PONE-D-23-20054Bio-inspired solution for roll-off control in radiofrequency ablation of liver tumors: a particle swarm optimization approach for PID controller tuningPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Faria,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 26 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Salim Heddam

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please amend the manuscript submission data (via Edit Submission) to include author Enrique Berjano.

3. Please amend your authorship list in your manuscript file to include author Henrique Berjano.

4. We are unable to open your Supporting Information file [Supporting information.rar]. Please kindly revise as necessary and re-upload.

Additional Editor Comments:

Reviewer 1:This paper deals about the optimization of a PID controller used for liver tumors radio-frequency ablation. After performing ex-vivo experiments, the optimization model is set up by considering the roll-off - i. e., the impedance - as the objective function, and the PID parameters as the input function. The optimization predictive model is built up with some advanced regression analysis. After a throughout analysis to verify that the algorithm performs well, the authors conclude that this optimization might be very helpful for whom wants to improve the PID procedure accounting for the roll-off phenomenon.

The reviewer thinks that this is an interesting contribution that would be really helpful for people that practice radiofrequency ablation, since they have some hints to avoid roll-off. It is then suggested to consider the present paper for publication after the authors address the following points.

- In the title, the authors use the word "bio-inspired" to characterize what they do here. Are they making references to the fact that a bio-inspired optimization algorithm, say particle swarm optimization, is used? If so, please change the word "bio-inspired" with something like "particle swarm optimization", "optimum search", or similar. This would avoid any misunderstandings for the readers

- Among various optimization techniques, why didn't the authors use other methods like genetic algorithm (doi.org/10.1007/s11042-020-10139-6), bee colony algorithm (doi.org/10.1007/s10462-012-9328-0), and so on? These methods allow to have shorter computational times

- When writing the paper, it is suggested to avoid too many new lines since they make the text less fluent

- When introducing the experimental protocol, are the authors sure that the experiments are design in order to avoid any heat losses to the environment? These losses might influence the ablated zone

- In the model structure section, the authors report that the equipment used doesn't allow to measure at every constant time step. Is it reasonable to perform some linear interpolation? Please report some qualitative information about these time steps at which the equipment is able to perform measurements

- The authors claim that they use the ARX method to have some regressions between input and output (Eq. 1). Why didn't they use standard regressions or other AI techniques like for instance artificial neural networks?

- The reviewer thinks that the paper introduction is too much focused about roll-off phenomenon, even if in this field - tumor thermal ablation - other problems might arise and require several attention from the scientific community. These problems might be for instance tissue shinkrage (doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210667) or underdesired healthy tissue damage (doi.org/10.3390/ma13010136), that might be treated with approaches based on customized procedures (doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2020.105887) or different antennas to be used (doi.org/10.1080/10407782.2020.1835083). In order to underline the fact that optimizing radio-frequency ablation procedures - a widely used technique - still remains an open problem, the authors should consider all these aspects when writing their paper introduction.

- When validating the regression model, it is suggested to use some graphs to show that the coefficient of determination (Eq. 6) is not that high; a graph that report experimental outcomes (x-axis) and regressed model (y-axis) with the bisector could be an idea

- When describing the particle swarm optimization algorithm, even if the text is quite clear, it is suggested to show a figure/table that clearly presents input variables (to be changed), constraints (to be not modified) and objective function; the authors could also integrate this within Fig. 1

- When the optimum solution is obtained, it is suggested to report a comparison between the optimum solution and a reference solution, to appreciate how important is to run optimization for this specific case

- In the manuscript, with particular references to abstract and discussion sections, it is suggested to provide more practical outcomes from the present works, like for instance more details about the optimum procedure that has been found. This would be really helpful in medical practice

- As a potential future work, the authors could also think about considering a different objective function, like for instance the ablation zone with no necrosis for the healthy tissue. Another idea could be to run a multi-objective optimization analysis considering also aspects like exposure time

Reviewer 2:Dear Sir,

The paper deserves the publication after carefully satisfying the following points:

1. The abstract is very lengthy. Rewrite it in a concise manner and mention in it the obtained findings and show some statistical numbers.

2. The manuscript needs a comprehensive English language proofreading, there are many linguistic mistakes.

3. The introduction does not provide sufficient background information for readers not in the immediate field to understand the problem/hypotheses.

4. The literature survey is not balanced, important studies are not cited in this work, the following papers are very close to the topic of the paper and must be cited,

• doi:10.1177/1729881420981524.

• https://doi.org/10.1049/tje2.12009.

• https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-820276-0.00026-1.

• doi.org/10.1177/0020294020917171.

• https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/3067024.

5. I think the motivations for this study need to be made clearer.

6. The study objectives must be clearly defined.

7. no comparisons found with recent works, these are necessary to verify the effectiveness of the proposed designs.

8. The results are not clearly explained and must be presented in an appropriate format.

9. Stability analysis of the closed-loop system in the presence of the proposed ESO is not available, it must be addressed.

10. The findings are not properly described in the context of the published literature.

11. No significant limitations are discussed. It may be worthwhile to mention the tradeoffs involved in your work.

Reviewer 3:1.Results shown can be shown in atabular form.

2.Some recent works should be referred in literature and in work.

3.Graphical analysis should be presented .

4.Conclusion should include quantitative results.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This paper deals about the optimization of a PID controller used for liver tumors radio-frequency ablation. After performing ex-vivo experiments, the optimization model is set up by considering the roll-off - i. e., the impedance - as the objective function, and the PID parameters as the input function. The optimization predictive model is built up with some advanced regression analysis. After a throughout analysis to verify that the algorithm performs well, the authors conclude that this optimization might be very helpful for whom wants to improve the PID procedure accounting for the roll-off phenomenon.

The reviewer thinks that this is an interesting contribution that would be really helpful for people that practice radiofrequency ablation, since they have some hints to avoid roll-off. It is then suggested to consider the present paper for publication after the authors address the following points.

- In the title, the authors use the word "bio-inspired" to characterize what they do here. Are they making references to the fact that a bio-inspired optimization algorithm, say particle swarm optimization, is used? If so, please change the word "bio-inspired" with something like "particle swarm optimization", "optimum search", or similar. This would avoid any misunderstandings for the readers

- Among various optimization techniques, why didn't the authors use other methods like genetic algorithm (doi.org/10.1007/s11042-020-10139-6), bee colony algorithm (doi.org/10.1007/s10462-012-9328-0), and so on? These methods allow to have shorter computational times

- When writing the paper, it is suggested to avoid too many new lines since they make the text less fluent

- When introducing the experimental protocol, are the authors sure that the experiments are design in order to avoid any heat losses to the environment? These losses might influence the ablated zone

- In the model structure section, the authors report that the equipment used doesn't allow to measure at every constant time step. Is it reasonable to perform some linear interpolation? Please report some qualitative information about these time steps at which the equipment is able to perform measurements

- The authors claim that they use the ARX method to have some regressions between input and output (Eq. 1). Why didn't they use standard regressions or other AI techniques like for instance artificial neural networks?

- The reviewer thinks that the paper introduction is too much focused about roll-off phenomenon, even if in this field - tumor thermal ablation - other problems might arise and require several attention from the scientific community. These problems might be for instance tissue shinkrage (doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210667) or underdesired healthy tissue damage (doi.org/10.3390/ma13010136), that might be treated with approaches based on customized procedures (doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2020.105887) or different antennas to be used (doi.org/10.1080/10407782.2020.1835083). In order to underline the fact that optimizing radio-frequency ablation procedures - a widely used technique - still remains an open problem, the authors should consider all these aspects when writing their paper introduction.

- When validating the regression model, it is suggested to use some graphs to show that the coefficient of determination (Eq. 6) is not that high; a graph that report experimental outcomes (x-axis) and regressed model (y-axis) with the bisector could be an idea

- When describing the particle swarm optimization algorithm, even if the text is quite clear, it is suggested to show a figure/table that clearly presents input variables (to be changed), constraints (to be not modified) and objective function; the authors could also integrate this within Fig. 1

- When the optimum solution is obtained, it is suggested to report a comparison between the optimum solution and a reference solution, to appreciate how important is to run optimization for this specific case

- In the manuscript, with particular references to abstract and discussion sections, it is suggested to provide more practical outcomes from the present works, like for instance more details about the optimum procedure that has been found. This would be really helpful in medical practice

- As a potential future work, the authors could also think about considering a different objective function, like for instance the ablation zone with no necrosis for the healthy tissue. Another idea could be to run a multi-objective optimization analysis considering also aspects like exposure time

Reviewer #2: Dear Sir,

The paper deserves the publication after carefully satisfying the following points:

1. The abstract is very lengthy. Rewrite it in a concise manner and mention in it the obtained findings and show some statistical numbers.

2. The manuscript needs a comprehensive English language proofreading, there are many linguistic mistakes.

3. The introduction does not provide sufficient background information for readers not in the immediate field to understand the problem/hypotheses.

4. The literature survey is not balanced, important studies are not cited in this work, the following papers are very close to the topic of the paper and must be cited,

• doi:10.1177/1729881420981524.

• https://doi.org/10.1049/tje2.12009.

• https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-820276-0.00026-1.

• doi.org/10.1177/0020294020917171.

• https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/3067024.

5. I think the motivations for this study need to be made clearer.

6. The study objectives must be clearly defined.

7. no comparisons found with recent works, these are necessary to verify the effectiveness of the proposed designs.

8. The results are not clearly explained and must be presented in an appropriate format.

9. Stability analysis of the closed-loop system in the presence of the proposed ESO is not available, it must be addressed.

10. The findings are not properly described in the context of the published literature.

11. No significant limitations are discussed. It may be worthwhile to mention the tradeoffs involved in your work.

regards

Reviewer #3: 1.Results shown can be shown in atabular form.

2.Some recent works should be referred in literature and in work.

3.Graphical analysis should be presented .

