Reviewer's report
Title:Evaluation of dual-wavelength excitation autofluorescence imaging of
colorectal tumours with a high-sensitivity CMOS imager: a cross-sectional study
Version:1Date:8 April 2015
Reviewer: Zhen Tian
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions:
I have two major concerns. One is about the efficacy gain of this dual-wavelength
excitation autofluorescence imaging method. The other is about the reliability of
the findings.
For my first concern: the authors claim that the big disadvantage of the AFI
method is its high false-positive rate and low specificity of 35%. 15-32% of
colorectal adenomas were missed by colonoscopy. That’s the major motivation
for the authors to develop a new imager and propose to use dual wavelength
excitation method. While, in their results, 86.2% of the Adenoma/M-ca ratio
images were considered as high signal group. Compared to the 15% value
mentioned above for AFI, the new method doesn’t show much improvement in
sensitivity (true positive rate). On the other hand, the authors didn’t do any
experiments and analysis on the false positive rate and true negative rate for the
new method. Without these values, I cannot reach the conclusion that the new
method outperforms the AFI method in order to justify the relevance of this
manuscript.
For my second concern: The ratio images were categorized into high signal
images and no signal images by only one gastroenterologist. What’s the intensity
threshold the gastroenterologist used to differentiate the high signal images and
no signal images? Whether a very different category result may be achieved by
another gastroenterologist? If a similar result cannot be repeated by another
gastroenterologist, then the analysis and conclusion based on this result is not
reliable.
Minor essential revisions:
Line 157: “Clinicians are able image colorectal lesions in detail”. There should be
a grammar mistake. Consider revising this sentence.
Line 200: “can be emitted light using …” should be “can emit light …”
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Evaluation of dual-wavelength excitation autofluorescence imaging of
colorectal tumours with a high-sensitivity CMOS imager: a cross-sectional study
Version:1Date:8 April 2015
Reviewer: Zhen Tian
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions:
I have two major concerns. One is about the efficacy gain of this dual-wavelength
excitation autofluorescence imaging method. The other is about the reliability of
the findings.
For my first concern: the authors claim that the big disadvantage of the AFI
method is its high false-positive rate and low specificity of 35%. 15-32% of
colorectal adenomas were missed by colonoscopy. That’s the major motivation
for the authors to develop a new imager and propose to use dual wavelength
excitation method. While, in their results, 86.2% of the Adenoma/M-ca ratio
images were considered as high signal group. Compared to the 15% value
mentioned above for AFI, the new method doesn’t show much improvement in
sensitivity (true positive rate). On the other hand, the authors didn’t do any
experiments and analysis on the false positive rate and true negative rate for the
new method. Without these values, I cannot reach the conclusion that the new
method outperforms the AFI method in order to justify the relevance of this
manuscript.
For my second concern: The ratio images were categorized into high signal
images and no signal images by only one gastroenterologist. What’s the intensity
threshold the gastroenterologist used to differentiate the high signal images and
no signal images? Whether a very different category result may be achieved by
another gastroenterologist? If a similar result cannot be repeated by another
gastroenterologist, then the analysis and conclusion based on this result is not
reliable.
Minor essential revisions:
Line 157: “Clinicians are able image colorectal lesions in detail”. There should be
a grammar mistake. Consider revising this sentence.
Line 200: “can be emitted light using …” should be “can emit light …”
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Evaluation of dual-wavelength excitation autofluorescence imaging of
colorectal tumours with a high-sensitivity CMOS imager: a cross-sectional study
Version:1Date:8 April 2015
Reviewer: Zhen Tian
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions:
I have two major concerns. One is about the efficacy gain of this dual-wavelength
excitation autofluorescence imaging method. The other is about the reliability of
the findings.
For my first concern: the authors claim that the big disadvantage of the AFI
method is its high false-positive rate and low specificity of 35%. 15-32% of
colorectal adenomas were missed by colonoscopy. That’s the major motivation
for the authors to develop a new imager and propose to use dual wavelength
excitation method. While, in their results, 86.2% of the Adenoma/M-ca ratio
images were considered as high signal group. Compared to the 15% value
mentioned above for AFI, the new method doesn’t show much improvement in
sensitivity (true positive rate). On the other hand, the authors didn’t do any
experiments and analysis on the false positive rate and true negative rate for the
new method. Without these values, I cannot reach the conclusion that the new
method outperforms the AFI method in order to justify the relevance of this
manuscript.
For my second concern: The ratio images were categorized into high signal
images and no signal images by only one gastroenterologist. What’s the intensity
threshold the gastroenterologist used to differentiate the high signal images and
no signal images? Whether a very different category result may be achieved by
another gastroenterologist? If a similar result cannot be repeated by another
gastroenterologist, then the analysis and conclusion based on this result is not
reliable.
Minor essential revisions:
Line 157: “Clinicians are able image colorectal lesions in detail”. There should be
a grammar mistake. Consider revising this sentence.
Line 200: “can be emitted light using …” should be “can emit light …”
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
assistant