ArticleScientific reports2025
Learned denoising with simulated and experimental low-dose CT data.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- No Reproducibility, No Progress: Rethinking CT Benchmarking.Journal of imaging · 2025Article
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
Like in many other research fields, recent developments in computational imaging have focused on developing machine learning (ML) approaches to tackle its main challenges. To improve the performance of computational imaging algorithms, machine learning methods are used for image processing tasks such as noise reduction. Generally, these ML methods heavily rely on the availability of high-quality data on which they are trained. This work explores the application of ML methods, specifically convolutional neural networks (CNNs), in the context of noise reduction for computed tomography (CT) imaging. We utilize a large 2D computed tomography dataset for machine learning to carry out for the first time a comprehensive study on the differences between the observed performances of algorithms trained on simulated noisy data and on real-world experimental noisy data. The study compares the performance of two common CNN architectures, U-Net and MSD-Net, that are trained and evaluated on both simulated and experimental noisy data. The results show that while sinogram denoising performed better with simulated noisy data if evaluated in the sinogram domain, the performance did not carry over to the reconstruction domain where training on experimental noisy data shows a higher performance in denoising experimental noisy data. Training the algorithms with an optimization in the reconstruction domain mapping directly from sinogram to reconstruction significantly improved model performance, emphasizing the importance of matching raw measurement data to high-quality CT reconstructions. The study furthermore suggests the need for more sophisticated noise simulation approaches to bridge the gap between simulated and real-world data in CT image denoising applications and gives insights into the challenges and opportunities in leveraging simulated data for machine learning in computational imaging.
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.