4.Conclusion should include quantitative results.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PONE-D-23-20054R1Particle swarm optimization solution for roll-off control in radiofrequency ablation of liver tumors: Optimal search for PID controller tuningPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Faria,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 22 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Salim Heddam

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Reviewer 1#:

The reviewer thinks that the present paper can be accepted as it is in the revised form

Reviewer 4#:

Please improve figures quality.

Please add proper flowchart.

Please add block diagram.

Please justify gap and its addressing by your paper in literature.

Reviewer 5#:

it is a detailed theoretical and experimental study and the mostly the reviewers' comments are responded to; however, still, the following comments should be addressed:

-Careful attention should be given to correcting writing mistakes.

-Although the introduction and related work have been presented, the differences of the study should have been briefly highlighted in related work.

-I recommend referencing the following publication for PSO and PID techniques: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26876-2_85. Additionally, more recent references from recent years should be included.

-In Fig 4, the peak point of the voltage, the stabil voltage, and applied voltage have not been explained in detail. The Voltage stabil time and later peak voltage should be explined.

-The meaning of the map and numbers in the root locus should be explained more thoroughly.

Overall ,except Figures 1 and 2, there is lack of detail in explanation for all the figures.

Reviewer 6#:

The paper presents a novel approach for controlling tissue impedance during RFA 710 procedures based on porcine liver ex-vivo experiments. The methodology combines 711 three system identification techniques, yielding superior results compared to individual 712 methods.

The paper is well written and organized in all sections, the results were well presented, likewise, the results from the analyses were discussed elaborately in an informative manner and were convincing, as well as the conclusion. The research novelty is somewhat minimal but scholarly convincing, as the discussions and analyses are based on existing technology but with little modification.

I hereby recommend the acceptance of this manuscript in its current form.

REMARKS

1. The title of the manuscript is appropriate.

2. The manuscript is technically sound and of High scientific quality.

3. The manuscript is free from errors and the grammar is satisfactory.

4. The tables and figures are clear.

5. The subject matter is presented comprehensively.

6. The references provided are all applicable but not sufficient because there are some parts in the paper that need to be cited appropriately.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #5: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #6: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Partly

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #4: N/A

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Please improve figures quality.

Please add proper flowchart.

Please add block diagram.

Please justify gap and its addressing by your paper in literature.

Reviewer #5: it is a detailed theoretical and experimental study and the mostly the reviewers' comments are responded to; however, still, the following comments should be addressed:

-Careful attention should be given to correcting writing mistakes.

-Although the introduction and related work have been presented, the differences of the study should have been briefly highlighted in related work.

-I recommend referencing the following publication for PSO and PID techniques: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26876-2_85. Additionally, more recent references from recent years should be included.

-In Fig 4, the peak point of the voltage, the stabil voltage, and applied voltage have not been explained in detail. The Voltage stabil time and later peak voltage should be explined.

-The meaning of the map and numbers in the root locus should be explained more thoroughly.

Overall ,except Figures 1 and 2, there is lack of detail in explanation for all the figures.

Reviewer #6: The paper presents a novel approach for controlling tissue impedance during RFA 710 procedures based on porcine liver ex-vivo experiments. The methodology combines 711 three system identification techniques, yielding superior results compared to individual 712 methods.

The paper is well written and organized in all sections, the results were well presented, likewise, the results from the analyses were discussed elaborately in an informative manner and were convincing, as well as the conclusion. The research novelty is somewhat minimal but scholarly convincing, as the discussions and analyses are based on existing technology but with little modification.

I hereby recommend the acceptance of this manuscript in its current form.

REMARKS

1. The title of the manuscript is appropriate.

2. The manuscript is technically sound and of High scientific quality.

3. The manuscript is free from errors and the grammar is satisfactory.

4. The tables and figures are clear.

5. The subject matter is presented comprehensively.

6. The references provided are all applicable but not sufficient because there are some parts in the paper that need to be cited appropriately.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: No

Reviewer #6: Yes: Dr. Peter Anuoluwapo Gbadega

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Particle swarm optimization solution for roll-off control in radiofrequency ablation of liver tumors: Optimal search for PID controller tuning

PONE-D-23-20054R2

Dear Dr. Faria,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Salim Heddam

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewer #1:All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #6:

The paper presents a novel approach for controlling tissue impedance during RFA 710 procedures based on porcine liver ex-vivo experiments. The methodology combines 711 three system identification techniques, yielding superior results compared to individual 712 methods.

The paper is well written and organized in all sections, the results were well presented, likewise, the results from the analyses were discussed elaborately in an informative manner and were convincing, as well as the conclusion. The research novelty is somewhat minimal but scholarly convincing, as the discussions and analyses are based on existing technology but with little modification.

I hereby recommend the acceptance of this manuscript in its current form.

REMARKS

1. The title of the manuscript is appropriate.

2. The manuscript is technically sound and of High scientific quality.

3. The manuscript is free from errors and the grammar is satisfactory.

4. The tables and figures are clear.

5. The subject matter is presented comprehensively.

6. The references provided are all applicable but not sufficient because there are some parts in the paper that need to be cited appropriately.

Reviewers' comments: