Applicability Evaluation of Full-Reference Image Quality Assessment Methods for Computed Tomography Images.
Computed tomography
FR-IQA
Image quality
Objective assessment
Subjective assessment
VIF
Journal
Journal of digital imaging
ISSN: 1618-727X
Titre abrégé: J Digit Imaging
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9100529
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2023
12 2023
Historique:
received:
02
03
2023
accepted:
23
06
2023
revised:
22
06
2023
medline:
23
10
2023
pubmed:
8
8
2023
entrez:
7
8
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Image quality assessments (IQA) are an important task for providing appropriate medical care. Full-reference IQA (FR-IQA) methods, such as peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR) and structural similarity (SSIM), are often used to evaluate imaging conditions, reconstruction conditions, and image processing algorithms, including noise reduction and super-resolution technology. However, these IQA methods may be inapplicable for medical images because they were designed for natural images. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the correlation between objective assessment by some FR-IQA methods and human subjective assessment for computed tomography (CT) images. For evaluation, 210 distorted images were created from six original images using two types of degradation: noise and blur. We employed nine widely used FR-IQA methods for natural images: PSNR, SSIM, feature similarity (FSIM), information fidelity criterion (IFC), visual information fidelity (VIF), noise quality measure (NQM), visual signal-to-noise ratio (VSNR), multi-scale SSIM (MSSSIM), and information content-weighted SSIM (IWSSIM). Six observers performed subjective assessments using the double stimulus continuous quality scale (DSCQS) method. The performance of IQA methods was quantified using Pearson's linear correlation coefficient (PLCC), Spearman rank order correlation coefficient (SROCC), and root-mean-square error (RMSE). Nine FR-IQA methods developed for natural images were all strongly correlated with the subjective assessment (PLCC and SROCC > 0.8), indicating that these methods can apply to CT images. Particularly, VIF had the best values for all three items, PLCC, SROCC, and RMSE. These results suggest that VIF provides the most accurate alternative measure to subjective assessments for CT images.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37550519
doi: 10.1007/s10278-023-00875-0
pii: 10.1007/s10278-023-00875-0
pmc: PMC10584745
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2623-2634Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2020 Apr;39(4):1064-1072
pubmed: 31535985
Lancet. 2018 Dec 1;392(10162):2388-2396
pubmed: 30318264
IEEE Trans Image Process. 2011 May;20(5):1185-98
pubmed: 21078577
IEEE Signal Process Mag. 2020 Jan;37(1):128-140
pubmed: 33758487
IEEE Trans Image Process. 2000;9(4):636-50
pubmed: 18255436
Phys Med Biol. 2021 Jul 26;66(15):
pubmed: 34225264
J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2017 Jul;4(3):035501
pubmed: 28924574
Br J Radiol. 2017 Nov;90(1079):20160519
pubmed: 28830200
IEEE Trans Image Process. 2007 Sep;16(9):2284-98
pubmed: 17784602
Eur Radiol. 2022 Jun;32(6):3974-3984
pubmed: 35064803
J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2018 Jul;5(3):036501
pubmed: 30035154
Magn Reson Med Sci. 2020 Aug 3;19(3):195-206
pubmed: 31484849
IEEE Trans Image Process. 2011 Aug;20(8):2378-86
pubmed: 21292594
IEEE Trans Image Process. 2005 Dec;14(12):2117-28
pubmed: 16370464
Magn Reson Imaging. 2016 Jul;34(6):820-831
pubmed: 26969762
Radiographics. 1992 Sep;12(5):1041-6
pubmed: 1529128
IEEE Trans Image Process. 2006 Feb;15(2):430-44
pubmed: 16479813
IEEE Trans Image Process. 2006 Nov;15(11):3440-51
pubmed: 17076403
Phys Med Biol. 2021 Sep 13;66(18):
pubmed: 34464942
J Digit Imaging. 2018 Aug;31(4):441-450
pubmed: 29047035
IEEE Trans Image Process. 2004 Apr;13(4):600-12
pubmed: 15376593
Med Phys. 2021 Oct;48(10):5727-5742
pubmed: 34387360