MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2947296117 · doi:10.14569/ijacsa.2019.0100542

Comparison of Reducing the Speckle Noise in Ultrasound Medical Images using Discrete Wavelet Transform

2019· article· en· W2947296117 on OpenAlexaff
Asim ur Rehman Khan, Farrokh Janabi‐Sharifi, Mohammad Ghahramani, Muhammad Ahsan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage and Signal Denoising Methods
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceSpeckle noiseNoise (video)Speckle patternComputer visionDiscrete wavelet transformPattern recognition (psychology)Filter (signal processing)Median filterWaveletPeak signal-to-noise ratioWavelet transformWiener filterImage qualityImage processingImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Speckle noise in ultrasound (US) medical images is the prime factor that undermines its full utilization. This noise is added by the constructive / destructive interference of sound waves travelling through hard- and soft-tissues of a patient. It is therefore generally accepted that the noise is unavoidable. As an alternate researchers have proposed several algorithms to somewhat undermine the effect of speckle noise. The discrete wavelet transform (DWT) has been used by several researchers. However, the performance of only a few transforms has been demonstrated. This paper provides a comparison of several DWT. The algorithm comprises of a pre-processing stage using Wiener filter, and a post-processing stage using Median filter. The processed image is compared with the original image on four metrics: two are based on full-reference (FR) image quality assessment (IQA), and the remaining two are based on no-reference (NR) IQA metrics. The FR-IQA are peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR) and mean structurally similarity index measure (MSSIM). The two NR-IQA techniques are blind pseudo-reference image (BPRI), and blind multiple pseudo-reference images (BMPRI). It has been demonstrated that some of these wavelet transforms outperform others by a significant margin.

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)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.340 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Advanced Computer Science and ApplicationsSame topicImage and Signal Denoising MethodsFrench-language works237,207