Title: Performance and comparison of artificial intelligence and human experts in the detection
and classification of colonic polyps
Version: 6 Date: 27 Oct 2022
Reviewer's report:
The authors refined Figures 3 and 4, and their captions. These make sense now.
However, the conclusions are still insufficient for the journal publication with the following
reasons.
1. Conclusions is too short.
2. What the authors tackle and what they clarified in this manuscript should be summarised.
3. The authors wrote “We find that AI has a high sensitivity and moderate specificity for polyp
detection and classification, which is similar to that of human experts, and can be used as an
assistant tool,” but this is not coincident to the results shown by Figures and incorrect claim.
3-1. In the refined Figures 4a and 4b, many of blue circles express acceptable middle-accuracy
specificities and inacceptable low-accuracy sensitivities for the detection task.
3-2. The authors should conclude this manuscript by showing their insights obtained from the
results of their survey and comparisons. For example, what is the difference between polyp
classification and polyp detection task in colonoscopy? How difficult these tasks are or how
difficult the construction of AI model of these tasks are? Actually, these tasks result in different
distributions in Figures 4a and 4b.
Title: Performance and comparison of artificial intelligence and human experts in the detection
and classification of colonic polyps
Version: 6 Date: 27 Oct 2022
Reviewer's report:
The authors refined Figures 3 and 4, and their captions. These make sense now.
However, the conclusions are still insufficient for the journal publication with the following
reasons.
1. Conclusions is too short.
2. What the authors tackle and what they clarified in this manuscript should be summarised.
3. The authors wrote “We find that AI has a high sensitivity and moderate specificity for polyp
detection and classification, which is similar to that of human experts, and can be used as an
assistant tool,” but this is not coincident to the results shown by Figures and incorrect claim.
3-1. In the refined Figures 4a and 4b, many of blue circles express acceptable middle-accuracy
specificities and inacceptable low-accuracy sensitivities for the detection task.
3-2. The authors should conclude this manuscript by showing their insights obtained from the
results of their survey and comparisons. For example, what is the difference between polyp
classification and polyp detection task in colonoscopy? How difficult these tasks are or how
difficult the construction of AI model of these tasks are? Actually, these tasks result in different
distributions in Figures 4a and 4b.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Performance and comparison of artificial intelligence and human experts in the detection
and classification of colonic polyps
Version: 6 Date: 27 Oct 2022
Reviewer's report:
The authors refined Figures 3 and 4, and their captions. These make sense now.
However, the conclusions are still insufficient for the journal publication with the following
reasons.
1. Conclusions is too short.
2. What the authors tackle and what they clarified in this manuscript should be summarised.
3. The authors wrote “We find that AI has a high sensitivity and moderate specificity for polyp
detection and classification, which is similar to that of human experts, and can be used as an
assistant tool,” but this is not coincident to the results shown by Figures and incorrect claim.
3-1. In the refined Figures 4a and 4b, many of blue circles express acceptable middle-accuracy
specificities and inacceptable low-accuracy sensitivities for the detection task.
3-2. The authors should conclude this manuscript by showing their insights obtained from the
results of their survey and comparisons. For example, what is the difference between polyp
classification and polyp detection task in colonoscopy? How difficult these tasks are or how
difficult the construction of AI model of these tasks are? Actually, these tasks result in different
distributions in Figures 4a and 4b.
assistant