Title: Iceball Growth 3D Simulation Model Based on Finite Element Method for Hepatic
Cryoablation Planning
Version: 1 Date: 11 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
The following points are addressed clearly:
(1) Density, heat capacity, and conductivity for tumors separately given
(2) The Arrhenius model is added for computing the amount of dead cells.
(3) MAE, HD, and DSC values are computed properly and authors provided good justifications.
However, the revised article has the following confusion which has to be clearly addressed.
The article leads to more confusion now with respect to vasculature and blood perfusion. The
initial paper by the author did not include Equations given in line numbers 261 and 262 whereas
the current one includes that, but no details of the omega_b are specified in table 1. However,
the author claims that the blood perfusion and metabolic heat generation were eliminated in ex
vivo simulations (Line numbers:  357 and 358).  Another text states that
The heat-sink effect of blood vessels was simulated based on the combination of the fluid
dynamic equation and the heat transfer equation (257 and 258). Equations represented in
233, 261, and 262 are misleading, which equation is exactly used? Different parts of the text
claim different models. Further, without introducing any vasculature on the domain, the usage
of equations represented in 267 and 268 is meaningless. The value of Pressure,  viscosity
of the blood, and volume force are left without any further details or their impact on the
simulation. These equations are useful only when vasculature is present. The article lacks in the
mathematical model part or misleads on incorrect model with simulations.
The following points are still missing which could be addressed:
Since the blood perfusion is added to the model, the value of omega_b is missing in the entire
context. If omega_b and Q_m are assumed to be zero, this boils down to a simple model without
the effect of blood vessels.  So, the model has to be corrected.  Whether any vessel is present
near the tumor or not is not clear. A large vessel present near the tumor has more impact on the
lesion size. Therefore, the authors are requested to change the model appropriately with proper
values specified for each parameter given in the model.
Title: Iceball Growth 3D Simulation Model Based on Finite Element Method for Hepatic
Cryoablation Planning
Version: 1 Date: 11 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
The following points are addressed clearly:
(1) Density, heat capacity, and conductivity for tumors separately given
(2) The Arrhenius model is added for computing the amount of dead cells.
(3) MAE, HD, and DSC values are computed properly and authors provided good justifications.
However, the revised article has the following confusion which has to be clearly addressed.
The article leads to more confusion now with respect to vasculature and blood perfusion. The
initial paper by the author did not include Equations given in line numbers 261 and 262 whereas
the current one includes that, but no details of the omega_b are specified in table 1. However,
the author claims that the blood perfusion and metabolic heat generation were eliminated in ex
vivo simulations (Line numbers:  357 and 358).  Another text states that
The heat-sink effect of blood vessels was simulated based on the combination of the fluid
dynamic equation and the heat transfer equation (257 and 258). Equations represented in
233, 261, and 262 are misleading, which equation is exactly used? Different parts of the text
claim different models. Further, without introducing any vasculature on the domain, the usage
of equations represented in 267 and 268 is meaningless. The value of Pressure,  viscosity
of the blood, and volume force are left without any further details or their impact on the
simulation. These equations are useful only when vasculature is present. The article lacks in the
mathematical model part or misleads on incorrect model with simulations.
The following points are still missing which could be addressed:
Since the blood perfusion is added to the model, the value of omega_b is missing in the entire
context. If omega_b and Q_m are assumed to be zero, this boils down to a simple model without
the effect of blood vessels.  So, the model has to be corrected.  Whether any vessel is present
near the tumor or not is not clear. A large vessel present near the tumor has more impact on the
lesion size. Therefore, the authors are requested to change the model appropriately with proper
values specified for each parameter given in the model.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Iceball Growth 3D Simulation Model Based on Finite Element Method for Hepatic
Cryoablation Planning
Version: 1 Date: 11 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
The following points are addressed clearly:
(1) Density, heat capacity, and conductivity for tumors separately given
(2) The Arrhenius model is added for computing the amount of dead cells.
(3) MAE, HD, and DSC values are computed properly and authors provided good justifications.
However, the revised article has the following confusion which has to be clearly addressed.
The article leads to more confusion now with respect to vasculature and blood perfusion. The
initial paper by the author did not include Equations given in line numbers 261 and 262 whereas
the current one includes that, but no details of the omega_b are specified in table 1. However,
the author claims that the blood perfusion and metabolic heat generation were eliminated in ex
vivo simulations (Line numbers:  357 and 358).  Another text states that
The heat-sink effect of blood vessels was simulated based on the combination of the fluid
dynamic equation and the heat transfer equation (257 and 258). Equations represented in
233, 261, and 262 are misleading, which equation is exactly used? Different parts of the text
claim different models. Further, without introducing any vasculature on the domain, the usage
of equations represented in 267 and 268 is meaningless. The value of Pressure,  viscosity
of the blood, and volume force are left without any further details or their impact on the
simulation. These equations are useful only when vasculature is present. The article lacks in the
mathematical model part or misleads on incorrect model with simulations.
The following points are still missing which could be addressed:
Since the blood perfusion is added to the model, the value of omega_b is missing in the entire
context. If omega_b and Q_m are assumed to be zero, this boils down to a simple model without
the effect of blood vessels.  So, the model has to be corrected.  Whether any vessel is present
near the tumor or not is not clear. A large vessel present near the tumor has more impact on the
lesion size. Therefore, the authors are requested to change the model appropriately with proper
values specified for each parameter given in the model.
assistant