SummerSim 2016: Investigating the Fidelity of an Improvement-Assessment Tool After One Vacuum Bell Treatment Session - Reviewer Matthew Jacobson
Jacob Barhak
| Submission #99 | |
| Investigating the Fidelity of an Improvement-Assessment Tool After One Vacuum Bell Treatment Session | |
| Mohammad F. Obeid, Robert Obermeyer, Nahom Kidane, Robert Kelly and Frederic McKenzie | |
| Review 2 - Matthew Jacobson | |||||||
| |||||||
Comments While I find the idea in the paper interesting, I had difficulty locating the publishable contribution in the paper. Perhaps I'm simply missing things that other reviewers will catch better. If so, here are my suggestions for improvement: 1. The authors need to carefully justify selecting the method of manual measurement with cylindrical rulers as the ground truth against which their system is tested. This method is listed in their Introduction as having drawbacks in accuracy - drawbacks they seek to outperform. It reads very strangely, therefore, that they would strive to perform equivalently to this method in the tests described later in the paper, as opposed to Haller Index measurements, which the authors cite as the Gold Standard. It would indeed have been interesting to see if their method did as well as HI, without the need for ionizing CT radiation. Finally, since the Conclusion of the paper states "there exists no significant difference between the hand-measured and surface scan-measured values", the reader is left wondering why not prefer the status quo hand-measurement technique, since this must be far cheaper than the surface-scanning equipment proposed by the authors. 2. Earlier work on optical scanning methods cited by the authors (Glinkowski et al and Poncet et al) make it difficult to gauge the originality of the present paper. The authors do comment on some drawbacks of the earlier work ("stationarity", "shaded-colorless models"), but the import of these drawbacks is not clear. Since the paper is about measurement fidelity, why not compare on that basis? There must be something to say because the authors mention that the earlier papers compared themselves to HI. 3. The description of the registration technique "non-rigid registration for alignment and iterative closest point for refinement" was not clear. I think they mean that iterative closest point was used with a non-rigid deformation model. If so, it would be better to say that. |
Jacob Barhak
| Submission #99 | |
| Investigating the Fidelity of an Improvement-Assessment Tool After One Vacuum Bell Treatment Session | |
| Mohammad F. Obeid, Robert Obermeyer, Nahom Kidane, Robert Kelly and Frederic McKenzie | |
| Review 2 - Matthew Jacobson |
|
|
|
| |
Comments |
While I find the idea in the paper interesting, I had difficulty locating the publishable contribution in the paper. Perhaps I'm simply missing things that other reviewers will catch better. If so, here are my suggestions for improvement: |
1. The authors need to carefully justify selecting the method of manual measurement with cylindrical rulers as the ground truth against which their system is tested. This method is listed in their Introduction as having drawbacks in accuracy - drawbacks they seek to outperform. It reads very strangely, therefore, that they would strive to perform equivalently to this method in the tests described later in the paper, as opposed to Haller Index measurements, which the authors cite as the Gold Standard. It would indeed have been interesting to see if their method did as well as HI, without the need for ionizing CT radiation. Finally, since the Conclusion of the paper states "there exists no significant difference between the hand-measured and surface scan-measured values", the reader is left wondering why not prefer the status quo hand-measurement technique, since this must be far cheaper than the surface-scanning equipment proposed by the authors. |
2. Earlier work on optical scanning methods cited by the authors (Glinkowski et al and Poncet et al) make it difficult to gauge the originality of the present paper. The authors do comment on some drawbacks of the earlier work ("stationarity", "shaded-colorless models"), but the import of these drawbacks is not clear. Since the paper is about measurement fidelity, why not compare on that basis? There must be something to say because the authors mention that the earlier papers compared themselves to HI. |
3. The description of the registration technique "non-rigid registration for alignment and iterative closest point for refinement" was not clear. I think they mean that iterative closest point was used with a non-rigid deformation model. If so, it would be better to say that. |
EDIT: The paper has much improved after revision by the authors. I have upped my evaluation scores accordingly. |