Title: Performance and comparison of artificial intelligence and human experts in the detection
and classification of colonic polyps
Version: 0 Date: 13 Jul 2021
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript is not solid, and its real outcome is unclear. Some important works are missing
in survey and comparisons. This hinders the quality of this work. For examples, the following
literature is not presented in this manuscript.
Urban, G., Tripathi, P., Alkayali, T., Mittal, M., Jalali, F., Karnes, W., Baldi, P.,: ’Deep Learning
Localizes and
Identifies Polyps in Real Time With 96% Accuracy in Screening Colonoscopy’,
Gastroenterology, 2018, 155(4),
pp. 1069-1078.e8
Misawa M, Kudo S-E, Mori Y, Hotta K, Ohtsuka K, Matsuda T, Saito S, Kudo T, BaBa
T, Ishida F, Itoh H, Oda M, Mori K, Development of a computer-aided detection system
for colonoscopy and a publicly accessible large colonoscopy video database (with video).
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, first online 2020.
Furthermore, the authors misunderstood the existing work and used it for meta-analysis. The
following works is not the work of polyp detection, the work dedicated for pathological category
decision for the detected polyps. This implies that the authors do not fully read and understand
the papers that they cited.
30. Mori Y, Kudo SE, Misawa M, Saito Y, Ikematsu H, Hotta K, Ohtsuka K, Urushibara
F, Kataoka S, Ogawa Y et al: Real-Time Use of Artificial Intelligence in Identification of
Diminutive Polyps During Colonoscopy: A Prospective Study. Annals of internal medicine
2018, 169(6):357-366.
Moreover, the descriptions and explanations of Figure 3 is limited. What authors to claim is
unclear. Criteria of quality assessment presented in Figure 2 also looks subjective, even though
they used QUADAS-2. The detail descriptions and explanation should be presented.
Thus, unfortunately, I conclude that this manuscript is premature for the journal publication.
Minors:
Figures 2 is a low resolution image.
Figures 3 G,H, I have too small label fonts.
In Figure 2, there is no citation number of papers.
Title: Performance and comparison of artificial intelligence and human experts in the detection
and classification of colonic polyps
Version: 0 Date: 13 Jul 2021
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript is not solid, and its real outcome is unclear. Some important works are missing
in survey and comparisons. This hinders the quality of this work. For examples, the following
literature is not presented in this manuscript.
Urban, G., Tripathi, P., Alkayali, T., Mittal, M., Jalali, F., Karnes, W., Baldi, P.,: ’Deep Learning
Localizes and
Identifies Polyps in Real Time With 96% Accuracy in Screening Colonoscopy’,
Gastroenterology, 2018, 155(4),
pp. 1069-1078.e8
Misawa M, Kudo S-E, Mori Y, Hotta K, Ohtsuka K, Matsuda T, Saito S, Kudo T, BaBa
T, Ishida F, Itoh H, Oda M, Mori K, Development of a computer-aided detection system
for colonoscopy and a publicly accessible large colonoscopy video database (with video).
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, first online 2020.
Furthermore, the authors misunderstood the existing work and used it for meta-analysis. The
following works is not the work of polyp detection, the work dedicated for pathological category
decision for the detected polyps. This implies that the authors do not fully read and understand
the papers that they cited.
30. Mori Y, Kudo SE, Misawa M, Saito Y, Ikematsu H, Hotta K, Ohtsuka K, Urushibara
F, Kataoka S, Ogawa Y et al: Real-Time Use of Artificial Intelligence in Identification of
Diminutive Polyps During Colonoscopy: A Prospective Study. Annals of internal medicine
2018, 169(6):357-366.
Moreover, the descriptions and explanations of Figure 3 is limited. What authors to claim is
unclear. Criteria of quality assessment presented in Figure 2 also looks subjective, even though
they used QUADAS-2. The detail descriptions and explanation should be presented.
Thus, unfortunately, I conclude that this manuscript is premature for the journal publication.
Minors:
Figures 2 is a low resolution image.
Figures 3 G,H, I have too small label fonts.
In Figure 2, there is no citation number of papers.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Performance and comparison of artificial intelligence and human experts in the detection
and classification of colonic polyps
Version: 0 Date: 13 Jul 2021
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript is not solid, and its real outcome is unclear. Some important works are missing
in survey and comparisons. This hinders the quality of this work. For examples, the following
literature is not presented in this manuscript.
Urban, G., Tripathi, P., Alkayali, T., Mittal, M., Jalali, F., Karnes, W., Baldi, P.,: ’Deep Learning
Localizes and
Identifies Polyps in Real Time With 96% Accuracy in Screening Colonoscopy’,
Gastroenterology, 2018, 155(4),
pp. 1069-1078.e8
Misawa M, Kudo S-E, Mori Y, Hotta K, Ohtsuka K, Matsuda T, Saito S, Kudo T, BaBa
T, Ishida F, Itoh H, Oda M, Mori K, Development of a computer-aided detection system
for colonoscopy and a publicly accessible large colonoscopy video database (with video).
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, first online 2020.
Furthermore, the authors misunderstood the existing work and used it for meta-analysis. The
following works is not the work of polyp detection, the work dedicated for pathological category
decision for the detected polyps. This implies that the authors do not fully read and understand
the papers that they cited.
30. Mori Y, Kudo SE, Misawa M, Saito Y, Ikematsu H, Hotta K, Ohtsuka K, Urushibara
F, Kataoka S, Ogawa Y et al: Real-Time Use of Artificial Intelligence in Identification of
Diminutive Polyps During Colonoscopy: A Prospective Study. Annals of internal medicine
2018, 169(6):357-366.
Moreover, the descriptions and explanations of Figure 3 is limited. What authors to claim is
unclear. Criteria of quality assessment presented in Figure 2 also looks subjective, even though
they used QUADAS-2. The detail descriptions and explanation should be presented.
Thus, unfortunately, I conclude that this manuscript is premature for the journal publication.
Minors:
Figures 2 is a low resolution image.
Figures 3 G,H, I have too small label fonts.
In Figure 2, there is no citation number of papers.
assistant