Textová podoba smlouvy Smlouva č. 34325653: 3.LF UK - Publikační poplatek - Manuscript ID: CMPB-D-25-01036R1,

                        Monday, August 4, 2025 at 11:37:48 AM Central European Summer Time

Subject: Decision on submission to Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine

Date: Friday 20 June 2025 at 2:45:41 Central European Summer Time

From:  em.cmpb.0.9431a3.5b4ed13a@editorialmanager.com on behalf of Computer Methods and Programs in
       Biomedicine

To:    Nemy, Milan

Manuscript Number: CMPB-D-25-01036R1  

SmartAlert: Machine Learning-Based Patient-Ventilator Asynchrony Detection System in
Intensive Care Units  

Dear Dr. Nemy,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to Computer Methods and Programs in
Biomedicine.

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been accepted for publication.  

My comments, and any reviewer comments, are below.   
Your accepted manuscript will now be transferred to our production department. We will
create a proof which you will be asked to check, and you will also be asked to complete a
number of online forms required for publication. If we need additional information from you
during the production process, we will contact you directly.

We encourage authors of original research papers to share the research objects – including
raw data, methods, protocols, software, hardware and other outputs – associated with their
paper. More information on how our open access Research Elements journals can help you do
this is available at https://www.elsevier.com/authors/tools-and-resources/research-elements-
journals?dgcid=ec_em_research_elements_email.

We appreciate and value your contribution to Computer Methods and Programs in
Biomedicine. We regularly invite authors of recently published manuscript to participate in
the peer review process. If you were not already part of the journal's reviewer pool, you have
now been added to it. We look forward to your continued participation in our journal, and we
hope you will consider us again for future submissions.

Kind regards,  
Dr.Yeong Shiong Chiew  
Associate Editor

Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine

Editor and Reviewer comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

                                                                                                     1 of 5
Note: In order to effectively convey your recommendations for improvement to the author(s),
and help editors make well-informed and efficient decisions, we ask you to answer the
following specific questions about the manuscript and provide additional suggestions where
appropriate.

1. Are the objectives and the rationale of the study clearly stated?

Please provide suggestions to the author(s) on how to improve the clarity of the objectives
and rationale of the study. Please number each suggestion so that author(s) can more easily
respond.

Reviewer #1: Yes.

Reviewer #2: Yes, the objectives and rationale are clearly stated

2. If applicable, is the application/theory/method/study reported in sufficient detail to allow
for its replicability and/or reproducibility?

Please provide suggestions to the author(s) on how to improve the
replicability/reproducibility of their study. Please number each suggestion so that the
author(s) can more easily respond.

Reviewer #1: Mark as appropriate with an X:
Yes [X] No [] N/A []
Provide further comments here:

Reviewer #2: Mark as appropriate with an X:
Yes [x] No [] N/A []
Provide further comments here:

3. If applicable, are statistical analyses, controls, sampling mechanism, and statistical
reporting (e.g., P-values, CIs, effect sizes) appropriate and well described?

Please clearly indicate if the manuscript requires additional peer review by a statistician.
Kindly provide suggestions to the author(s) on how to improve the statistical analyses,
controls, sampling mechanism, or statistical reporting. Please number each suggestion so that
the author(s) can more easily respond.

Reviewer #1: Mark as appropriate with an X:
Yes [X] No [] N/A []
Provide further comments here:

Reviewer #2: Mark as appropriate with an X:
Yes [x] No [] N/A []
Provide further comments here:

4. Could the manuscript benefit from additional tables or figures, or from improving or
removing (some of the) existing ones?

                                                                                                                                    2 of 5
Please provide specific suggestions for improvements, removals, or additions of figures or
tables. Please number each suggestion so that author(s) can more easily respond.

Reviewer #1: No.

Reviewer #2: No, the number and quality of tables and figures is ok

5. If applicable, are the interpretation of results and study conclusions supported by the data?

Please provide suggestions (if needed) to the author(s) on how to improve, tone down, or
expand the study interpretations/conclusions. Please number each suggestion so that the
author(s) can more easily respond.

Reviewer #1: Mark as appropriate with an X:
Yes [X] No [] N/A []
Provide further comments here:

Reviewer #2: Mark as appropriate with an X:
Yes [x] No [] N/A []
Provide further comments here:

6. Have the authors clearly emphasized the strengths of their study/theory/methods/argument?

Please provide suggestions to the author(s) on how to better emphasize the strengths of their
study. Please number each suggestion so that the author(s) can more easily respond.
Reviewer #1: Yes.
Reviewer #2: Yes, the previous concerns have been addressed

7. Have the authors clearly stated the limitations of their study/theory/methods/argument?

Please list the limitations that the author(s) need to add or emphasize. Please number each
limitation so that author(s) can more easily respond.
Reviewer #1: Yes.
Reviewer #2: Linitations are clearly stated

8. Does the manuscript structure, flow or writing need improving (e.g., the addition of
subheadings, shortening of text, reorganization of sections, or moving details from one
section to another)?

Please provide suggestions to the author(s) on how to improve the manuscript structure and
flow. Please number each suggestion so that author(s) can more easily respond.

Reviewer #1: No.

Reviewer #2: The structure of the manuscript is approppriate

                                                                                                  3 of 5
9. Could the manuscript benefit from language editing?
Reviewer #1: No
Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #1: I thank the authors for addressing my questions. The work is interesting and
promising in clinical use.

Reviewer #2: This field is optional. If you have any additional suggestions beyond those
relevant to the questions above, please number and list them here.
 

 

More information and support 

FAQ: When and how will I receive the proofs of my article?
https://service.elsevier.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/6007/p/10592/supporthub/publishing/rela
ted/

FAQ: How can I reset a forgotten password?
https://service.elsevier.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/28452/supporthub/publishing/
For further assistance, please visit our customer service site:
https://service.elsevier.com/app/home/supporthub/publishing/
Here you can search for solutions on a range of topics, find answers to frequently asked
questions, and learn more about Editorial Manager via interactive tutorials. You can also talk
24/7 to our customer support team by phone and 24/7 by live chat and email

At Elsevier, we want to help all our authors to stay safe when publishing. Please be aware of
fraudulent messages requesting money in return for the publication of your paper. If you are
publishing open access with Elsevier, bear in mind that we will never request payment before
the paper has been accepted. We have prepared some guidelines
(https://www.elsevier.com/connect/authors-update/seven-top-tips-on-stopping-apc-scams )
that you may find helpful, including a short video on Identifying fake acceptance letters
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5l8thD9XtE ). Please remember that you can contact
Elsevier s Researcher Support team
(https://service.elsevier.com/app/home/supporthub/publishing/) at any time if you have
questions about your manuscript, and you can log into Editorial Manager to check the status
of your manuscript
(https://service.elsevier.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/29155/c/10530/supporthub/publishing/k
w/status/).

#ED_CMPB#

                                                                                                4 of 5
To ensure this email reaches the intended recipient, please do not delete the above code

In compliance with data protection regulations, you may request that we remove your personal
registration details at any time. (Remove my information/details). Please contact the publication office
if you have any questions.

                                                                                                                                    5 of 5