Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 27 references

Leveraging Multiphase CT for Quality Enhancement of Portal Venous CT: Utility for Pancreas Segmentation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Multiphase CT fusion restores portal venous quality and lifts pancreas segmentation Dice by about 3 points.

desk verdict An honest proof-of-concept that never actually shows the multiphase fusion is what helps; the paper admits the multiphase model is not significantly better than a single-phase baseline, so the headline claim is unsupported as it stands. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.14013 v1 pith:KONJIXYP submitted 2025-01-23 eess.IV cs.AIcs.CV

Xinya Wang , Tejas Sudharshan Mathai , Boah Kim , Ronald M. Summers This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.AIcs.CV
keywords multiphaseCTportalvenousphasequalityenhancementpancreassegmentationprogressivefusionnetworknon-localsyntheticdegradationcomputedtomography
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that the multiple CT phases already acquired in a routine multiphase study can be reused to improve the quality of one phase instead of being discarded. The authors train a 3D progressive fusion and non-local network on degraded non-contrast, arterial, and portal venous scans to reconstruct a higher-quality portal venous volume, then measure clinical utility through a proxy pancreas segmentation task. They report that the restored portal venous phase improves pancreas segmentation by about three Dice points (68.9% to 71.7%) and by a similar margin in normalized surface distance, both statistically significant. If the claim holds, then complementary contrast and boundary information in existing multiphase CT is a free resource for scan-quality restoration and downstream organ segmentation.

What carries the argument

The central object is the 3D progressive fusion and non-local (PFNL) network, a video super-resolution architecture extended to three dimensions and repurposed to take three co-registered low-quality CT phases as input and output one high-quality portal venous volume. Its non-local component lets the network borrow contrast and boundary information across phases, while progressive fusion integrates the phases at multiple scales. Training uses an L1 reconstruction loss together with a 3D Sobel edge-based loss that biases the network toward preserving organ boundaries, and a second-order synthetic degradation pipeline generates the low-quality inputs from the original portal venous scans. The restored portal venous volume is then fed to a public multi-organ segmentation tool as a proxy readout of clinical utility.

What would settle it

Run the same 3D-PFNL model on real low-dose or artifact-corrupted portal venous CT with paired high-quality references and show that the Dice gain over the low-quality input disappears or fails to reach significance, which would indicate the synthetic degradation does not capture the real-world failure modes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that three co-registered CT phases—non-contrast, arterial, and portal venous—can be fused by a 3D progressive fusion and non-local network to restore a degraded portal venous scan, and that this restoration carries through to a downstream task. On the test set, the restored portal venous phase raises the Dice similarity coefficient from 68.9 ± 19.3% for low-quality input to 71.7 ± 15.6% (p = .034) and normalized surface distance from 22.0 ± 8.0% to 25.0 ± 8.5% (p = .025). The improvement over low-quality input is statistically significant; the difference against a single-phase super-resolution baseline is not, though the multiphase model yields sharper pancreatic boundaries and a lower Dice standard deviation. The authors present this as the first demonstration that multiphase CT can be harnessed for scan quality enhancement.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the synthetic multi-stage degradation used to produce low-quality training and test scans faithfully represents real clinical low-quality CT, because the model is trained and evaluated on the same dataset under that simulation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Restoring the portal venous phase with multiphase information recovers part of the segmentation loss caused by CT degradation, raising Dice from 68.9% to 71.7% and normalized surface distance from 22.0% to 25.0%.
  • The multiphase approach narrows the gap in pancreas segmentation between degraded and original scans, as shown by the lower Dice standard deviation (15.6 versus 19.3) and by one test case where segmentation failed on low-quality input but succeeded after restoration.
  • Because the method is not tailored to the pancreas, the same enhanced portal venous volume could improve segmentation of other abdominal structures without retraining for each organ.
  • The framework can in principle be applied to enhance other phases, such as non-contrast CT, which is used for opportunistic screening.
  • Quality metrics such as PSNR and SSIM do not by themselves predict downstream segmentation benefit, so a proxy task is needed to judge the restoration's clinical value.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural next step is to test the pipeline on real low-dose or motion-corrupted CT with paired high-quality references, since the current evidence comes entirely from synthetic degradation and transfer to real artifact patterns is unproven.
  • The non-local multiphase fusion idea may transfer to other imaging settings where complementary volumes are routinely acquired, such as MRI contrasts or dual-energy CT.
  • An ablation study that removes the 3D Sobel edge loss would isolate how much of the segmentation gain is due to the edge-preserving term versus the multiphase fusion itself.
  • The artifact the authors note—enhanced aorta contrast appearing in the restored portal venous phase—would need monitoring in any clinical use to ensure the network does not introduce features from other phases that mislead interpretation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a 3D progressive fusion and non-local (PFNL) network that takes three degraded CT phases (non-contrast, arterial, portal venous) as input and produces an enhanced portal venous volume, trained on the VinDr-Multiphase dataset with synthetic multi-stage degradation. The authors evaluate the method with PSNR/SSIM and a proxy task: pancreas segmentation by TotalSegmentator on the enhanced portal venous scans. They report that the proposed 3D-PFNL improves pancreas segmentation Dice from 68.9±19.3% on low-quality input to 71.7±15.6% and NSD from 22.0±8.0 to 25.0±8.5, with paired Wilcoxon p-values of .034 and .025, respectively. The paper claims to be the first to harness multiphase CT for scan quality enhancement and improved pancreas segmentation.

