4.8 Article

An objective measure for assessing the quality of contrast enhancement on magnetic resonance images

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jksuci.2021.12.005

关键词

Contrast Enhancement; Histogram Equalization; Image Quality Analysis; Magnetic Resonance Images; Post-processing

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper proposes an objective statistic called CQCEI to assess the quality of contrast enhancement on MR images. CQCEI takes into account various aspects of image quality related to contrast enhancement, including improvement in contrast, shift in mean brightness, saturation, and noise-amplification. The results show that CQCEI is in good agreement with subjective fidelity ratings on contrast-enhanced MR images.
Post-processing algorithms like histogram equalization and its variants have been widely employed to enhance the contrast of Magnetic Resonance (MR) images. Objective metrics that can collectively reflect the improvement in contrast and inadvertent distortions are necessary to rate the quality of enhanced images. The objective of this paper is to formulate an objective statistic for rating the quality of contrast enhancement on MR images and to test the agreement of the proposed metric with the subjective fidelity ratings. An objective metric named Cumulative Quality of Contrast-Enhanced Images (CQCEI), for assessing the quality of contrast enhancement, especially the performance of the histogram equalization and its variants, on MR images is proposed. The CQCEI is formulated such that it collectively accounts for various aspects of image quality pertaining to the contrast enhancement, namely improvement in contrast, shift in mean brightness, saturation and noise-amplification. The CQCEI has shown good agreement with subjective fidelity ratings on contrast-enhanced MR images. (c) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of King Saud University. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据