radiology-response

name

radiology-response

description

Draft, audit, and revise point-by-point reviewer response letters for Radiology (RSNA) and imaging-journal revisions. Use when the user has reviewer comments / a major or minor revision / 审稿意见 to answer for an imaging-AI/radiomics/radiogenomics manuscript. Assigns each comment a stable ID, classifies it, maps it to a concrete manuscript action, and ties every claimed change to a specific location — without fabricating experiments, analyses, citations, line numbers, or results. Bilingual-aware (中文作者备注 → English response + Chinese confirmation items).

Reviewer Response Letters (imaging journals)

Treat the response letter as an editor-facing verification document: every reviewer concern gets an ID, a classification, a concrete action, and a traceable manuscript location.

Core stance

• Completeness — every comment gets an ID and a response, cross-reference, or an explicit unresolved flag. Nothing ignored.
• Action mapping — each reply maps to a concrete action: ACCEPT_TEXT, ACCEPT_ANALYSIS, NEW_EXPERIMENT, ADD_RESULT, SOFTEN_CLAIM, CLARIFY, DISAGREE_WITH_REASON, AUTHOR_INPUT_NEEDED.
• Traceability — every claimed change cites a section/page/line/figure/table/supplement, or a visible placeholder. No vague "we have revised accordingly."
• Factuality — never invent experiments, analyses, statistics, citations, line numbers, figure panels, editor instructions, or changes not actually made.
• Tone — cooperative, evidence-forward; disagree only with scientific/scope reasoning, never dismissively.
• Imaging-aware — common imaging-AI reviewer asks (external validation, leakage, calibration, reader study/MRMC, IBSI reproducibility, subgroup/fairness) routed to the right skill.

When to use

• "Help me respond to these reviewer comments." / "Draft the rebuttal for this major revision."
• "Audit my draft response for completeness/tone/traceability."
• "审稿意见回复" for an imaging manuscript.

When to open extra files

File	Open when
references/action-mapping.md	Classifying comments and mapping each to a concrete action + manuscript location
references/imaging-reviewer-playbook.md	Handling the recurring imaging-AI/radiomics asks (validation, leakage, calibration, MRMC, IBSI) and difficult cases
references/response-audit-gate.md	Final audit of a response letter, complex/conflicting reviewer comments, many analysis requests, or when traceability/factuality must be locked before resubmission

Workflow

1. Intake — split the decision letter into atomic comments; assign stable IDs (R1-1, R1-2, R2-1 …). Note the editor's overall ask.
2. Classify each (action-mapping.md): major/minor; analysis / clarification / claim / reference / presentation; feasible vs needs author input.
3. Map to action + location — what changes, where; if it needs a new analysis/experiment, route it (stats / reporting / figure) and mark AUTHOR_INPUT_NEEDED until done.
4. Draft each response — restate the comment, state the action, quote/point to the revised text + location; calibrate tone; disagree only with reasons.
5. For final response packages, open response-audit-gate.md and maintain the response ledger before calling the letter complete.
6. Audit — completeness (every comment answered), traceability (every claim located), factuality (no fabricated change), tone, and consistency across reviewers (conflicting asks reconciled).
7. Output the letter + an unresolved/author-input list.

Output contract

1. Response letter — per comment: ID | Reviewer comment (quoted) | Response | Action | Location.
2. Summary of changes — short editor-facing overview.
3. Response audit — for final packages: every comment has an action, location, evidence artifact/status, and no unsupported claimed change.
4. Unresolved / author input needed — comments requiring data/decisions only the author can provide (e.g. "run external validation," "confirm patient-level split").
5. 待确认（中文） — for Chinese authors, the items needing confirmation.

Never claim a change that was not made. If a requested analysis is not yet done, say so and mark it pending rather than fabricating a result.

Handoffs

New statistics (external validation, DeLong, calibration, MRMC) → radiology-stats; checklist gaps a reviewer cited → radiology-reporting; new/edited prose → radiology-writing/ radiology-polishing; new figures → radiology-figure.