Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42288637›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Impact of Gaussian feathering on diagnostic metrics in tile-based micro-CT sinogram infilling.

Falk L Wiegmann, Nancy L Ford

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

2 authors.

Falk L WiegmannDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Nancy L FordDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. nlford@dentistry.ubc.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tile-based sinogram infilling methods for micro-CT require merging overlapping output tiles to reconstruct full images. Gaussian feathering, the standard blending approach, produces visually seamless results but its effect on diagnostic image quality metrics has not been characterized. This study quantifies how Gaussian feathering affects noise power spectrum (NPS), modulation transfer function (MTF), noise equivalent quanta (NEQ), structural similarity index (SSIM), and peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR) compared to nearest priority blending, also known as Voronoi partition blending. We mathematically derived the variance reduction mechanism in Gaussian blending and experimentally compared both methods using sinograms infilled by DeepFill v2 as a representative generative inpainting model, applied to a micro-CT quality assurance phantom reconstructed from 50% undersampled data. Gaussian feathering reduced variance by up to 19.6% at overlap centers, causing NPS reduction of up to 13.8% at low spatial frequencies and NEQ inflation of up to 38.5%. MTF showed mixed effects with improvements at low frequencies but reductions at high frequencies. SSIM and PSNR showed statistically significant differences: sinogram PSNR differed by 0.05 dB ([Formula: see text]) and reconstruction SSIM by 0.009 ([Formula: see text]), both with small effect sizes. In this experimental configuration, Gaussian feathering distorted diagnostic metrics through a variance reduction mechanism, while standard fidelity metrics detected only subtle changes. Nearest priority blending may be preferred when diagnostic metrics are used to validate infilling methods, pending broader empirical validation.

Identifiers

PMID42288637
PMCPMC13518857

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.