MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406149150 · doi:10.37394/23208.2025.22.9

An Efficient Quality Enhancement Method for Low-Dose CBCT Imaging

2024· article· en· W4406149150 on OpenAlexaff
Hamid Reza Tohidypour, Panos Nasiopoulos, Shahriar Mirabbasi

Bibliographic record

VenueWSEAS TRANSACTIONS ON BIOLOGY AND BIOMEDICINE · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAliasingImage qualityComputer scienceComputer visionFilter (signal processing)Artificial intelligenceNoise (video)Speckle noiseCone beam computed tomographySpeckle patternImage (mathematics)MedicineComputed tomographyRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) is a widely used imaging technique in medical and dental applications. However, low-dose radiation CBCT images are prone to aliasing artifacts, which introduce artifacts in microstructures, degrade image quality, and as a result affect diagnostic accuracy. Existing CBCT image enhancement approaches tend to focus on noise reduction and higher resolution but they fail to address aliasing artifacts. This paper introduces a unique anti-aliasing method specifically designed for low-dose CBCT images. The proposed approach utilizes a Butterworth filter to remove aliasing artifacts in high frequencies, while speckle noise is reduced by a Non-Local Means (NLM) filter. Finally, the overall visual quality is improved by a Laplacian filter which enhances edges while steps are taken to adjust brightness and contrast. Subjective evaluations show that our approach outperforms existing methods by an average of 98.63%, effectively mitigating aliasing without compromising resolution or introducing additional noise, thereby improving the diagnostic reliability of CBCT images and addressing a critical gap in current clinical practice.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.917
Threshold uncertainty score0.425

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.411 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWSEAS TRANSACTIONS ON BIOLOGY AND BIOMEDICINESame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207