Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A comprehensive review of denoising techniques for abdominal CT images

  • Published:
Multimedia Tools and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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. Al Asadi AH (2015) Contourlet Transform Based Method For Medical Image Denoising. Int J Image Process (IJIP) 9(1):22

    Google Scholar 

  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):315–325

    Google Scholar 

  4. Andria G, Attivissimo F, Lanzolla AML (2013) A statistical approach for MR and CT images comparison. Measurement 46:57–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Attivissimo F, Cavone G, Lanzolla AML, Spadavecchia M (2010) A technique to improve the image quality in computer tomography. IEEE Trans Instrum Meas 59:1251–1257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Baek J, Pelc NJ (2011) Local and global 3D noise power spectrum in cone-beam CT system with FDK reconstruction. Med Phys 38:2122–2131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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) 666–670

  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):293–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):1685–1703

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Buades A, Coll B, Morel JM (2005) A review of image denoising algorithms, with a new one. Multiscale Model Simul 4(2):490–530

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  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):001–014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Candes EJ, Demanet L, Donoho DL, Ying L (2005): Fast discrete curvelet transforms. http://www.curvelet.org.papers.FDCT.pdf

  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)

  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):2080–2095

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  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 Heidelberg

  16. Do MN, Vetterli M (2005) The contourlet transform: an efficient directional multiresolution image representation. IEEE Trans Image Process 14(12):2091–2106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Elbakri IA, Fessler JA (2003) Efficient and accurate likelihood for iterative image reconstruction in x-ray computed tomographys. Proc SPIE Med Imaging 5032:1839–1850

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):6265–6274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Goldman LW (2007) Principles of CT and CT technology. J Nucl Med Technol 35(3):115–128

  20. Gravel P, Beaudoin G, De Guise JA (2004) A method for modeling noise in medical images. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 23:1221–1232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

  22. Hsieh J (2003) Computed tomography: principles, design, artifacts, and recent advances. SPIE, Bellingham

    Google Scholar 

  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 1167–1170

    Google Scholar 

  24. Jiang J, Zhang L, Yang J (2014) Mixed noise removal by weighted encoding with sparse nonlocal regularization. IEEE Trans Image Process 23(6):2651–2662

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Kaur R, Juneja MA (2016) Survey of different imaging modalities for renal cancer. Indian J Sci Technol;9(44)

  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, Singapore

  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)

  28. Kingsbury N (2001) Complex wavelets for shift invariant analysis and filtering of signals. Appl Comput Harmon Anal 10(3):234–253

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Lee JS (1980) Digital image enhancement and noise filtering by using local statistics. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell, PAMI 2(2):165–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Lin DT, Lei CC, Hung SW (2006) Computer-aided kidney segmentation on abdominal CT images. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed 10(1):59–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):5738–5746

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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 4682:146–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):5713–5731

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):4911–4919

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 1–4

  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 3:107–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Nayak DR, Dash R, Majhi B, Brain MR (2016) image classification using two-dimensional discrete wavelet transform and AdaBoost with random forests. Neurocomputing 177:188–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Nayak DR, Dash R, Majhi B (2016) Pathological brain detection using curvelet features and least squares SVM. Multimedia Tools Appl:1–24

  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):43–65

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  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):99–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

  43. Perona P, Malik J (1990) Scale-space and edge detection using anisotropic diffusion. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 12(7):629–639

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Rabbani H, Nezafat R, Gazor S (2009) Wavelet domain medical image denoising using bivariate Laplacian mixture model. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 56(12):2826–2837

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Rudin LI, Osher S, Fatemi E (1992) Nonlinear total variation based noise removal algorithms. Physica D 60:259–268

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  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 4683:186–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Sanches JM, Nascimento JC, Marques JS (2008) Medical image noise reduction using the SylvesterLyapunov equation. IEEE Trans Image Process 17:1522–1539

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  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, Boston

  50. Starck JL, Candès EJ, Donoho DL (2002) The curvelet transform for image denoising. IEEE Trans Image Process 11(6):670–684

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  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)

  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 10:124–129

    Google Scholar 

  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 Press

  54. Vitulano S, Di Ruberto C, Nappi M (1997) Different methods to segment biomedical images. Pattern Recogn Lett 18(11):1125–1131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):600–612

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Wang J, Lu H, Li T, Liang Z (2005) Sinogram noise reduction for low-dose CT by statistics-based nonlinear filters. Proc SPIE 5747:2058–2066

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 53:3327–3341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Weaver JB, Xu Y, Healy DM, Cromwell LD (1991) Filtering noise from images with wavelet transforms. Magn Reson Imaging 21:288–295

    Google Scholar 

  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). Elsevier

  60. Wong WCK, Chung ACS, Yu SCH (2004) Trilateral filter for biomedical images. In: Proceedings of ISBI, pp 820–823

    Google Scholar 

  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):4842–4857

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  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)

  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 16:143–158

    Google Scholar 

  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)

  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):1531–1549

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  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):2378–2386

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  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, Cham

  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 23:696–703

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):696–703

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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:N183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):2459–2472

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Panjab University, Chandigarh, India

    Ravinder Kaur & Mamta Juneja

  2. PGIMER, Chandigarh, India

    A. K. Mandal

Authors
  1. Ravinder Kaur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mamta Juneja
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. K. Mandal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ravinder Kaur.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Authors have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kaur, R., Juneja, M. & Mandal, A.K. A comprehensive review of denoising techniques for abdominal CT images. Multimed Tools Appl 77, 22735–22770 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-017-5500-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-017-5500-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation