SummerSim 2017: Towards an Anatomical Modeling Pipeline for Neurosurgical Simulation and Shift-Corrected Navigation - Reviewer Johannes Sametinger
Jacob Barhak
Submission: Towards An Anatomical Modeling Pipeline For Neurosurgical Simulation And Shift-Corrected Navigation
Authors: Michel Audette, Tanweer Rashid, Shrabani Ghosh, Nirmal Patel and Sharmin Sultana
Reviewer: Johannes Sametinger
Summary Ranking
Please evaluate the submission according to the criteria below.
Summary: weak accept
Comments
The paper is about anatomical modeling in neurosurgical simulation. I have to mention at this point that I am neither an expert in anatomical modeling nor in neurosurgical simulation. Some of the terms used, e.g., pterional, are not known to me, and I can't find them in a dictionary.
The title says "... and shift-corrected navigation". I can neither find anything about shift-correction nore about navigation in the paper. Navigation is mentioned in the first sentence of each the abstract and the introduction, and neuronavigation is briefly mentioned in Section 3. But that's it.
I also can't find the word pipeline in the paper other than in the title.
Section 2 is quite extensive. It is rather hard for the reader to distinguish between fundamentals and ongoing work, especially in the authors' group. Section 2.1 is entitled Background, but it starts with "Our group emphasizes ...". Are all subsections desrbibing your actual work? An overview of the paper at the end of Section 1 may also help. Is Section 2 supposed to describe the pipline you mention in the title? Is Section 3 the core of your paper? If yes, it's rather short.
In the conclusion, the authors say that they were describing ongoing work. So what is the contribution of this paper? To get an idea of what the authors are doing? This can be okay, but I'd expect a better presentation of general background and challenges, and what the authors are suggesting to address these challenges.
page 1: MRI and CT are probably known by all readers. Yet, I would define these acronyms.
page 2: header: two authors are missing
page 2: figure -> Figure (everywhere)
page 3: incomplete reference (CGAL,)
page 3: categories of tetrahedralization: what about optimization-based?
Figure 2: What does WPI stand for?
page 4: avoid italics and underline
Fig. 5: text is distorted. Do you need Fig. 5? Only some of it is mentioned in the text very shortly.
all figures: colors won't be visible in black/white printing, references to colors will confuse readers
all figures: I suggest to use short titles and to move explanations to the text.
all citations: mention year: (Delingette H) -> (Delingette 1999), see author guidelines
Incomplete references, e.g.:
- ContourWorks requires authentication
- (Haq R 15b) is incomplete.
- (Haq R 15c) accepted? in 2015?
- Doulbe period in (Lorensen 1987)
- What does n.d. stand for in (FreeSurfer), (Protege)?
- ,: and ,, in (Ju 2002)
Jacob Barhak
The authors provided another version Below are the responses to that second revision.
######## Johannes Sametinger ##########
Comparing a pdf is really a tough, manual job. At least, I do not have a tool that allows quick comparison. MsWord would be much easier. Couldn’t you ask them to send the word version? When I opened the document, what popped up my eyes was the fact that the old version had SummerSim in the copyright notice. The new version has SpringSim and Virginia Beach. So it seems they may not have sent their current version.
Best Johannes