ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2025
Deep learning CT image restoration using system blur and noise models.
Article in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
Purpose: The restoration of images affected by blur and noise has been widely studied and has broad potential for applications including in medical imaging modalities such as computed tomography. Recently, deep learning approaches have demonstrated the potential to enhance image quality beyond classic limits; however, most deep learning models attempt a blind restoration problem and base their restoration on image inputs alone without direct knowledge of the image noise and blur properties. We present a method that leverages both degraded image inputs and a characterization of the system's blur and noise to combine modeling and deep learning approaches. Approach: Different methods to integrate these auxiliary inputs are presented, namely, an input-variant and a weight-variant approach wherein the auxiliary inputs are incorporated as a parameter vector before and after the convolutional block, respectively, allowing easy integration into any convolutional neural network architecture. Results: The proposed model shows superior performance compared with baseline models lacking auxiliary inputs. Evaluations are based on the average peak signal-to-noise ratio and structural similarity index measure, selected examples of top and bottom 10% performance for varying approaches, and an input space analysis to assess the effect of different noise and blur on performance. In addition, the proposed model exhibits a degree of robustness when the blur and noise parameters deviate from their true values. Conclusion: Results demonstrate the efficacy of providing a deep learning model with auxiliary inputs, representing system blur and noise characteristics, to enhance the performance of the model in image restoration tasks.
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.