ArticleProceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering
Performance Assessment Framework for Neural Network Denoising.
Article in Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Image quality evaluation in deep-learning-based CT noise reduction using virtual imaging trial methods: Contrast-dependent spatial resolution.Medical physics · 2024Article
- CT image denoising methods for image quality improvement and radiation dose reduction.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Review
- Evaluation of data uncertainty for deep-learning-based CT noise reduction using ensemble patient data and a virtual imaging trial framework.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The proliferation of deep learning image processing calls for a quantitative image quality assessment framework that is suitable for nonlinear, data-dependent algorithms. In this work, we propose a method to systematically evaluate the system and noise responses such that the nonlinear transfer properties can be mapped out. The method involves sampling of lesion perturbations as a function of size, contrast, as well as clinically relevant features such as shape and texture that may be important for diagnosis. We embed the perturbations in backgrounds of varying attenuation levels, noise magnitude and correlation that are associated with different patient anatomies and imaging protocols. The range of system and noise response are further used to evaluate performance for clinical tasks such as signal detection and classification. We performed the assessment for an example CNN-denoising algorithm for low does lung CT screening. The system response of the CNN-denoising algorithm exhibits highly nonlinear behavior where both contrast and higher order lesion features such as spiculated boundaries are not reliably represented for lesions perturbations with small size and low contrast. The noise properties are potentially highly nonstationary, and should be assumed to be the same between the signal-present and signal-absent images. Furthermore, we observer a high degree dependency of both system and noise response on the background attenuation levels. Inputs around zeros are effectively imposed a non-negativity constraint; transfer properties for higher background levels are highly variable. For a detection task, CNN-denoised images improved detectability index by 16-18% compared to low dose CT inputs. For classification task between spiculated and smooth lesions, CNN-denoised images result in a much larger improvement up to 50%. The performance assessment framework propose in this work can systematically map out the nonlinear transfer functions for deep learning algorithms and can potentially enable robust deployment of such algorithms in medical imaging applications.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.