Advertisement

Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 77, Issue 17, pp 22735–22770 | Cite as

A comprehensive review of denoising techniques for abdominal CT images

  • Ravinder Kaur
  • Mamta Juneja
  • A. K. Mandal
Article

Abstract

Computed Tomography (CT) is one of the effective imaging modality in medical sciences that assist in diagnosing various pathologies inside the human body. Despite considerable advancement in acquisition speed, signal to noise ratio and image resolution of computed tomography imaging technology, CT images are still affected by noise and artifacts. A tradeoff between the amount of noise reduced and conservation of genuine image details has to be made in such a way that it enhances the clinically relevant image content. Therefore, noise reduction in medical images is an important and challenging task, as it helps to improve the performance of other image processing procedures such as segmentation or classification to perform better diagnosis by clinicians. Different techniques have been suggested in the literature on denoising of CT images, and each technique has its own presumptions, benefits, and drawbacks. To the best of our knowledge, no survey paper was found in the literature that compares the performance of various denoising techniques for CT images. This study aims to compare the capabilities of several notable and contemporary denoising techniques in the presence of different types of noise present in abdominal CT images. This comparative analysis helps to determine the most suitable denoising technique for practitioners and researchers that can be used in real life scenarios. Furthermore, the advantages and disadvantages of considered denoising methods have also been discussed along with some recommendations for further research in this area.

Keywords

Computed tomography Noise Gaussian Poisson Filters Medical Images 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research work has been financially supported by University Grant Commission (UGC), New Delhi, India. Additionally, the authors would like to thank PGIMER Chandigarh for providing the image data set for carrying out this research.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of Interest

Authors have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    ADMIRE (2017) Advanced Modeled Iterative Reconstruction, Siemens Healthineers, https://www.healthcare.siemens.co.in/computed-tomography/technologies-innovations/admire. Accessed on 08 June 2017
  2. 2.
    Al Asadi AH (2015) Contourlet Transform Based Method For Medical Image Denoising. Int J Image Process (IJIP) 9(1):22Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ali SA, Vathsal S, Kishore KL (2010) Efficient denoising technique for CT Images using Window based multi-wavelet transformation and thresholding. Eur J Sci Res 48(2):315–325Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Andria G, Attivissimo F, Lanzolla AML (2013) A statistical approach for MR and CT images comparison. Measurement 46:57–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Attivissimo F, Cavone G, Lanzolla AML, Spadavecchia M (2010) A technique to improve the image quality in computer tomography. IEEE Trans Instrum Meas 59:1251–1257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baek J, Pelc NJ (2011) Local and global 3D noise power spectrum in cone-beam CT system with FDK reconstruction. Med Phys 38:2122–2131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bhadauria HS, Dewal ML (2011) Performance evaluation of curvelet and wavelet based denoising methods on brain computed tomography images. IEEE Int Conf Emerg Trends Electr Comput Technol (ICETECT) 666–670Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bian Z, Ma J, Huang J, Zhang H, Niu S, Feng Q, Liang Z, Chen W (2013) SRNLM: a sinogram restoration induced non-local means image filtering for low-dose computed tomography. Comput Med Imaging Graph 37(4):293–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Borsdorf A, Raupach R, Flohr T, Hornegger J (2008) Wavelet based noise reduction in CT-images using correlation analysis. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 27(12):1685–1703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Buades A, Coll B, Morel JM (2005) A review of image denoising algorithms, with a new one. Multiscale Model Simul 4(2):490–530MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Campadelli P, Pratissoli S, Casiraghi E, Lombardi G (2009) Automatic abdominal organ segmentation from CT images. ELCVIA: Electron Lett Comput Vis Image Anal 8(1):001–014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Candes EJ, Demanet L, Donoho DL, Ying L (2005): Fast discrete curvelet transforms. http://www.curvelet.org.papers.FDCT.pdf
  13. 13.
    Chen F, Zhang L, Yu H (2015) External patch prior guided internal clustering for image denoising. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision 2015 (pp. 603–611)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dabov K, Foi A, Katkovnik V, Egiazarian K (2007) Image denoising by sparse 3-D transform-domain collaborative filtering. IEEE Trans Image Process 16(8):2080–2095MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Deng J, Li H, Wu H (2011) A CT Image Denoise Method Using Curvelet Transform. In Communication Systems and Information Technology (pp. 681–687). Springer Berlin HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Do MN, Vetterli M (2005) The contourlet transform: an efficient directional multiresolution image representation. IEEE Trans Image Process 14(12):2091–2106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Elbakri IA, Fessler JA (2003) Efficient and accurate likelihood for iterative image reconstruction in x-ray computed tomographys. Proc SPIE Med Imaging 5032:1839–1850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Glisson CL, Altamar HO, Herrell SD, Clark P, Galloway RL (2011) Comparison and assessment of semi-automatic image segmentation in computed tomography scans for image-guided kidney surgery. Med Phys 38(11):6265–6274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Goldman LW (2007) Principles of CT and CT technology. J Nucl Med Technol 35(3):115–128Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gravel P, Beaudoin G, De Guise JA (2004) A method for modeling noise in medical images. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 23:1221–1232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gu S, Zhang L, Zuo W, Feng X (2014) Weighted nuclear norm minimization with application to image denoising. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition 2014 Sept 6 (pp. 2862–2869)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hsieh J (2003) Computed tomography: principles, design, artifacts, and recent advances. SPIE, BellinghamGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Huang J, Ma J, Liu N, Feng Q, Chen W (2011) Projection data restoration guided non-local means for low-dose computed tomography reconstruction. In: IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging, pp 1167–1170Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jiang J, Zhang L, Yang J (2014) Mixed noise removal by weighted encoding with sparse nonlocal regularization. IEEE Trans Image Process 23(6):2651–2662MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kaur R, Juneja MA (2016) Survey of different imaging modalities for renal cancer. Indian J Sci Technol;9(44)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kaur R, Juneja M (2018) Comparison of different renal imaging modalities: an overview. In Progress in intelligent computing techniques: theory, practice, and applications (pp. 47–57). Springer, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kingsbury N (2000) A dual-tree complex wavelet transform with improved orthogonality and symmetry properties. In 2000 International Conference on Image Processing. Proceedings. 2000 Sep 10 (Vol. 2, pp. 375–378)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kingsbury N (2001) Complex wavelets for shift invariant analysis and filtering of signals. Appl Comput Harmon Anal 10(3):234–253MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lee JS (1980) Digital image enhancement and noise filtering by using local statistics. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell, PAMI 2(2):165–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lin DT, Lei CC, Hung SW (2006) Computer-aided kidney segmentation on abdominal CT images. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed 10(1):59–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Linguraru MG, Wang S, Shah F, Gautam R, Peterson J, Linehan WM, Summers RM (2011) Automated noninvasive classification of renal cancer on multiphase CT. Med Phys 38(10):5738–5746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Liu B, Zhang H, Hua S, Jiang Q, Huang R, Liu W, Zhang S, Zhang B, Yue Z (2016) An automatic segmentation system of the acetabulum in sequential CT images for the personalized artificial femoral head design. Comput Methods Prog Biomed 127:318–335.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2015.12.012
  33. 33.
    Lu H, Li X, Hsiao IT, Liang Z (2002) Analytical noise treatment for low-dose CT projection data by penalized weighted least squares smoothing in the K-L domain. Proc SPIE 4682:146–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ma J, Huang J, Feng Q, Zhang H, Lu H, Liang Z, Chen W (2011) Low-dose computed tomography image restoration using previous normal-dose scan. Med Phys 38(10):5713–5731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Manduca A, Yu L, Trzasko JD, Khaylova N, Kofler JM, McCollough CM, Fletcher JG (2009) Projection space denoising with bilateral filtering and CT noise modeling for dose reduction in CT. Med Phys 36(11):4911–4919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Matrecano M, Poderico M, Poggi G, Romano M and Cesarelli M (2010) Application of denoising techniques to microtomographic images Proc. IEEE/EMBS Region 8 Int. Conf. on Information Technology Applications in Biomedicine, ITAB pp 1–4Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Muller P, Hiller J, Cantatore A, De Chiffre L (2012) A study on evaluation strategies in dimensional X-ray computed tomographyby estimation of measurement uncertainties. Int J Metrol Qual Eng 3:107–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Nayak DR, Dash R, Majhi B, Brain MR (2016) image classification using two-dimensional discrete wavelet transform and AdaBoost with random forests. Neurocomputing 177:188–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Nayak DR, Dash R, Majhi B (2016) Pathological brain detection using curvelet features and least squares SVM. Multimedia Tools Appl:1–24Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Neumann J, Steidl G (2005) Dual-tree Complex Wavelet transform in the frequency domain and an application to signal classification. Int J Wavelets Multiresolution Inf Process 3(01):43–65MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Niharika, Juneja M (2017) Clustering Based Approach for Segmentation of Optic Cup and Optic Disc for Detection of Glaucoma. Curr Med Imaging Rev 13(1):99–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Oulhaj H, Amine A, Rziza M, Aboutajdine D (2012) Noise reduction in medical Images-comparison of noise removal algorithms. In 2012 International Conference on Multimedia Computing and Systems (ICMCS), (pp. 344–349)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Perona P, Malik J (1990) Scale-space and edge detection using anisotropic diffusion. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 12(7):629–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Qiu D, Seeram E (2016) Does iterative reconstruction improve image quality and reduce dose in computed tomography? Radiol Open J 1(2):42–54.  https://doi.org/10.17140/ROJ-1-108 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rabbani H, Nezafat R, Gazor S (2009) Wavelet domain medical image denoising using bivariate Laplacian mixture model. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 56(12):2826–2837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Rudin LI, Osher S, Fatemi E (1992) Nonlinear total variation based noise removal algorithms. Physica D 60:259–268MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Rust G, Aurich V, Reiser M (2002) Noise/dose reduction and image improvements in screening virtual colonoscopy with tube currents of 20 mAs with nonlinear Gaussian filter chains. Proc SPIE Med Imaging 4683:186–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sanches JM, Nascimento JC, Marques JS (2008) Medical image noise reduction using the SylvesterLyapunov equation. IEEE Trans Image Process 17:1522–1539MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Selesnick IW (2001) The double density DWT. In: Petrosian, Meyer FG (eds) Wavelets in Signal and Image Analysis: From Theory to Practice. MA:Kluwer, BostonGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Starck JL, Candès EJ, Donoho DL (2002) The curvelet transform for image denoising. IEEE Trans Image Process 11(6):670–684MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Tomasi C, Manduchi R (1998) Bilateral filtering for gray and color images. In Sixth International Conference on Computer Vision. 1998 Jan 4 (pp. 839–846)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Trinh DH, Luong M, Rocchisani J, Pham CD, Pham HD, Dibos F (2012) An optimal weight method for CT image denoising. J Electron Sci Technol 10:124–129Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Tsagaan B, Shimizu A, Kobatake H, Miyakawa K, Hanzawa Y (2001) Segmentation of kidney by using a deformable model. In Image Processing. Proceedings. 2001 International Conference on 2001 (Vol. 3, pp. 1059-1062). IEEE PressGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Vitulano S, Di Ruberto C, Nappi M (1997) Different methods to segment biomedical images. Pattern Recogn Lett 18(11):1125–1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Wang Z, Bovik AC, Sheikh HR, Simoncelli EP (2004) Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Trans Image Process 13(4):600–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Wang J, Lu H, Li T, Liang Z (2005) Sinogram noise reduction for low-dose CT by statistics-based nonlinear filters. Proc SPIE 5747:2058–2066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Wang J, Lu H, Liang Z, Eremina D, Wang S, Chen J, Manzione J (2008) An experimental study on the noise properties of x-ray CT sinogram data in Radon space. Phys Med Biol 53:3327–3341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Weaver JB, Xu Y, Healy DM, Cromwell LD (1991) Filtering noise from images with wavelet transforms. Magn Reson Imaging 21:288–295Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Wong WC, Chung AC (2004) A nonlinear and non-iterative noise reduction technique for medical images: concept and methods comparison. InInternational Congress Series 2004 Jun 30 (Vol. 1268, pp. 171–176). ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Wong WCK, Chung ACS, Yu SCH (2004) Trilateral filter for biomedical images. In: Proceedings of ISBI, pp 820–823Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Xie Y, Gu S, Liu Y, Zuo W, Zhang W, Zhang L (2016) Weighted Schatten $ p $-norm minimization for image denoising and background subtraction. IEEE Trans Image Process 25(10):4842–4857MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Xu J, Zhang L, Zuo W, Zhang D, Feng X (2015) Patch group based nonlocal self-similarity prior learning for image denoising. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision 2015 (pp. 244–252)Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Zhang Y, Ning R (2008) Investigation of image noise in conebeam CT imaging due to photon counting statistics with the Feldkamp algorithm by computer simulations. J X-Ray Sci Technol 16:143–158Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Zhang L, Chen J, Zhu Y, Luo J (2009) Comparisons of several new de-noising methods for medical images. In 3rd International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedical Engineering (IEEE ICBBE 2009) (pp. 1–4)Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Zhang L, Dong W, Zhang D, Shi G (2010) Two-stage image denoising by principal component analysis with local pixel grouping. Pattern Recogn 43(4):1531–1549CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Zhang L, Zhang L, Mou X, Zhang D (2011) FSIM: a feature similarity index for image quality assessment. IEEE Trans Image Process 20(8):2378–2386MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Zhang Q, Shen X, Xu L, Jia J (2014) Rolling guidance filter. In European Conference on Computer Vision 2014 Sep 6 (pp. 815–830). Springer, ChamGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Zhong J, Ning R, Conover D (2004) Image denoising based on multiscale singularity detection for cone beam CT breast imaging. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 23:696–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Zhong J, Ning R, Conover D (2004) Image denoising based on multiscale singularity detection for cone beam CT breast imaging. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 23(6):696–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Zhu F, Carpenter T, Gonzalez DR, Atkinson M, Wardlaw J (2012) Computed tomography perfusion imaging denoising using Gaussian process regression. Phys Med Biol 57:N183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Zuo W, Zhang L, Song C, Zhang D, Gao H (2014) Gradient histogram estimation and preservation for texture enhanced image denoising. IEEE Trans Image Process 23(6):2459–2472Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Panjab UniversityChandigarhIndia
  2. 2.PGIMERChandigarhIndia

Personalised recommendations