MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001574155 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2011.6090973

Wavelet-based ultrasound image denoising: Performance analysis and comparison

2011· article· en· W2001574155 on OpenAlex
H. Ahmadi Noubari, Seyed Kamaledin Setarehdan

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage and Signal Denoising Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurveletSpeckle noiseContourletArtificial intelligenceWaveletSpeckle patternComputer scienceNoise reductionComputer visionComplex wavelet transformMultiplicative noiseNoise (video)Pattern recognition (psychology)Wavelet transformImage (mathematics)Discrete wavelet transform

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ultrasound images are generally affected by multiplicative speckle noise, which is mainly due to the coherent nature of the scattering phenomenon. Speckle noise filtering is thus a critical pre-processing step in medical ultrasound imaging provided that the diagnostic features of interest are not lost. A comparative study of the performance of alternative wavelet based ultrasound image denoising methods is presented in this article. In particular, the contourlet and curvelet techniques with dual tree complex and real and double density wavelet transform denoising methods were applied to real ultrasound images and results were quantitatively compared. The results show that curvelet-based method performs superior as compared to other methods and can effectively reduce most of the speckle noise content of a given image.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.540
Threshold uncertainty score0.518

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImage and Signal Denoising MethodsFrench-language works237,207