A New Similarity Measure for Non-Local Means Filtering of MRI Images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The acquisition of MRI images offers a trade-off in terms of acquisition time, spatial/temporal resolution and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). Thus, for instance, increasing the time efficiency of MRI often comes at the expense of reduced SNR. This, in turn, necessitates the use of post-processing tools for noise rejection, which makes image de-noising an indispensable component of computer assistance diagnosis. In the field of MRI, a multitude of image de-noising methods have been proposed hitherto. In this paper, the application of a particular class of de-noising algorithms - known as non-local mean (NLM) filters - is investigated. Such filters have been recently applied for MRI data enhancement and they have been shown to provide more accurate results as compared to many alternative de-noising algorithms. Unfortunately, virtually all existing methods for NLM filtering have been derived under the assumption of additive white Gaussian (AWG) noise contamination. Since this assumption is known to fail at low values of SNR, an alternative formulation of NLM filtering is required, which would take into consideration the correct Rician statistics of MRI noise. Accordingly, the contribution of the present paper is two-fold. First, it points out some principal disadvantages of the earlier methods of NLM filtering of MRI images and suggests means to rectify them. Second, the paper introduces a new similarity measure for NLM filtering of MRI Images, which is derived under bona fide statistical assumptions and results in more accurate reconstruction of MR scans as compared to alternative NLM approaches. Finally, the utility and viability of the proposed method is demonstrated through a series of numerical experiments using both in silico and in vivo MRI data.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".