Title: Quantitative assessment of the microstructure of the mesorectum with different prognostic
statuses by intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighed magnetic resonance imaging
Version: 0 Date: 12 Sep 2022
Reviewer's report:
The current study investigates the use of intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) parameters
obtained from diffusion-weighted MR images for their potential to differentiate between rectal
tumor patients groups with different prognostic status.
The manuscript is well written and the study appears to be well done. A few minor points should,
however, be considered as described below.
1. There are a few spelling/grammar mistakes: in the abtract rectal should be rectum and recruited
should be added or acquired. In the background "feasibly assess" should maybe be "able to
assess"? In the caption of figure 4 mesoretum should be mesorectum. In results mederate should
be moderate.
2. "orthogonal axial" to describe the orientation of T2- and T1-weighted imaging stacks are not
well established nomenclature. Should it be oblique?
3. No need to report the slice thickness separately in table 1 as it is given as part of the voxel size.
4. "f is the fraction of diffusion linked to microcirculation" should be "f is the fraction of the
signal linked to microcirculation"
5. Just to be sure: did the first step in the ivim parameter estimation include b = 200 s/mm2 or not?
6. The authors might want to consider using median (iqr) for all data presented in tables 3 and
4 to improve comparability between groups.
7. The meaning of the p-values for the inter-observer measures should be written out.
Title: Quantitative assessment of the microstructure of the mesorectum with different prognostic
statuses by intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighed magnetic resonance imaging
Version: 0 Date: 12 Sep 2022
Reviewer's report:
The current study investigates the use of intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) parameters
obtained from diffusion-weighted MR images for their potential to differentiate between rectal
tumor patients groups with different prognostic status.
The manuscript is well written and the study appears to be well done. A few minor points should,
however, be considered as described below.
1. There are a few spelling/grammar mistakes: in the abtract rectal should be rectum and recruited
should be added or acquired. In the background "feasibly assess" should maybe be "able to
assess"? In the caption of figure 4 mesoretum should be mesorectum. In results mederate should
be moderate.
2. "orthogonal axial" to describe the orientation of T2- and T1-weighted imaging stacks are not
well established nomenclature. Should it be oblique?
3. No need to report the slice thickness separately in table 1 as it is given as part of the voxel size.
4. "f is the fraction of diffusion linked to microcirculation" should be "f is the fraction of the
signal linked to microcirculation"
5. Just to be sure: did the first step in the ivim parameter estimation include b = 200 s/mm2 or not?
6. The authors might want to consider using median (iqr) for all data presented in tables 3 and
4 to improve comparability between groups.
7. The meaning of the p-values for the inter-observer measures should be written out.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Quantitative assessment of the microstructure of the mesorectum with different prognostic
statuses by intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighed magnetic resonance imaging
Version: 0 Date: 12 Sep 2022
Reviewer's report:
The current study investigates the use of intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) parameters
obtained from diffusion-weighted MR images for their potential to differentiate between rectal
tumor patients groups with different prognostic status.
The manuscript is well written and the study appears to be well done. A few minor points should,
however, be considered as described below.
1. There are a few spelling/grammar mistakes: in the abtract rectal should be rectum and recruited
should be added or acquired. In the background "feasibly assess" should maybe be "able to
assess"? In the caption of figure 4 mesoretum should be mesorectum. In results mederate should
be moderate.
2. "orthogonal axial" to describe the orientation of T2- and T1-weighted imaging stacks are not
well established nomenclature. Should it be oblique?
3. No need to report the slice thickness separately in table 1 as it is given as part of the voxel size.
4. "f is the fraction of diffusion linked to microcirculation" should be "f is the fraction of the
signal linked to microcirculation"
5. Just to be sure: did the first step in the ivim parameter estimation include b = 200 s/mm2 or not?
6. The authors might want to consider using median (iqr) for all data presented in tables 3 and
4 to improve comparability between groups.
7. The meaning of the p-values for the inter-observer measures should be written out.
assistant