Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35797331›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Comparative analysis of wavelet transform filtering systems for noise reduction in ultrasound images.

Dominik Vilimek, Jan Kubicek, Milos Golian, Rene Jaros, Radana Kahankova, Pavla Hanzlikova, Daniel Barvik, Alice Krestanova, Marek Penhaker, Martin Cerny and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Dominik VilimekDepartment of Cybernetics and Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, VSB - Technical University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0003-3781-1280
Jan KubicekDepartment of Cybernetics and Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, VSB - Technical University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic.
Milos GolianHuman Motion Diagnostic Center, Department of Human Movement Studies, University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic.
Rene JarosDepartment of Cybernetics and Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, VSB - Technical University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic.
Radana KahankovaDepartment of Cybernetics and Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, VSB - Technical University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic.
Pavla HanzlikovaDepartment of Imaging Method, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic.
Daniel BarvikDepartment of Cybernetics and Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, VSB - Technical University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0001-7699-8792
Alice KrestanovaDepartment of Cybernetics and Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, VSB - Technical University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic.
Marek PenhakerDepartment of Cybernetics and Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, VSB - Technical University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic.
Martin CernyDepartment of Cybernetics and Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, VSB - Technical University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic.
Ondrej ProkopMEDIN, a.s., Nove Mesto na Morave, Czech Republic.
Marek BuzgaHuman Motion Diagnostic Center, Department of Human Movement Studies, University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-9554-737X
VSB - Technical University of Ostrava · CZUniversity of Ostrava · CZMedin (Czechia) · CZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Wavelet transform (WT) is a commonly used method for noise suppression and feature extraction from biomedical images. The selection of WT system settings significantly affects the efficiency of denoising procedure. This comparative study analyzed the efficacy of the proposed WT system on real 292 ultrasound images from several areas of interest. The study investigates the performance of the system for different scaling functions of two basic wavelet bases, Daubechies and Symlets, and their efficiency on images artificially corrupted by three kinds of noise. To evaluate our extensive analysis, we used objective metrics, namely structural similarity index (SSIM), correlation coefficient, mean squared error (MSE), peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR) and universal image quality index (Q-index). Moreover, this study includes clinical insights on selected filtration outcomes provided by clinical experts. The results show that the efficiency of the filtration strongly depends on the specific wavelet system setting, type of ultrasound data, and the noise present. The findings presented may provide a useful guideline for researchers, software developers, and clinical professionals to obtain high quality images.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsWavelet AnalysisSignal-To-Noise RatioUltrasonography

Identifiers

PMID35797331
PMCPMC9262246
OpenAlexW4284685201

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.