ArticleDiscover artificial intelligence2026
Systematic investigation of pre-processing and feature extraction techniques in medical image analysis.
Article in Discover artificial intelligence, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As medical imagery remains the cornerstone of diagnosis, the success of complex classification tasks depends on high-quality data and diagnostic features. This study evaluates image pre-processing and feature extraction to optimize model performance. Our investigation assesses how variations in pre-processing and feature extraction impact classification efficiency across three imaging modalities: radiology (chest X-ray images), pathology (H&E (Hematoxylin and Eosin)-stained patches), and ophthalmology (OCT (Optical Coherence Tomography) scans). The experimental framework incorporates nine pre-processing techniques, adjustment (brightness, contrast, and histogram equalization), filtering (mean, median, and Gaussian), and three normalization schemes, systematically combined for each modality. Features were extracted using five pre-trained architectures (VGG16, ResNet50, DenseNet121, MobileNetV2, and InceptionV3) and classified via a PCA-LDA (Principal Component Analysis-Linear Discriminant Analysis) pipeline. Performance was evaluated using the mean sensitivity score. Mean sensitivity scores improved significantly: H&E-stained images increased from 74·9% to 96·95%, chest X-rays from 89·9% to 96·65%, and OCT scans from 82·4% to 98·8%. No single pre-processing configuration consistently dominated; optimal settings varied by modality, confirming the absence of a universal solution. VGG16 and DenseNet121 exhibited the greatest robustness. Implementing at least one pre-processing step combined with a robust DL feature extractor can substantially improve model efficacy in diagnostic detection tasks. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s44163-026-01768-1.
Indexed as
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.