Significance. If the multiphase fusion claim were robustly supported, the work would be a useful proof-of-concept for using complementary CT phases to improve image quality and downstream automated segmentation. The strengths include the use of a public multiphase dataset, an external segmentation tool for the proxy evaluation, paired nonparametric statistical tests, and an explicit acknowledgment of the small sample and synthetic-degradation limitations. However, the central novelty—that multiphase information adds value over single-phase enhancement—is not statistically supported by the reported experiments, and the synthetic degradation setup limits external validity. As a preliminary study the result is plausible, but the current evidence does not justify the abstract's and title's emphasis on the multiphase advantage.

major comments (3)
  1. [III.A, Table I; III.B, Table II; IV. Discussion] The central claim that leveraging multiphase CT is advantageous is not supported by the reported comparisons. Table I shows 3D-PFNL has lower PSNR/SSIM than the single-phase 3D-RCAN baseline (28.16/0.8733 vs 28.77/0.8794), and Table II shows only a 0.9 percentage-point Dice and 1.0 percentage-point NSD improvement over 3D-RCAN. The Discussion explicitly states that 'there was no significant difference in the performance between the two models.' Since the only significant differences are versus the low-quality input, and 3D-RCAN also achieves significant improvement over that baseline, the observed gains could be attributed to the network's ability to invert the synthetic degradation rather than to multiphase fusion. Please provide a direct statistical comparison between 3D-PFNL and 3D-RCAN, or revise the title/abstract to present this as a preliminary single-arm proof-of-concept without claiming a multiphase advantage.
  2. [II.C; IV. Discussion] The load-bearing premise that the synthetic multi-stage degradation faithfully represents real clinical low-quality CT is neither validated nor tested. The model is trained and evaluated on the same VinDr dataset, with low-quality inputs generated by blur, Gaussian/Poisson noise, resizing at scale factor 4, and second-order Real-ESRGAN-style degradation. The authors acknowledge in the Discussion that generalizability to external datasets such as low-dose CT is undetermined, but this is not merely a future direction: it is central to the clinical utility claim. A validation on real low-dose, motion-degraded, or artifact-affected CT scans, or at least an external dataset with naturally degraded images, is needed to establish that the measured segmentation gains are not an artifact of the synthetic degradation model.
  3. [III.A and III.B; Tables I and II] The statistical reporting is insufficient to support the strength of the conclusions. The test set contains only n=16 scans, and the reported p-values (.034 for Dice, .025 for NSD) are borderline; with one or two cases changed, these would not reach significance. In addition, Table I reports PSNR/SSIM as point estimates without variance, confidence intervals, or any significance test, so the claim that both models 'enhanced the quality' of the low-quality input is not statistically quantified. Please report per-case results, confidence intervals, or effect sizes, and state explicitly which comparisons the p-values in Fig. 3 correspond to.
minor comments (5)
  1. [III.B, first sentence] The text uses '3D-RFNL' where it should read '3D-PFNL'; please correct this typo.
  2. [Fig. 3 caption] The p-values shown in the box plots are not identified in the caption; specify the statistical test and the exact pairwise comparisons for each value.
  3. [II.C] For reproducibility, the degradation procedure should specify the ranges of the Gaussian blur kernel sizes, noise levels, and the order of the second-order degradation operations rather than saying only that a random combination was chosen.
  4. [II.D] The edge-loss weight lambda is said to be 'empirically set to 0.7 based on prior work,' but no reference or ablation is provided; please cite the prior work or report a sensitivity analysis.
