Reviewer's report
Title:The Gastrointestinal Electrical Mapping Suite (GEMS): Software for
analyzing and visualizing high-resolution (multi-electrode) recordings in
spatiotemporal detail
Version: 3Date:2 March 2012
Reviewer: Gloria Millaray Curilem
Reviewer's report:
- Minor Essential Revisions
I suggest to eliminate the Conclusions section, as it provides no further
information and to entitle the “Discussion” section as “Discussion and
conclusions”.
page 3, first line: it is said: “designed to be being used by non-experts in
data and signal processing,”, I suggest “designed to be used by non-experts
in…”
Fist line of page 12, it is said: “The default method for velocity field
calculation in GEMS is a finite difference approach that incorporates added
interpolation and Gaussian filter smoothing functions [15].” I think that the
word “added” should be eliminated.
Fist line of table 1: It is said: “Reduce baseline wander and high-frequency
noise from signals.” I suggest using the word “drift” instead of “wander”…
I suggest changing the section title: “Qualitative Validation and Case
Example” by “System application” and to comment how this contributes to a
qualitative validation in the discussion section. This because one application
cannot be considered as a validation per se… I suggest to emphasize in the
discussion the quantitative and qualitative validation of the porposed system.
In the second paragraph of the Discussion section of page 19: “The most
significant value of GEMS is that it allows for substantial gains in
efficiency and productivity, by automating laborious functions and
quantitative analyses that must otherwise be performed manually.” I suggest
referencing Table 1.
- Discretionary Revisions
In the last paragraph of page 3 it is said that: “This method involves the
placement of spatially-dense arrays of many electrodes over a gut segment,...”.
Is the system able to process electrogastrographical signals that come from
cutaneous electrodes? Did you test this?
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Reviewer's report
Title:The Gastrointestinal Electrical Mapping Suite (GEMS): Software for
analyzing and visualizing high-resolution (multi-electrode) recordings in
spatiotemporal detail
Version: 3Date:2 March 2012
Reviewer: Gloria Millaray Curilem
Reviewer's report:
- Minor Essential Revisions
I suggest to eliminate the Conclusions section, as it provides no further
information and to entitle the “Discussion” section as “Discussion and
conclusions”.
page 3, first line: it is said: “designed to be being used by non-experts in
data and signal processing,”, I suggest “designed to be used by non-experts
in…”
Fist line of page 12, it is said: “The default method for velocity field
calculation in GEMS is a finite difference approach that incorporates added
interpolation and Gaussian filter smoothing functions [15].” I think that the
word “added” should be eliminated.
Fist line of table 1: It is said: “Reduce baseline wander and high-frequency
noise from signals.” I suggest using the word “drift” instead of “wander”…
I suggest changing the section title: “Qualitative Validation and Case
Example” by “System application” and to comment how this contributes to a
qualitative validation in the discussion section. This because one application
cannot be considered as a validation per se… I suggest to emphasize in the
discussion the quantitative and qualitative validation of the porposed system.
In the second paragraph of the Discussion section of page 19: “The most
significant value of GEMS is that it allows for substantial gains in
efficiency and productivity, by automating laborious functions and
quantitative analyses that must otherwise be performed manually.” I suggest
referencing Table 1.
- Discretionary Revisions
In the last paragraph of page 3 it is said that: “This method involves the
placement of spatially-dense arrays of many electrodes over a gut segment,...”.
Is the system able to process electrogastrographical signals that come from
cutaneous electrodes? Did you test this?
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:The Gastrointestinal Electrical Mapping Suite (GEMS): Software for
analyzing and visualizing high-resolution (multi-electrode) recordings in
spatiotemporal detail
Version: 3Date:2 March 2012
Reviewer: Gloria Millaray Curilem
Reviewer's report:
- Minor Essential Revisions
I suggest to eliminate the Conclusions section, as it provides no further
information and to entitle the “Discussion” section as “Discussion and
conclusions”.
page 3, first line: it is said: “designed to be being used by non-experts in
data and signal processing,”, I suggest “designed to be used by non-experts
in…”
Fist line of page 12, it is said: “The default method for velocity field
calculation in GEMS is a finite difference approach that incorporates added
interpolation and Gaussian filter smoothing functions [15].” I think that the
word “added” should be eliminated.
Fist line of table 1: It is said: “Reduce baseline wander and high-frequency
noise from signals.” I suggest using the word “drift” instead of “wander”…
I suggest changing the section title: “Qualitative Validation and Case
Example” by “System application” and to comment how this contributes to a
qualitative validation in the discussion section. This because one application
cannot be considered as a validation per se… I suggest to emphasize in the
discussion the quantitative and qualitative validation of the porposed system.
In the second paragraph of the Discussion section of page 19: “The most
significant value of GEMS is that it allows for substantial gains in
efficiency and productivity, by automating laborious functions and
quantitative analyses that must otherwise be performed manually.” I suggest
referencing Table 1.
- Discretionary Revisions
In the last paragraph of page 3 it is said that: “This method involves the
placement of spatially-dense arrays of many electrodes over a gut segment,...”.
Is the system able to process electrogastrographical signals that come from
cutaneous electrodes? Did you test this?
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
assistant