Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41723236›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Comparative study of wavelet transform and Fourier domain filtering for medical image denoising.

M Ali Saif, Bassam M Mughalles, Ibrahim G H Loqman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

M Ali SaifDepartment of Physics, University of Amran, Amran, Yemen. masali73@gmail.com.
Bassam M MughallesDepartment of Physics, University of Sana'a, Sana'a, Yemen.
Ibrahim G H LoqmanDepartment of Physics, University of Sana'a, Sana'a, Yemen.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Image denoising is a crucial preprocessing step in medical imaging. While deep learning methods offer state-of-the-art performance, their computational complexity and data requirements can be prohibitive. Traditional transform-domain methods, particularly wavelet transforms, remain widely used due to their efficiency and interpretability. However, a comprehensive comparison of wavelet families and thresholding techniques for diverse medical noise types is lacking, and the relative performance of wavelet versus localized Fourier methods is not well established. Here, we conduct a two-part investigation. First, we evaluate eight wavelet families combined with twelve thresholding functions and four threshold selection rules on a CT image corrupted with Gaussian, Uniform, Poisson, and Salt-and-Pepper noise. Second, we compare the best wavelet configurations against a block-based Discrete Fourier Cosine Transform (DFCT) approach using overlapping blocks. Among wavelet methods, Biorthogonal Spline and Daubechies wavelets with adaptive thresholding (Smooth Garrote, SURE) performed best. However, the block-based DFCT method consistently outperformed all global DWT configurations across all noise types. DFCT achieved PSNR dB-values of [Formula: see text] (Gaussian), [Formula: see text] (uniform), [Formula: see text] (Poisson), and [Formula: see text] (salt-and-pepper), representing improvements of 4.63, 4.57, 6.25, and 5.07 dB respectively over the best wavelet results. In contrast to the common assumption that wavelet transforms are superior due to multi-resolution analysis, our results demonstrate that a block-based DFCT approach provides significantly better denoising performance across diverse noise types. These findings emphasize the importance of algorithmic selection based on processing methodology rather than solely on transform properties.

Identifiers

PMID41723236
PMCPMC13021944

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.