Investigation of the effectiveness of no-reference metric in image evaluation in nuclear medicine

Shigeaki Higashiyama; Yutaka Katayama; Atsushi Yoshida; Nahoko Inoue; Takashi Yamanaga; Takao Ichida; Yukio Miki; Joji Kawabe

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0310305

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 7, 2023
15 Mar 2024 Decision Letter - Sadiq H. Abdulhussain, Editor PONE-D-23-28461Investigation of the effectiveness of No-reference Metric in Image evaluation in Nuclear MedicinePLOS ONE Dear Dr. Higashiyama, 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 Apr 28 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, Sadiq H. Abdulhussain, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 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. Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data). 3. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse. 4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ". 5. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.] Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition). For example, authors should submit the following data: - The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported; - The values used to build graphs; - The points extracted from images for analysis. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study. If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access. 6. We note that Figure 1 and 4 in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission: 1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 and 4 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text: “I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.” Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission. In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].” 2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only. [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: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: 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 ****** 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: No Reviewer #2: No ****** 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: This paper examines whether No-Reference metrics can be applied to image quality evaluations for clinical images in nuclear medicine. To this end, 14 images with different numbers of pixels and acquisition times were created and extracted from Biograph Vision. The paper is well organized but not well written. I have some minor points that need to be addressed. 1. The contribution is not clear and needs to be highlighted. 2. The introduction should be modified so that the last paragraphs should be divided as paper contributions and finds and paper organization as a separated subsections. 3. Please make the contributions as a bullet points. 4. The novelty of the paper needs to be modified to be more clear. 5. Some grammar errors are discovered so please try to proofread the paper again. 6. I would suggest make it clear what have been done in comparison to the state of the art methods showing the contribution of the paper. 7. I would suggest adding equation number. 8. I have found that there is an evaluation before the results section. I would suggest making the evaluation in results section part to make it clear to the reader. 9. The author state that (The total score in shown in bottom row of..) what dose that means please correct. 10. Tables should not be splatted into two pages please correct table 14. 11. There are many references in the discussion part after the results. Why not stated these references in the introduction part. 12. The conclusion is too short and not clear please modify. ****** 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: None Reviewer #2: 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Comments to the author_ Plose one.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310305.r001
Revision 1
4 Apr 2024 Author Response Thank you for your careful review and your comments. We have made changes to comply with your suggestions. The revised parts of the manuscript are written in red. Journal Requirements: 1 When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. →We have made the changes according to your suggestions. 2 Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. → We have read and understood the contents. 3 Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. → We have read and understood the contents. 4 PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. → The authors and corresponding author (Shigeaki Higashiyama) are registered ORCID members. 5 We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.] → All relevant data are present in the manuscript and Supporting Information files. 6 We note that Figure 1 and 4 in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.　We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission: → Figures 1 and 4 are images that I created and used in this paper. This is not a quotation from any literature or book. I had inquired about permission to use the preprint without peer review, but I received a reply stating that there was no need to confirm the license. I have added that email as a PDF attachment to the other file. Comments to the Author　 1-3 and 6 → We do not require a response. 4→ We utilized a paid English proofreading of the main text. Certificate of editing was attached the file as PDF. 5 Review Comments to the Author To Reviewer #1: (No Response) To Reviewer #2 1、 The contribution is not clear and needs to be highlighted. → We have modified the introduction to include a subsection specifically dedicated to outlining the contributions and findings of the paper. 2、The introduction should be modified so that the last paragraphs should be divided as paper contributions and finds and paper organization as a separated subsections. → We divided the Introduction into paragraphs on Contributions and findings. 3 Please make the contributions as a bullet points. → We divided the Introduction and Abstract into paragraphs and clearly stated the novelty. 4、The novelty of the paper needs to be modified to be more clear. → A sentence explaining the novelty of this research has been added to the introduction. 5、Some grammar errors are discovered so please try to proofread the paper again. → We have used a paid English proofreading service. Certificate of editing was attached the file as PDF. 6、 I would suggest make it clear what have been done in comparison to the state of the art methods showing the contribution of the paper. → In the introduction, we have added a description on the novel aspects of this study compared to what has been presented in past papers. 