MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111313369 · doi:10.1109/tip.2010.2045691

Noise Reduction of cDNA Microarray Images Using Complex Wavelets

2010· article· en· W2111313369 on OpenAlexaff
Tamanna Howlader, Yogendra P. Chaubey

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Image Processing · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage and Signal Denoising Methods
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNoise reductionPattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceWaveletComplex wavelet transformNoise (video)MathematicsWavelet transformSignal-to-noise ratio (imaging)Computer scienceDiscrete wavelet transformStatisticsImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Noise reduction is an essential step of cDNA microarray image analysis for obtaining better-quality gene expression measurements. Wavelet-based denoising methods have shown significant success in traditional image processing. The complex wavelet transform (CWT) is preferred to the classical discrete wavelet transform for denoising of microarray images due to its improved directional selectivity for better representation of the circular edges of spots and near shift-invariance property. Existing CWT-based denoising methods are not efficient for microarray image processing because they fail to take into account the signal as well as noise correlations that exist between red and green channel images. In this paper, two bivariate estimators are developed for the CWT-based denoising of microarray images using the standard maximum a posteriori and linear minimum mean squared error estimation criteria. The proposed denoising methods are capable of taking into account both the interchannel signal and noise correlations. Significance of the proposed denoising methods is assessed by examining the effect of noise reduction on the estimation of the log-intensity ratio. Extensive experimentations are carried out to show that the proposed methods provide better noise reduction of microarray images leading to more accurate estimation of the log-intensity ratios as compared to the other CWT-based denoising methods.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Image ProcessingSame topicImage and Signal Denoising MethodsFrench-language works237,207