  5. [II.B] The reference standard construction relies on an automatic model followed by manual correction; please state how much of the annotation was corrected and whether the radiologist was blinded to the model outputs.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the restoration network is trained against original PV volumes and evaluated with the external TotalSegmentator proxy; the main weaknesses are statistical and external-validity issues, not circular reasoning.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The 3D-PFNL network is trained to map three synthetically degraded phases to the original portal venous phase using an L1 reconstruction loss plus a Sobel-edge loss (Eq. 1); the ground truth is the original PV CT, not a quantity derived from the model's own outputs. Evaluation is performed on held-out patients (16-split), and the segmentation proxy uses the externally trained TotalSegmentator tool [20] with manual pancreas annotations as reference. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or load-bearing self-citation is invoked; the self-citations ([4], [5], [12]) are contextual literature for pancreas segmentation and do not justify the central claim. The acknowledged limitations in the Discussion, including 'there was no significant difference in the performance between the two models' and 'the generalizability of the model to external datasets (e.g., low-dose CT) is currently undetermined,' are substantive experimental weaknesses (statistical power and external validity), not circularity. The observed Dice/NSD gains over low-quality input are empirical outcomes of a held-out evaluation, and the multiphase advantage is undercut by the non-significant comparison to single-phase 3D-RCAN, but no step reduces to its inputs by construction. Accordingly, no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that synthetic degradation stands in for real low-quality CT, that TotalSegmentator is a valid proxy, that ANTs registration is accurate, and that manual pancreas labels are correct. The only explicit hand-set parameters are the edge loss weight lambda = 0.7 and the degradation scale factor 4.

free parameters (2)
  • edge loss weight lambda = 0.7
    Set empirically in Section II-D based on prior work; it modulates the Sobel edge loss relative to the L1 reconstruction loss.
  • degradation scale factor = 4
    Chosen by hand in Section II-C for the resizing operation within the synthetic degradation pipeline; it affects how aggressively low-quality inputs are generated.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper Synthetic multi-stage degradation mimics real clinical CT quality loss.
    Section II-C. Since VinDr lacks paired low/high quality scans, low-quality inputs are created with blur, noise, and downscaling; if this does not match real artifacts, the trained enhancement may not generalize. The authors state generalizability is undetermined.
  • domain assumption TotalSegmentator segmentation performance is a valid proxy for CT quality.
    Section II-E. The proxy task assumes segmentation accuracy tracks image quality; TS is an external tool, but it was not trained on VinDr and its failures may reflect domain shift rather than quality alone.
  • domain assumption ANTs co-registration aligns non-contrast and arterial phases to the portal venous phase accurately.
    Section II-C. The three phases are fused voxel-wise; any misregistration introduces errors in the reconstructed PV phase, especially at organ boundaries.
  • domain assumption Manual pancreas annotations in the test subset are correct.
    Section II-B. Segmentation evaluation depends on a radiologist-corrected reference; annotation errors would bias Dice and NSD measurements.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Leveraging Multiphase CT for Quality Enhancement of Portal Venous CT: Utility for Pancreas Segmentation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KONJIXYP

@misc{pith2026250114013,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Leveraging Multiphase CT for Quality Enhancement of Portal Venous CT: Utility for Pancreas Segmentation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KONJIXYP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.14013}
}
read the original abstract

Multiphase CT studies are routinely obtained in clinical practice for diagnosis and management of various diseases, such as cancer. However, the CT studies can be acquired with low radiation doses, different scanners, and are frequently affected by motion and metal artifacts. Prior approaches have targeted the quality improvement of one specific CT phase (e.g., non-contrast CT). In this work, we hypothesized that leveraging multiple CT phases for the quality enhancement of one phase may prove advantageous for downstream tasks, such as segmentation. A 3D progressive fusion and non-local (PFNL) network was developed. It was trained with three degraded (low-quality) phases (non-contrast, arterial, and portal venous) to enhance the quality of the portal venous phase. Then, the effect of scan quality enhancement was evaluated using a proxy task of pancreas segmentation, which is useful for tracking pancreatic cancer. The proposed approach improved the pancreas segmentation by 3% over the corresponding low-quality CT scan. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to harness multiphase CT for scan quality enhancement and improved pancreas segmentation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.14013 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The overall framework for portal venous scan quality improvement is shown. Three degraded and low-quality CT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Qualitative examples of low-quality (LQ) portal venous [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Box plots of (a) Dice score (DSC) and (b) Normalized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Fully Automated and Explainable Liver Segmental V olume Ratio and Spleen Segmentation at CT for Diagnosing Cirrhosis,

    S. Lee, D. C. Elton, A. H. Yang et al., “Fully Automated and Explainable Liver Segmental V olume Ratio and Spleen Segmentation at CT for Diagnosing Cirrhosis,” Radiology: Artificial Intelligence , vol. 4, no. 5, p. e210268, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Denoising Multiphase Functional Cardiac CT Angiography Using Deep Learning and Synthetic Data,

    V . Sandfort, M. J. Willemink, M. Codari, D. Mastrodicasa, and D. Fleis- chmann, “Denoising Multiphase Functional Cardiac CT Angiography Using Deep Learning and Synthetic Data,” Radiology: Artificial Intelli- gence, vol. 6, no. 2, p. e230153, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Fully Automated Abdominal CT Biomarkers for Type 2 Diabetes Using Deep Learning,

    H. Tallam et al., “Fully Automated Abdominal CT Biomarkers for Type 2 Diabetes Using Deep Learning,” Radiology, vol. 304, no. 1, pp. 85–95, 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Leveraging Anatomical Priors for Automated Pancreas Segmentation on Abdominal CT,

    A. V . Prasad, T. S. Mathai, P. Mukherjee, J. Liu, and R. M. Summers, “Leveraging Anatomical Priors for Automated Pancreas Segmentation on Abdominal CT,” in SPIE Medical Imaging: Computer-Aided Diag- nosis, 2025

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    A Com- parison of CT-Based Pancreatic Segmentation Deep Learning Models,

    A. Suri, P. Mukherjee, P. J. Pickhardt, and R. M. Summers, “A Com- parison of CT-Based Pancreatic Segmentation Deep Learning Models,” Academic Radiology, p. S1076633224003738, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Self Super-resolution for Hepatic Vessel CT Segmentation,

    V . Jaouen, Z. Wang, P.-H. Conze, and D. Visvikis, “Self Super-resolution for Hepatic Vessel CT Segmentation,” in IEEE Nuclear Science Sym- posium, Medical Imaging Conference and International Symposium on Room-Temperature Semiconductor Detectors. IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–1

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Unsupervised and Self-supervised Learning in Low-Dose Computed Tomography Denoising: Insights from Training Strategies,

    F. Zhao, M. Liu, M. Xiang, D. Li, X. Jiang, X. Jin, C. Lin, and R. Wang, “Unsupervised and Self-supervised Learning in Low-Dose Computed Tomography Denoising: Insights from Training Strategies,” Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine , 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    CT Image Denoising and Deblurring With Deep Learning: Current Status and Perspectives,

    Y . Lei, C. Niu, J. Zhang, G. Wang, and H. Shan, “CT Image Denoising and Deblurring With Deep Learning: Current Status and Perspectives,” IEEE Transactions on Radiation and Plasma Medical Sciences , vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 153–172, 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 27 references
  1. [9]

    Super-resolution Image Reconstruction: Selective Milestones and Open Problems,

    X. Li, W. Dong, J. Wu, L. Li, and G. Shi, “Super-resolution Image Reconstruction: Selective Milestones and Open Problems,” IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 54–66, 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    Self-supervised CT Super-resolution with Hybrid Model,

    Z. Zhang, S. Yu, W. Qin, X. Liang, Y . Xie, and G. Cao, “Self-supervised CT Super-resolution with Hybrid Model,” Computers in Biology and Medicine, vol. 138, p. 104775, 2021

    2021

  3. [11]

    Latest Methods of Image Enhancement and Restoration for Computed Tomography: A Concise Review,

    A. A. Zohair, A. A. Shamil, and G. Sulong, “Latest Methods of Image Enhancement and Restoration for Computed Tomography: A Concise Review,” Applied Medical Informatics , vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2015

    2015

  4. [12]

    Data augmentation using generative adversarial networks (CycleGAN) to improve generalizability in CT segmentation tasks,

    V . Sandfort, K. Yan, P. J. Pickhardt, and R. M. Summers, “Data augmentation using generative adversarial networks (CycleGAN) to improve generalizability in CT segmentation tasks,” Scientific Reports , vol. 9, no. 1, p. 16884, 2019

    2019

  5. [13]

    SMORE: A Self-Supervised Anti-Aliasing and Super- Resolution Algorithm for MRI Using Deep Learning,

    C. Zhao, B. E. Dewey, D. L. Pham, P. A. Calabresi, D. S. Reich, and J. L. Prince, “SMORE: A Self-Supervised Anti-Aliasing and Super- Resolution Algorithm for MRI Using Deep Learning,” IEEE Transac- tions on Medical Imaging , vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 805–817, 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    Low-dose CT denoising with convolutional neural network,

    H. Chen, Y . Zhang, W. Zhang, P. Liao, K. Li, J. Zhou, and G. Wang, “Low-dose CT denoising with convolutional neural network,” in IEEE 14th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging , 2017, pp. 143– 146

    2017

  7. [15]

    Adaptive Rectification Based Adversarial Network with Spectrum Con- straint for High-quality PET Image Synthesis,

    Y . Luo, L. Zhou, B. Zhan, Y . Fei, J. Zhou, Y . Wang, and D. Shen, “Adaptive Rectification Based Adversarial Network with Spectrum Con- straint for High-quality PET Image Synthesis,” Medical Image Analysis, vol. 77, p. 102335, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    CTformer: Convolution-free Token2Token Dilated Vision Transformer for Low- dose CT Denoising,

    D. Wang, F. Fan, Z. Wu, R. Liu, F. Wang, and H. Yu, “CTformer: Convolution-free Token2Token Dilated Vision Transformer for Low- dose CT Denoising,” Physics in Medicine & Biology , vol. 68, no. 6, p. 065012, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    Region Attention Transformer for Medical Image Restoration,

    Z. Yang, H. Chen, Z. Qian, Y . Zhou, H. Zhang, D. Zhao, B. Wei, and Y . Xu, “Region Attention Transformer for Medical Image Restoration,” in Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention, 2024, pp. 603–613

    2024

  10. [18]

    All-In-One Medical Image Restoration via Task-Adaptive Routing,

    Z. Yang, H. Chen, Z. Qian, Y . Yi, H. Zhang, D. Zhao, B. Wei, and Y . Xu, “All-In-One Medical Image Restoration via Task-Adaptive Routing,” in International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer- Assisted Intervention, 2024, pp. 67–77

    2024

  11. [19]

    Progressive Fusion Video Super-Resolution Network via Exploiting Non-Local Spatio-Temporal Correlations,

    P. Yi, Z. Wang, K. Jiang, J. Jiang, and J. Ma, “Progressive Fusion Video Super-Resolution Network via Exploiting Non-Local Spatio-Temporal Correlations,” in IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2019, pp. 3106–3115

    2019

  12. [20]

    TotalSegmentator: Robust Segmentation of 104 Anatomic Structures in CT Images,

    J. Wasserthal, H.-C. Breit, M. T. Meyer, M. Pradella, D. Hinck, A. W. Sauter, T. Heye, D. T. Boll, J. Cyriac, S. Yang, M. Bach, and M. Segeroth, “TotalSegmentator: Robust Segmentation of 104 Anatomic Structures in CT Images,” Radiology: Artificial Intelligence, vol. 5, no. 5, ...

    2023

  13. [21]

    Phase Recognition in Contrast-enhanced CT Scans Based on Deep Learning and Random Sampling,

    B. T. Dao, T. V . Nguyen, H. H. Pham, and H. Q. Nguyen, “Phase Recognition in Contrast-enhanced CT Scans Based on Deep Learning and Random Sampling,” Medical Physics, vol. 49, no. 7, pp. 4518–4528, 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    Large- Scale Multi-Center CT and MRI Segmentation of Pancreas with Deep Learning,

    Z. Zhang, E. Keles, G. Durak, Y . Taktak, O. Susladkar, V . Gorade, D. Jha, A. C. Ormeci, A. Medetalibeyoglu, L. Yao et al. , “Large- Scale Multi-Center CT and MRI Segmentation of Pancreas with Deep Learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.12367 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    A Reproducible Evaluation of ANTs Similarity Metric Performance in Brain Image Registration,

    B. B. Avants, N. J. Tustison, G. Song, P. A. Cook, A. Klein, and J. C. Gee, “A Reproducible Evaluation of ANTs Similarity Metric Performance in Brain Image Registration,” NeuroImage, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 2033–2044, 2011

    2011

  16. [24]

    Real-ESRGAN: Training Real- World Blind Super-Resolution with Pure Synthetic Data,

    X. Wang, L. Xie, C. Dong, and Y . Shan, “Real-ESRGAN: Training Real- World Blind Super-Resolution with Pure Synthetic Data,” in IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision Workshops , 2021, pp. 1905–1914

    2021

  17. [25]

    Image Super- Resolution Using Very Deep Residual Channel Attention Networks,

    Y . Zhang, K. Li, K. Li, L. Wang, B. Zhong, and Y . Fu, “Image Super- Resolution Using Very Deep Residual Channel Attention Networks,” in European Conference on Computer Vision , 2018

    2018

  18. [26]

    The Perception-Distortion Tradeoff,

    Y . Blau and T. Michaeli, “The Perception-Distortion Tradeoff,” in IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2018, pp. 6228–6237

    2018

  19. [27]

    Deep learning for Single Image Super-resolution: A brief Review,

    W. Yang, X. Zhang, Y . Tian, W. Wang, J.-H. Xue, and Q. Liao, “Deep learning for Single Image Super-resolution: A brief Review,” IEEE Transactions on Multimedia , vol. 21, no. 12, pp. 3106–3121, 2019

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.