7、 I would suggest adding equation number. → We have numbered the equations in the text. 8、 I have found that there is an evaluation before the results section. I would suggest making the evaluation in results section part to make it clear to the reader. → Based on you suggestion, we have made changes to make the results easier to understand. 9、The author state that (The total score in shown in bottom row of..) what dose that means please correct. → We have added a description of the table you pointed out. 10、 Tables should not be splatted into two pages please correct table 14. → We have accordingly reorganized Table 14. 11、There are many references in the discussion part after the results. Why not stated these references in the introduction part. → Some of the references for the discussion are cited in the methods section. 12、The conclusion is too short and not clear please modify. →As pointed out, I have further elaborated the content in the conclusion section. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: 20240329Journal Requirements and review comments.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310305.r002
24 Jun 2024 Decision Letter - Sadiq H. Abdulhussain, Editor PONE-D-23-28461R1Investigation of the Effectiveness of No-reference Metric in Image Evaluation in Nuclear MedicinePLOS ONE Dear Dr. Higashiyama, 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 Aug 08 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, Sadiq H. Abdulhussain, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments: The authors are asked to check the attached files for reviewer comments. [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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: 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: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know Reviewer #2: 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 #2: 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: No Reviewer #2: 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 #2: All the comments have been addressed. The authors modified the paper based on the suggested comment. Iwouls suggest accept this paper. ****** 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 #2: 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Point.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310305.r003
Revision 2
26 Jun 2024 Author Response Response to Reviewers 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: (No Response) → We have corrected the points raised in the point by point response. Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed → Thank you for reviewing the revised manuscript. 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: Partly　→ Thank you for reviewing the revised manuscript. We have corrected the points raised in the point by point response. Our study uses phantom data that is accessible from any research institution, not patient clinical data. Therefore, reproducing the methods described in the manuscript is feasible and technically sound. Consequently, we believe that faithfully replicating the methods and evaluation criteria of this paper allows for accurate replication of the conclusions presented in the manuscript. As such, no changes or additions to the evaluation methods or data have been made. Reviewer #2: Yes　→ Thank you for reviewing the revised manuscript. 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know　→ We have corrected the points raised in the point by point response.　Our study employed JMP (SAS Japan Co., Ltd) for statistical analysis. Therefore, the statistical analysis in the manuscript is replicable, and technically robust. Reviewer #2: Yes　→ Thank you for reviewing the revised manuscript. 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　→Thank you for reviewing the revised manuscript. Reviewer #2: Yes　→Thank you for reviewing the revised manuscript. 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: No　→We have corrected the points raised in the point by point response.　 In addition, we have followed the points raised in the first peer review.　We have engaged a professional medical manuscript editing service to revise the manuscript at our own expense. The revised manuscript, addressing these comments, is now submitted. If there are any parts that do not conform to standard English, please provide specific feedback, and we will promptly make corrections. Certificate of English ProofreadingHonyaku Center Inc. certifies that the manuscript entitled Investigation of the Effectiveness of No-reference Metric in Image Evaluation in Nuclear Medicine has been edited and corrected to the highest standards. Neither the contents of this manuscript nor the author’s intentions have been altered in any way. This manuscript has been edited and corrected by an experienced proofreader who is a native speaker of English and who is under the direct supervision of Honyaku Center Inc. ISSUED ON　March 28, 2024　AUTHORS　Shigeaki Higashiyama　JOB CODE　BQYRQ_2　Yasuo Terashima Reviewer #2: Yes　→Thank you for reviewing the revised manuscript. We will proceed with the submission as it is. 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)　 →Thank you for reviewing the revised manuscript. We will proceed with the submission as it is. Reviewer #2: All the comments have been addressed. The authors modified the paper based on the suggested comment. Iwouls suggest accept this paper.　 →Thank you for reviewing the revised manuscript. We will proceed with the submission as it is. Point-by-point response ・98: 2 6 MBq basis for inclusion. ⇒The Japanese Society of Nuclear Medicine has publicly released a procedure manual for phantom tests. We used the radiation dose from the FDG and Amyloid Brain PET Imaging Phantom Test Procedure Manual (in Japanese). https://jsnm.org/wp_jsnm/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Dementia_PhantomTest_20210208.pdf ・99：PET/CT scannerのBiograph visionは450？600？・99: The PET/CT scanner used was the Biographic vision 450 or 600? ⇒ We have made changes to lines 86 and 97. ・112：Pixel size 0.825 mm is only correct for a matrix size of 880 when the transverse FOV is 726 mm. ⇒ With an FOV of 363 mm, for a Matrix Size of 440, the voxel size becomes 0.825 mm. We have added a description of the FOV in the 99th line. ・113: Is 3 mm correct for Slice thickness instead of 3 cm? ⇒ We have made changes to lines 101. 116: Imaging conditions for computed tomography attenuation correction should be stated. 　　