ArticleComputational and mathematical methods in medicine2022
Research on Optimization Scheme for Blocking Artifacts after Patch-Based Medical Image Reconstruction.
Article in Computational and mathematical methods in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- MixBranchNet: a task-adaptive network for glioma segmentation and genotype prediction by exploiting spatial-spectral correlations in CEST MRI.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Computer vision to predict cell seeding coverage in re-endothelialized mouse lungs.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- ECG-Image-Kit: a synthetic image generation toolbox to facilitate deep learning-based electrocardiogram digitization.Physiological measurement · 2024Article
- A Self-Configuring Deep Learning Network for Segmentation of Temporal Bone Anatomy in Cone-Beam CT Imaging.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Due to limitations of computer resources, when utilizing a neural network to process an image with a high resolution, the typical processing approach is to slice the original image. However, because of the influence of zero-padding in the edge component during the convolution process, the central part of the patch often has more accurate feature information than the edge part, resulting in image blocking artifacts after patch stitching. We studied this problem in this paper and proposed a fusion method that assigns a weight to each pixel in a patch using a truncated Gaussian function as the weighting function. In this method, we used the weighting function to transform the Euclidean-distance between a point in the overlapping part and the central point of the patch where the point was located into a weight coefficient. With increasing distance, the value of the weight coefficient decreased. Finally, the reconstructed image was obtained by weighting. We employed the bias correction model to evaluate our method on the simulated database BrainWeb and the real dataset HCP (Human Connectome Project). The results show that the proposed method is capable of effectively removing blocking artifacts and obtaining a smoother bias field. To verify the effectiveness of our algorithm, we employed a denoising model to test it on the IXI-Guys human dataset. Qualitative and quantitative evaluations of both models show that the fusion method proposed in this paper can effectively remove blocking artifacts and demonstrates superior performance compared to five commonly available and state-of-the-art fusion methods.
Indexed as
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.