Reviewer's report
Title:Using an oblique incident laser beam to measure the optical properties of
stomach mucosa/submucosa tissue
Version: 1Date:18 June 2008
Reviewer: Gregory M. Palmer
Reviewer's report:
Major Concerns:
1. The differences in the optical properties of healthy and diseased tissues are of
major implication to the detection and treatment of cancers. Here the authors
present data on the absorption coefficient, reduced scattering coefficient, optical
penetration depth, diffusion coefficient, diffuse reflectance, and shifts in diffuse
reflectance in normal tissue under illumination from five different monochromatic
sources. However, the authors do not examine the optical properties of diseased
tissue. Insight into how these optical properties change with disease progression
would be invaluable to the advancement of optical detection and treatment
techniques. Lacking these data, the determination of the optical properties of
normal tissue alone is of limited value. In addition, freezing and thawing tissue
causes significant changes in the optical properties, so it is likely that the
reported values are not reflective of those found in vivo.
2. There is insufficient information on how the optical properties of the tissue
were derived. The authors describe the experimental setup, and present a
number of equations, but it is not straightforward how images collected from the
CCD were used to derive optical properties.
3. The discussion section merely describes the data already presented in the
figures. The statistics that the authors chose to present (such as the minimum
and maximum difference between an optical parameter at different wavelengths)
are not particularly meaningful. The authors also repeat the same five sentences
when presenting results for the various parameters, simply changing the
numerical values where necessary. This makes the results section long and
difficult to read, and leaves the reader with the sense that the authors are
padding their results for lack of relevant data.
4. The conclusion section is merely a rewording of the same data presented in
the discussion section. The authors make no attempt to explain the derived data,
and do not address its significance.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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:Using an oblique incident laser beam to measure the optical properties of
stomach mucosa/submucosa tissue
Version: 1Date:18 June 2008
Reviewer: Gregory M. Palmer
Reviewer's report:
Major Concerns:
1. The differences in the optical properties of healthy and diseased tissues are of
major implication to the detection and treatment of cancers. Here the authors
present data on the absorption coefficient, reduced scattering coefficient, optical
penetration depth, diffusion coefficient, diffuse reflectance, and shifts in diffuse
reflectance in normal tissue under illumination from five different monochromatic
sources. However, the authors do not examine the optical properties of diseased
tissue. Insight into how these optical properties change with disease progression
would be invaluable to the advancement of optical detection and treatment
techniques. Lacking these data, the determination of the optical properties of
normal tissue alone is of limited value. In addition, freezing and thawing tissue
causes significant changes in the optical properties, so it is likely that the
reported values are not reflective of those found in vivo.
2. There is insufficient information on how the optical properties of the tissue
were derived. The authors describe the experimental setup, and present a
number of equations, but it is not straightforward how images collected from the
CCD were used to derive optical properties.
3. The discussion section merely describes the data already presented in the
figures. The statistics that the authors chose to present (such as the minimum
and maximum difference between an optical parameter at different wavelengths)
are not particularly meaningful. The authors also repeat the same five sentences
when presenting results for the various parameters, simply changing the
numerical values where necessary. This makes the results section long and
difficult to read, and leaves the reader with the sense that the authors are
padding their results for lack of relevant data.
4. The conclusion section is merely a rewording of the same data presented in
the discussion section. The authors make no attempt to explain the derived data,
and do not address its significance.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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:Using an oblique incident laser beam to measure the optical properties of
stomach mucosa/submucosa tissue
Version: 1Date:18 June 2008
Reviewer: Gregory M. Palmer
Reviewer's report:
Major Concerns:
1. The differences in the optical properties of healthy and diseased tissues are of
major implication to the detection and treatment of cancers. Here the authors
present data on the absorption coefficient, reduced scattering coefficient, optical
penetration depth, diffusion coefficient, diffuse reflectance, and shifts in diffuse
reflectance in normal tissue under illumination from five different monochromatic
sources. However, the authors do not examine the optical properties of diseased
tissue. Insight into how these optical properties change with disease progression
would be invaluable to the advancement of optical detection and treatment
techniques. Lacking these data, the determination of the optical properties of
normal tissue alone is of limited value. In addition, freezing and thawing tissue
causes significant changes in the optical properties, so it is likely that the
reported values are not reflective of those found in vivo.
2. There is insufficient information on how the optical properties of the tissue
were derived. The authors describe the experimental setup, and present a
number of equations, but it is not straightforward how images collected from the
CCD were used to derive optical properties.
3. The discussion section merely describes the data already presented in the
figures. The statistics that the authors chose to present (such as the minimum
and maximum difference between an optical parameter at different wavelengths)
are not particularly meaningful. The authors also repeat the same five sentences
when presenting results for the various parameters, simply changing the
numerical values where necessary. This makes the results section long and
difficult to read, and leaves the reader with the sense that the authors are
padding their results for lack of relevant data.
4. The conclusion section is merely a rewording of the same data presented in
the discussion section. The authors make no attempt to explain the derived data,
and do not address its significance.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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