Write a comment

Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint?

Yes

The introduction clearly explains the objective of the article in a comprehensive manner for better understanding of the general population.

Are the methods well-suited for this research?

Highly appropriate

They provided a stepwise review of the methodology, which helps in arriving at a valid conclusion.

Are the conclusions supported by the data?

Highly supported

Yes, the authors provided summaries of each article reviewed and logically derived the conclusion in a precise manner. They also highlighted the fundamental need for data security in healthcare settings.

Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data?

Highly appropriate and clear

The authors included clear visualizations of their data as discussed in the paper.

How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research?

Very clearly

The authors illustrate the interpretation of their findings and areas for future research.

Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge?

Highly likely

The preprint outlines various methodologies and best options for healthcare data protection and predicting potential vulnerabilities.

Would it benefit from language editing?

No

The preprint has a few typographical errors, which do not impact the clarity of the paper.

Would you recommend this preprint to others?

Yes, it’s of high quality

It highlights information necessary to the advancement of technological knowledge, especially among the future generation.

Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience?

Yes, after minor changes

Minor typographical errors.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The authors declare that they did not use generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.