, in the "clinical model" rather than the "radiomics model". The "radiomics
model", as described, was constructed solely based on B-mode ultrasound images. Could the
authors please clarify the rationale for this choice? Additionally, do the settings of the B-mode
ultrasound have any impact on the feature extraction and selection process? If so, how did the
authors account for or minimize this potential impact?
assistant