MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2275720520 · doi:10.1049/htl.2015.0007

Image denoising in bidimensional empirical mode decomposition domain: the role of Student's probability distribution function

2015· article· en· W2275720520 on OpenAlexaff
Salim Lahmiri

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Technology Letters · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage and Signal Denoising Methods
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHilbert–Huang transformNoise reductionProbability density functionNoise (video)Gaussian noiseArtificial intelligenceComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)MathematicsAlgorithmAdditive white Gaussian noiseNon-local meansProbability distributionWaveletImage (mathematics)White noiseImage denoisingStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hybridisation of the bi-dimensional empirical mode decomposition (BEMD) with denoising techniques has been proposed in the literature as an effective approach for image denoising. In this Letter, the Student's probability density function is introduced in the computation of the mean envelope of the data during the BEMD sifting process to make it robust to values that are far from the mean. The resulting BEMD is denoted tBEMD. In order to show the effectiveness of the tBEMD, several image denoising techniques in tBEMD domain are employed; namely, fourth order partial differential equation (PDE), linear complex diffusion process (LCDP), non-linear complex diffusion process (NLCDP), and the discrete wavelet transform (DWT). Two biomedical images and a standard digital image were considered for experiments. The original images were corrupted with additive Gaussian noise with three different levels. Based on peak-signal-to-noise ratio, the experimental results show that PDE, LCDP, NLCDP, and DWT all perform better in the tBEMD than in the classical BEMD domain. It is also found that tBEMD is faster than classical BEMD when the noise level is low. When it is high, the computational cost in terms of processing time is similar. The effectiveness of the presented approach makes it promising for clinical applications.

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)0.003
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 score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.344 · 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

Citations28
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Technology LettersSame topicImage and Signal Denoising MethodsFrench-language works237,207