Cargando…

Comparative analysis of wavelet transform filtering systems for noise reduction in ultrasound images

Wavelet transform (WT) is a commonly used method for noise suppression and feature extraction from biomedical images. The selection of WT system settings significantly affects the efficiency of denoising procedure. This comparative study analyzed the efficacy of the proposed WT system on real 292 ul...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vilimek, Dominik, Kubicek, Jan, Golian, Milos, Jaros, Rene, Kahankova, Radana, Hanzlikova, Pavla, Barvik, Daniel, Krestanova, Alice, Penhaker, Marek, Cerny, Martin, Prokop, Ondrej, Buzga, Marek
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9262246/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35797331
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270745
_version_ 1784742451258327040
author Vilimek, Dominik
Kubicek, Jan
Golian, Milos
Jaros, Rene
Kahankova, Radana
Hanzlikova, Pavla
Barvik, Daniel
Krestanova, Alice
Penhaker, Marek
Cerny, Martin
Prokop, Ondrej
Buzga, Marek
author_facet Vilimek, Dominik
Kubicek, Jan
Golian, Milos
Jaros, Rene
Kahankova, Radana
Hanzlikova, Pavla
Barvik, Daniel
Krestanova, Alice
Penhaker, Marek
Cerny, Martin
Prokop, Ondrej
Buzga, Marek
author_sort Vilimek, Dominik
collection PubMed
description Wavelet transform (WT) is a commonly used method for noise suppression and feature extraction from biomedical images. The selection of WT system settings significantly affects the efficiency of denoising procedure. This comparative study analyzed the efficacy of the proposed WT system on real 292 ultrasound images from several areas of interest. The study investigates the performance of the system for different scaling functions of two basic wavelet bases, Daubechies and Symlets, and their efficiency on images artificially corrupted by three kinds of noise. To evaluate our extensive analysis, we used objective metrics, namely structural similarity index (SSIM), correlation coefficient, mean squared error (MSE), peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR) and universal image quality index (Q-index). Moreover, this study includes clinical insights on selected filtration outcomes provided by clinical experts. The results show that the efficiency of the filtration strongly depends on the specific wavelet system setting, type of ultrasound data, and the noise present. The findings presented may provide a useful guideline for researchers, software developers, and clinical professionals to obtain high quality images.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9262246
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92622462022-07-08 Comparative analysis of wavelet transform filtering systems for noise reduction in ultrasound images Vilimek, Dominik Kubicek, Jan Golian, Milos Jaros, Rene Kahankova, Radana Hanzlikova, Pavla Barvik, Daniel Krestanova, Alice Penhaker, Marek Cerny, Martin Prokop, Ondrej Buzga, Marek PLoS One Research Article Wavelet transform (WT) is a commonly used method for noise suppression and feature extraction from biomedical images. The selection of WT system settings significantly affects the efficiency of denoising procedure. This comparative study analyzed the efficacy of the proposed WT system on real 292 ultrasound images from several areas of interest. The study investigates the performance of the system for different scaling functions of two basic wavelet bases, Daubechies and Symlets, and their efficiency on images artificially corrupted by three kinds of noise. To evaluate our extensive analysis, we used objective metrics, namely structural similarity index (SSIM), correlation coefficient, mean squared error (MSE), peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR) and universal image quality index (Q-index). Moreover, this study includes clinical insights on selected filtration outcomes provided by clinical experts. The results show that the efficiency of the filtration strongly depends on the specific wavelet system setting, type of ultrasound data, and the noise present. The findings presented may provide a useful guideline for researchers, software developers, and clinical professionals to obtain high quality images. Public Library of Science 2022-07-07 /pmc/articles/PMC9262246/ /pubmed/35797331 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270745 Text en © 2022 Vilimek et al https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Vilimek, Dominik
Kubicek, Jan
Golian, Milos
Jaros, Rene
Kahankova, Radana
Hanzlikova, Pavla
Barvik, Daniel
Krestanova, Alice
Penhaker, Marek
Cerny, Martin
Prokop, Ondrej
Buzga, Marek
Comparative analysis of wavelet transform filtering systems for noise reduction in ultrasound images
title Comparative analysis of wavelet transform filtering systems for noise reduction in ultrasound images
title_full Comparative analysis of wavelet transform filtering systems for noise reduction in ultrasound images
title_fullStr Comparative analysis of wavelet transform filtering systems for noise reduction in ultrasound images
title_full_unstemmed Comparative analysis of wavelet transform filtering systems for noise reduction in ultrasound images
title_short Comparative analysis of wavelet transform filtering systems for noise reduction in ultrasound images
title_sort comparative analysis of wavelet transform filtering systems for noise reduction in ultrasound images
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9262246/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35797331
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270745
work_keys_str_mv AT vilimekdominik comparativeanalysisofwavelettransformfilteringsystemsfornoisereductioninultrasoundimages
AT kubicekjan comparativeanalysisofwavelettransformfilteringsystemsfornoisereductioninultrasoundimages
AT golianmilos comparativeanalysisofwavelettransformfilteringsystemsfornoisereductioninultrasoundimages
AT jarosrene comparativeanalysisofwavelettransformfilteringsystemsfornoisereductioninultrasoundimages
AT kahankovaradana comparativeanalysisofwavelettransformfilteringsystemsfornoisereductioninultrasoundimages
AT hanzlikovapavla comparativeanalysisofwavelettransformfilteringsystemsfornoisereductioninultrasoundimages
AT barvikdaniel comparativeanalysisofwavelettransformfilteringsystemsfornoisereductioninultrasoundimages
AT krestanovaalice comparativeanalysisofwavelettransformfilteringsystemsfornoisereductioninultrasoundimages
AT penhakermarek comparativeanalysisofwavelettransformfilteringsystemsfornoisereductioninultrasoundimages
AT cernymartin comparativeanalysisofwavelettransformfilteringsystemsfornoisereductioninultrasoundimages
AT prokopondrej comparativeanalysisofwavelettransformfilteringsystemsfornoisereductioninultrasoundimages
AT buzgamarek comparativeanalysisofwavelettransformfilteringsystemsfornoisereductioninultrasoundimages