ArticleResearch (Washington, D.C.)2025
Multi-marker Similarity Enables Reduced-Reference and Interpretable Image Quality Assessment in Optical Microscopy.
Article in Research (Washington, D.C.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Foundation Models Meet Medical Image Interpretation.Research (Washington, D.C.) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Optical microscopy contributes to the ever-increasing progress in biological and biomedical studies, as it allows the implementation of minimally invasive experimental pipelines to translate the data of measured samples into valuable knowledge. Within these pipelines, reliable quality assessment must be ensured to validate the generated results. Image quality assessment is often applied with full-reference methods to estimate the similarity between the ground truth and the output images. However, current methods often show poor agreement with visual perception and lead to the generation of various full-reference metrics tailored to specific applications. Additionally, they rely on pixel-wise comparisons, emphasizing local intensity similarity while often overlooking comprehensive and interpretable image quality assessment. To address these issues, we have developed a multi-marker similarity method that compares standard quality markers, such as resolution, signal-to-noise ratio, contrast, and high-frequency components. The method computes a similarity score between the image and the ground truth for each marker and then combines these scores into an overall similarity estimate. This provides a full-reference estimate of image quality while extracting global quality features and detecting experimental artifacts. Multi-marker similarity provides a reliable and interpretable method for image quality assessment and the generation of quality rankings. By focusing on the comparison of quality markers rather than direct image distances, the method enables reduced-reference implementations, where a single field of view is used as a benchmark for multiple measurements. This opens a way for reliable automatic evaluation of big datasets, typical of large biomedical studies, when manually assessing single images and defining the ground truth for each field of view is not feasible.
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.