A metaheuristic automated framework for quality improvement of CT imagery.

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.

S RamasamyManipal Institute of Technology Bengaluru, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, 576104, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1395-0991

Justin JosephManipal Institute of Technology Bengaluru, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, 576104, India. justin.joseph@manipal.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6705-9902

V R SimiManipal Institute of Technology Bengaluru, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, 576104, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9674-4853

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Contrast-limited adaptive histogram equalization (CLAHE) is a technique often used for enhancing the quality of computed tomography (CT) images. The quality of enhanced CT slices produced by the CLAHE depends on the selection of the clip-limit (CL). The CLAHE driven with inadequate value of CL selected via trial and error may amplify noise, mask subtle structures, and hinder the overall perceptual quality of the processed CT slices. As a solution to this problem, we introduce a metaheuristic framework to facilitate automated CL selection in CLAHE, especially for CT contrast enhancement. The framework uses the whale algorithm as optimizer and a perception-based image quality evaluator (PIQE) as fitness. On 315 CT slices, the WOA-PIQE-CLAHE framework produced outputs that have lower PIQE (29.8063 ± 1.1433) and higher contrast (71.5385 ± 1.0408) compared to the low-contrast slices (PIQE = 32.0184 ± 0.9894 & Contrast = 69.3130 ± 1.0465). Increase in contrast and decrease in PIQE manifest that the framework improves tissue contrast without hindering the perceptual quality of the CT slices.

Indexed as

Image Processing, Computer-AssistedQuality ImprovementTomography, X-Ray ComputedAlgorithmsAnimalsHumansComputed tomographyContrast-limited adaptive histogram equalizationPerception-based image quality evaluatorWhale optimizer

Identifiers

PMID42178366

DOI10.1038/s41598-026-54389-0

PMCPMC13429660

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

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.