The description of Random correction should also be added. ⇒ We have described the reconstruction conditions using CT and the random correction in lines 104 and 111. ・120: 440 matrix size is more appropriate than 440 pixel size. ⇒ We have made changes to lines 109,110. ：What does 0.4125 mm×0.4125×2 mm３mean? If the transverse FOV is 726 mm and the matrix size is 440, the pixel size is 1.65 mm; if the matrix size is 880, the pixel size is 0.825 mm. If the magnification factor is 2x, the pixel size is 0.825 mm for a 440 matrix size and 0.4125 for an 880 matrix size. ⇒ The FOV is 363 mm. We have added this to line 100. ・122: Statistical analysis instruments are described, but significance levels are not stated.　 ⇒ We have added p-value settings to lines 217 and 220. ・235：CV should be assessed on a uniform phantom. There is also poor evidence for the size and location of the ROI; if CV is measured once in each series, it should be measured at least three times to account for measurement error. ⇒ We evaluate with ROIs of 5 mm diameter when conducting clinical image evaluations at our facility. In line with that evaluation method, we conducted evaluations using ROIs of 5 mm diameter. This information has been added to line 226. ⇒ We did not conduct experiments with a pool phantom because we aimed for evaluations based on images intended for clinical examinations. ・394: acquisition time is appropriate, not capturing time. ⇒ We have made changes to lines 381. ・The matrix size and color scale should be added to Fig 1 and Fig 2 respectively. ⇒We have modified lines 566 to 572. ・The names of the vertical axes in Fig 6 should be added. ⇒ We have made corrections to lines 218 to 221 and added them to Fig. 6. ・The names of the vertical and horizontal axes in Figure 8 are mandatory. If the vertical axis is the CV value and the horizontal axis is the acquisition time, they should be described. ⇒We have made modifications to Figure 8. ・Is the value obtained for the 440 and 880 matrix size for 330 s in the CV results in Table 4 correct? ⇒Thank you very much for your detailed feedback. There are no mistakes in the parts you pointed out, and the results are accurate. ・The CV values were similar for the 880 matrix size and the 440 matrix size. However, the visual evaluation results show that the 880 matrix size is better for all acquisition time when compared to the 440 matrix size. ⇒Thank you very much for your detailed feedback. There are no mistakes in the parts you pointed out, and the results are accurate. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: 20240624Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310305.r004
6 Aug 2024 Decision Letter - Sadiq H. Abdulhussain, Editor PONE-D-23-28461R2Investigation of the Effectiveness of No-reference Metric in Image Evaluation in Nuclear MedicinePLOS ONE Dear Dr. Higashiyama, 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 Sep 20 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, Sadiq H. Abdulhussain, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [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 #3: 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: Partly Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know Reviewer #3: 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 #3: 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 #3: 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 #3: (No Response) ****** 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 #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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Reviewer Comments.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310305.r005
Revision 3
7 Aug 2024 Author Response Thank you for your careful review and your comments. We have made changes to comply with your suggestions. Changed parts are written in red. Reviewer Comments 84：Additional references to the guidelines. →References have been added and additional information has been added. 100, 112, 113, 115：Half-width space added between number and unit. →We made the changes as you suggested. 125: 880 matrix size is more correct than 880 pixels. Please check the other text as well; Fig. 1a should be a PET image with 440 matrix size, not 440 s. →We made the changes as you suggested. We evaluate with ROIs of 5 mm diameter when conducting clinical image evaluations at our facility. ⇒ In the diagnostic imaging, it is necessary to state the validity of the 'method of placing a 5 mm ROI on the brain PET image', as shown in Fig. 4. For example, the rationale based on guidelines and previous studies. →References have been added and additional information has been added. The number of measurements should be performed at least three times due to the variability of the data. →　To check the variability of the data, we examined it in three locations: the frontal lobe, the temporal lobe, and the occipital lobe. Changes and additions to the table and figure have been added at lines 226、331 and 387. Addition of units for acquisition time in Fig. 8. →We made the changes as you suggested. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: 20240808Reviewer Comments.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310305.r006
29 Aug 2024 Decision Letter - Sadiq H. Abdulhussain, Editor Investigation of the Effectiveness of No-reference Metric in Image Evaluation in Nuclear Medicine PONE-D-23-28461R3 Dear Dr. Higashiyama, 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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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, Sadiq H. Abdulhussain, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): 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 #3: 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 #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 #3: 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 #3: 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 #3: (No Response) ****** 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 #3: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310305.r007
Formally Accepted
16 Sep 2024 Acceptance Letter - Sadiq H. Abdulhussain, Editor PONE-D-23-28461R3 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Higashiyama, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. 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. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Sadiq H. Abdulhussain Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310305.r008

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .