Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 24 references

Dual Path Learning -- learning from noise and context for medical image denoising

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Denoising medical images works better when a network learns noise and context in two separate paths, then fuses them.

desk verdict The dual-path architecture is a reasonable CNCL variant, but the PSNR table contradicts the paper's own noise parameters, so the 3.35% claim is not credible until the code reproduces it. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.19035 v1 pith:Y37QGJMS submitted 2025-07-25 eess.IV cs.AIcs.CV

Jitindra Fartiyal , Pedro Freire , Yasmeen Whayeb , James S. Wolffsohn , Sergei K. Turitsyn , Sergei G. Sokolov This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.AIcs.CV
keywords medicalimagedenoisingdual-pathlearningconvolutionalneuralnetworkU-NetPSNRGaussiannoisemultimodalimagingCTMRIOCTfundus
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 medical image denoising improves when a network learns noise and context separately and then fuses them, rather than learning a single direct noisy-to-clean mapping. It reports that this dual-path design beats a standard U-Net by 3.35% in PSNR on Gaussian noise when trained on pooled CT, MRI, OCT, and fundus images, and also beats RED-CNN and BM3D under that noise. If true, this would mean one unified model can serve multiple modalities and noise types, reducing the need for separate denoisers per modality.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is a two-phase dual-path U-Net: a noise estimator produces a noise map $\eta$ whose subtraction from the input yields $X''$, a context estimator recovers the clean context $X'$ directly, and a fusion reconstructor U-Net concatenates $X'$ and $X''$ to produce the final denoised image. The three sub-networks are trained jointly with three MSE losses, one for each path and one for the fusion output, and the paper argues this separation of noise and context lets the fusion step combine complementary features that a single direct mapping would blur together.

What would settle it

Retrain DPL and the baseline U-Net on CT with a patient-disjoint split, for instance training on four of the five patients and validating on the fifth, then average over all five choices and compare pooled Gaussian PSNR. If DPL's 3.35% advantage over the baseline disappears or falls below the per-image noise variance, the stated cross-modality gain is an artifact of the split rather than a property of the architecture.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that DPL, a Dual-Path Learning architecture, outperforms a single-path U-Net on medical image denoising. Two parallel U-Nets estimate the noise map $\eta$ and the clean context $X'$; subtracting the noise estimate gives an intermediate denoised image $X'' = X - \eta$, and a third U-Net fuses $X'$ and $X''$ into the final output. On pooled Gaussian-noise data, this design reaches 49.25 dB PSNR versus 47.65 dB for the baseline U-Net, a 3.35% improvement, and also exceeds RED-CNN and BM3D under Gaussian noise. Under AWGN and speckle noise, DPL remains competitive with, but does not surpass, RED-CNN.

Load-bearing premise

The CT validation slices are drawn from the same five patients as the training slices, so the reported PSNR gains may partly reflect the model memorizing patient-specific anatomy instead of learning general denoising.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single DPL model trained on combined CT, MRI, OCT, and fundus data can denoise all four modalities under Gaussian noise, reducing the need for per-modality denoisers.
  • Replacing the U-Net blocks in DPL with other autoencoder designs should be straightforward, making the dual-path scheme a flexible template rather than a fixed network.
  • Under AWGN and speckle noise, DPL stays competitive with RED-CNN while outperforming the baseline and most classical filters, suggesting the architecture generalizes across noise types even where it does not lead.
  • DPL's gains come at a higher training cost: about 46.7 hours on CT versus 16 hours for the baseline U-Net and 17 hours for RED-CNN.
  • The paper reports consistent improvement over the baseline on roughly 80% of individual Gaussian-noised images, not just on the pooled mean.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: the reported advantage is measured on synthetically corrupted images; real scanner noise is structured and signal-dependent, so the gap over the baseline could shrink when tested on genuine low-dose CT or OCT acquisitions.
  • Inference: because the CT validation set draws slices from the same five patients used for training, a strict patient-disjoint evaluation is needed before the 3.35% pooled gain can be taken as evidence of generalizable denoising rather than patient memorization.
  • Inference: the same noise/context separation could be applied to other restoration tasks such as deblurring, super-resolution, or artifact removal, where the 'noise' path is replaced by the specific degradation being estimated.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Dual Path Learning (DPL), a two-stage CNN for medical image denoising in which a noise-estimator U-Net and a context-estimator U-Net operate in parallel and their outputs are concatenated and fused by a third U-Net. The model is trained with the sum of three MSE losses and evaluated on synthetic Gaussian, AWGN, and speckle noise across CT, MRI, OCT, and fundus images, both per modality and pooled. The headline claim is a 3.35% PSNR improvement over a baseline U-Net under Gaussian noise when all modalities are pooled. Code is released via Zenodo.

Significance. If the reported results were correct, the paper would provide a useful modular, modality-agnostic denoising architecture and one of the broader multi-modality, multi-noise evaluations in this area. The architecture is clearly specified, the code is publicly available, and the pooled multi-modality training setup is a worthwhile contribution. However, the quantitative support is currently undermined by an apparent nonstandard PSNR definition, validation splits that are not patient-disjoint, and the absence of error bars or significance tests. These issues directly affect the paper's central claim, so the significance is conditional on a corrected and rerun evaluation.

major comments (5)
  1. [III-A2, Eq. (2), and Table IV] Eq. (2) defines PSNR as 10*log10(maximumIntensity/MSE) without squaring the peak intensity, and Section III-B3 adds Gaussian noise with variance 0.005 without stating the pixel range used for the PSNR computation. With images normalized to [0,1] and maximumIntensity=255, the noisy input would have PSNR 10*log10(255/0.005) ≈ 47.1 dB under this formula, essentially equal to the baseline U-Net's 47.65 dB in Table IV, while the conventional PSNR with peak value 1 would be roughly 24 dB lower. Because the Abstract's 3.35% gain is computed from these Table IV values, the authors must state the intensity range, correct Eq. (2) to 10*log10(MAX^2/MSE), and recompute all reported PSNRs and percentages; as written, the absolute values are not comparable to standard PSNR results in the literature.
  2. [III-B2] The CT validation set is formed by randomly selecting 30 scans from each of the same five patients whose remaining scans are used for training, and the MRI validation similarly selects one scan per patient from the same 146 patients represented in training. This is not a patient-disjoint split, so the reported gains could be inflated by the models' ability to memorize patient-specific anatomy and acquisition characteristics. Please re-run at least the CT and MRI experiments with patient-disjoint splits, or explicitly relabel the results as slice-level and provide a separate patient-disjoint analysis to support the generalization claim.
  3. [IV, Table IV] No error bars, standard deviations over validation slices, confidence intervals, or significance tests are reported for any PSNR or SSIM entry. Figure 6 gives only aggregate means and standard deviations, and Figure 7 shows percentage improvements without a paired statistical test; therefore differences such as the AWGN 'All' row (DPL 33.87 vs RED-CNN 35.99) cannot be distinguished from random variation. Please report per-slice distributions and paired significance tests for the main comparisons.
  4. [III-B3 and IV] The noise simulation parameters in Table III are ambiguous ('Covar:loc 0.01' and 'Covar:scale 0.0001' for AWGN; no specification of whether images are in [0,1] or [0,255]), and all noise is synthetic. The paper's conclusion of robustness and generalizability to medical imaging is therefore not supported for real clinical acquisition noise. Additionally, in the pooled 'All' columns of Table IV, DPL is below RED-CNN for both AWGN (33.87 vs 35.99 dB) and speckle (37.12 vs 40.89 dB), so the Abstract's wording 'demonstrating its robustness and generalizability' should be narrowed to the Gaussian-noise setting and qualified as a synthetic-noise evaluation.
  5. [II and IV] Since DPL is presented as an extension of CNCL [14], the experiments should include CNCL as a baseline. Table IV compares against RED-CNN and classical methods but not against the approach that motivates the dual-path design, leaving the incremental contribution unquantified. Please add this comparison or justify its omission and adjust the corresponding claims.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section I] The sentence 'Section 2 discusses the related work, and Section 2 details the data preparation and model' should refer to distinct sections (II and III).
  2. [Table IV] The RED-CNN row for the Gaussian condition contains '49.2837.7744.93', which appears to be missing spaces between the MRI, OCT, and FUNDUS entries.
  3. [Figure 5] The caption contains the typo 'Dundus'; it should be 'FUNDUS'.
  4. [References and affiliations] The reference to 'Genf [14]' should be 'Geng [14]', and the author list contains 'Pedro Friere' while the affiliation block gives 'Pedro Freire'; please standardize the spelling.
  5. [Section III-E] DPL is trained with batch size 32 while the baseline U-Net and RED-CNN are trained with batch size 64; please clarify whether this difference affects the comparison or justify the choice.
  6. [Section V] The limitations paragraph acknowledges the small OCT dataset and the 10,000-epoch training budget; these acknowledged limitations should be reflected more explicitly in the conclusion and in the Abstract's generality claims.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation chain: DPL's reported PSNR gain is a directly measured empirical comparison, not a value forced by definition or by the paper's own equations.

full rationale

This paper contains no first-principles derivation or fitted parameter that is later relabeled as a prediction. The central claim ('DPL improves PSNR by 3.35% compared to the baseline UNet when evaluated on Gaussian noise and trained across all modalities') is an empirical result obtained by training DPL, the baseline U-Net, and RED-CNN on synthetically noised images and computing PSNR on held-out slices. Every architectural component (noise estimator X'' = X - eta, context estimator X', and fusion reconstructor Y') is trained with MSE losses against the same ground truth (Eqs. 7-11), and the reported PSNR is computed from the final output; no equation defines the reported improvement into existence. The method is motivated by an external citation (Geng et al., CNCL), but no load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation, and none of the cited prior work is by the present authors. The passages that could be mistaken for circularity - the CT/MRI validation splits in Section III-B2, where validation slices come from the same patients as training slices, and the stated limitations in Section V - are experimental validity concerns (potential patient leakage and possible PSNR/metric inconsistency with the noise parameters in Table III), not constructional circularity. Under the hard rules requiring a quoted equation-level reduction or a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, I find no circular step and set the score to 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central empirical claim depends on three hand-chosen synthetic noise settings, on the assumption that these synthetic noises represent clinical noise, on the capacity of three U-Net branches, and on the equal weighting of the three MSE losses. No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Gaussian noise variance = 0.005
    Hand-chosen in Table III; all Gaussian-denosing results depend on this noise level.
  • AWGN loc and scale = 0.01, 0.0001
    Hand-chosen in Table III; no justification is provided.
  • Speckle mean and variance = 0.1, 0.01
    Hand-chosen in Table III; no justification is provided.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Synthetic noise added with scikit-learn is representative of real noise in CT, MRI, OCT, and fundus imaging.
    The paper has no real noisy/clean clinical pairs; all training and evaluation use synthetic noise as described in Section III-B3, so the clinical relevance of the benchmark depends on this premise.
  • domain assumption A U-Net is expressive enough for the noise estimator, context estimator, and fusion reconstructor.
    No capacity or convergence analysis is provided; the central performance claim is purely empirical.
  • ad hoc to paper Summing the three MSE losses with equal weights produces a good fused reconstruction.
    The three losses in Equations 8 through 11 are added with equal weights without tuning or theoretical justification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dual Path Learning -- learning from noise and context for medical image denoising." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y37QGJMS

@misc{pith2026250719035,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dual Path Learning -- learning from noise and context for medical image denoising},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y37QGJMS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.19035}
}
read the original abstract

Medical imaging plays a critical role in modern healthcare, enabling clinicians to accurately diagnose diseases and develop effective treatment plans. However, noise, often introduced by imaging devices, can degrade image quality, leading to misinterpretation and compromised clinical outcomes. Existing denoising approaches typically rely either on noise characteristics or on contextual information from the image. Moreover, they are commonly developed and evaluated for a single imaging modality and noise type. Motivated by Geng et.al CNCL, which integrates both noise and context, this study introduces a Dual-Pathway Learning (DPL) model architecture that effectively denoises medical images by leveraging both sources of information and fusing them to generate the final output. DPL is evaluated across multiple imaging modalities and various types of noise, demonstrating its robustness and generalizability. DPL improves PSNR by 3.35% compared to the baseline UNet when evaluated on Gaussian noise and trained across all modalities. The code is available at 10.5281/zenodo.15836053.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.19035 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Noisy CT, MRI, OCT, and Fundus images after adding Gaussian, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The proposed two-phase architecture starts with a dual-path design, where each path learns noise and contextual information in the image. In the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. PSNR comparison of BM3D, baseline U-Net, RED-CNN, and DPL [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: SSIM comparison of BM3D, baseline U-Net, RED-CNN, and DPL [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visualization of CT, MRI, OCT, FUNDUS sample results before and after denoising on against Gaussian Noise. Top row denoted as (1.x) presents [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of mean and standard deviation in PSNR results for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [14]

    Content-Noise Complementary Learning for Medical Image Denoising

    Mufeng Geng et al. “Content-Noise Complementary Learning for Medical Image Denoising”. In:IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging41.2 (Feb. 2022). Conference Name: IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, pp. 407–419.ISSN: 1558-254X.DOI: 10.1109/ TMI.2021.3113365.URL: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/ document/9540600 (visited on 03/26/2025)

    arXiv 2022

  2. [1]

    Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity

    Zhou Wang et al. “Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity”. In:IEEE Transactions on Image Processing13.4 (Apr. 2004), pp. 600–612. ISSN: 1941-0042.DOI: 10.1109/TIP.2003.819861.URL: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1284395 (visited on 05/12/2025)

    arXiv 2004

  3. [2]

    Image Quality Metrics: PSNR vs. SSIM

    Alain Hor ´e and Djemel Ziou. “Image Quality Metrics: PSNR vs. SSIM”. In:2010 20th International Confer- ence on Pattern Recognition. ISSN: 1051-4651. Aug. 2010, pp. 2366–2369.DOI: 10.1109/ICPR.2010.579. URL: https : / / ieeexplore . ieee . org / document / 5596999 (visited on 05/12/2025)

    doi:10.1109/icpr.2010.579 2010

  4. [3]

    Image denoising using wavelet transform

    Sachin Ruikar and D D Doye. “Image denoising using wavelet transform”. In:2010 International Conference on Mechanical and Electrical Technology. Sept. 2010, pp. 509–515.DOI: 10 . 1109 / ICMET. 2010 . 5598411. URL: https : / / ieeexplore . ieee . org / document / 5598411 (visited on 04/22/2025)

    work page 2010

  5. [4]

    ORIGA(-light): an online retinal fundus image database for glaucoma analysis and re- search

    Zhuo Zhang et al. “ORIGA(-light): an online retinal fundus image database for glaucoma analysis and re- search”. eng. In:Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. An- nual International Conference2010 (2010), pp. 3065– 3068.ISSN: 2375-7477.DOI: 10.1109/IEMBS.2...

    doi:10.1109/iembs.2010 2010

  6. [5]

    Non-Local Means Denoising

    Antoni Buades, Bartomeu Coll, and Jean-Michel Morel. “Non-Local Means Denoising”. In:Image Processing On Line1 (2011), pp. 208–212

    work page 2011

  7. [6]

    Sparsity based denoising of spectral domain optical coherence tomography images

    Leyuan Fang et al. “Sparsity based denoising of spectral domain optical coherence tomography images”. EN. In: Biomedical Optics Express3.5 (May 2012). Publisher: Optica Publishing Group, pp. 927–942.ISSN: 2156- 7085.DOI: 10.1364/BOE.3.000927.URL: https://opg. optica.org/boe/abstract.cfm?uri=boe-3-5-927 (visited on 05/20/2025)

    work page doi:10.1364/boe.3.000927.url: 2012

  8. [7]

    U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentation

    Olaf Ronneberger, Philipp Fischer, and Thomas Brox. “U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentation”. en. In:Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention – MICCAI 2015. Ed. by Nassir Navab et al. Cham: Springer International Pub- lishing, 2015, pp. 234–241.ISBN: 978-3-319-24574-4. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-24574-4 28

    doi:10.1007/978-3-319-24574-4 2015

Show all 24 references
  1. [8]

    Low-Dose CT with a Residual Encoder- Decoder Convolutional Neural Network (RED-CNN)

    Hu Chen et al. “Low-Dose CT with a Residual Encoder- Decoder Convolutional Neural Network (RED-CNN)”. In:IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging36.12 (Dec. 2017). arXiv:1702.00288 [physics], pp. 2524–2535. ISSN: 0278-0062, 1558-254X.DOI: 10.1109/TMI.2017. 2715284.URL: http://arxi...

    2017 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Ultrasound Image Enhance- ment Using Structure Oriented Adversarial Network

    Deepak Mishra et al. “Ultrasound Image Enhance- ment Using Structure Oriented Adversarial Network”. In:IEEE Signal Processing Letters25.9 (Sept. 2018). Conference Name: IEEE Signal Processing Letters, pp. 1349–1353.ISSN: 1558-2361.DOI: 10.1109/LSP. 2018 . 2858147.URL: https : ...

    2018

  3. [10]

    Retinal OCT Denoising with Pseudo- Multimodal Fusion Network

    Dewei Hu et al. “Retinal OCT Denoising with Pseudo- Multimodal Fusion Network”. en. In:Ophthalmic Med- ical Image Analysis. Ed. by Huazhu Fu et al. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2020, pp. 125–135. ISBN: 978-3-030-63419-3.DOI: 10.1007/978- 3- 030- 63419-3 13

    2020 doi

  4. [11]

    Cynthia McCollough et al.Low Dose CT Image and Projection Data (LDCT-and-Projection-data). 2020. DOI: 10 . 7937 / 9NPB - 2637.URL: https : / / www . cancerimagingarchive . net / collection / ldct - and - projection-data/ (visited on 05/20/2025)

    2020

  5. [12]

    Learning Medical Image Denoising with Deep Dy- namic Residual Attention Network

    S. M. A. Sharif, Rizwan Ali Naqvi, and Mithun Biswas. “Learning Medical Image Denoising with Deep Dy- namic Residual Attention Network”. en. In:Mathemat- ics8.12 (Dec. 2020). Number: 12 Publisher: Multidis- ciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, p. 2192.ISSN: 2227-7390.DOI: 1...

    2020

  6. [13]

    Feature-Guided CNN for Denoising Images From Portable Ultrasound Devices

    Guanfang Dong, Yingnan Ma, and Anup Basu. “Feature-Guided CNN for Denoising Images From Portable Ultrasound Devices”. In:IEEE Access9 (2021). Conference Name: IEEE Access, pp. 28272– 28281.ISSN: 2169-3536.DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021. 3059003.URL: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/docum...

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    Triplet Cross-Fusion Learning for Unpaired Image Denoising in Optical Coherence To- mography

    Mufeng Geng et al. “Triplet Cross-Fusion Learning for Unpaired Image Denoising in Optical Coherence To- mography”. In:IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 41.11 (Nov. 2022), pp. 3357–3372.ISSN: 0278-0062, 1558-254X.DOI: 10.1109/TMI.2022.3184529.URL: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org...

    2022

  8. [16]

    DU-GAN: Generative Adver- sarial Networks With Dual-Domain U-Net-Based Dis- criminators for Low-Dose CT Denoising

    Zhizhong Huang et al. “DU-GAN: Generative Adver- sarial Networks With Dual-Domain U-Net-Based Dis- criminators for Low-Dose CT Denoising”. In:IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement71 9 (2022). Conference Name: IEEE Transactions on In- strumentation and Measuremen...

    2022

  9. [17]

    CSformer: Cross-Scale Features Fusion Based Transformer for Image Denois- ing

    Haitao Yin and Siyuan Ma. “CSformer: Cross-Scale Features Fusion Based Transformer for Image Denois- ing”. In:IEEE Signal Processing Letters29 (2022). Conference Name: IEEE Signal Processing Letters, pp. 1809–1813.ISSN: 1558-2361.DOI: 10.1109/LSP. 2022 . 3199145.URL: https : /...

    2022

  10. [18]

    Hybrid Transformer-CNN for Real Image Denoising

    Mo Zhao et al. “Hybrid Transformer-CNN for Real Image Denoising”. In:IEEE Signal Processing Letters 29 (2022). Conference Name: IEEE Signal Processing Letters, pp. 1252–1256.ISSN: 1558-2361.DOI: 10 . 1109/LSP.2022.3176486.URL: https://ieeexplore.ieee. org/document/9779501/?arn...

    2022

  11. [19]

    arXiv:2305.19369 [eess]

    Maruf Adewole et al.The Brain Tumor Segmenta- tion (BraTS) Challenge 2023: Glioma Segmentation in Sub-Saharan Africa Patient Population (BraTS-Africa). arXiv:2305.19369 [eess]. May 2023.DOI: 10 . 48550 / arXiv.2305.19369.URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.19369 (visited on 05/20/2025)

    2023 doi arXiv

  12. [20]

    A Complete Review on Image Denoising Techniques for Medical Images

    Amandeep Kaur and Guanfang Dong. “A Complete Review on Image Denoising Techniques for Medical Images”. en. In:Neural Processing Letters55.6 (Dec. 2023), pp. 7807–7850.ISSN: 1573-773X.DOI: 10.1007/ s11063- 023- 11286- 1.URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11063-023-11286-1 (visited ...

    2023

  13. [21]

    Low-dose CT denoising with a high-level feature refinement and dynamic convolution network

    Sihan Yang et al. “Low-dose CT denoising with a high-level feature refinement and dynamic convolution network”. en. In:Medical Physics50.6 (2023). eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/mp.16175, pp. 3597–3611.ISSN: 2473-4209.DOI: 10.1002/mp. 16175.URL: https:...

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    Re- cent developments in denoising medical images using deep learning: An overview of models, techniques, and challenges

    Nahida Nazir, Abid Sarwar, and Baljit Singh Saini. “Re- cent developments in denoising medical images using deep learning: An overview of models, techniques, and challenges”. en. In:Micron180 (May 2024), p. 103615. ISSN: 09684328.DOI: 10.1016/j.micron.2024.103615. URL: https :...

    2024

  15. [23]

    Two-Stage Deep Denoising With Self-Guided Noise Attention for Multimodal Medical Images

    S. M. A. Sharif, Rizwan Ali Naqvi, and Woong-Kee Loh. “Two-Stage Deep Denoising With Self-Guided Noise Attention for Multimodal Medical Images”. In: IEEE Transactions on Radiation and Plasma Medical Sciences8.5 (May 2024). Conference Name: IEEE Transactions on Radiation and Pl...

    2024

  16. [24]

    Image denoising by sparse 3D transform-domain collaborative ltering

    Kostadin Dabov et al. “Image denoising by sparse 3D transform-domain collaborative ltering”. en. In: ()

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.