DOI:
https://doi.org/10.64539/sjer.v1i3.2025.27Keywords:
CT Scan, Denoising, Bilateral Filtering, Fourier Transform, Image QualityAbstract
The proper reduction of noise inside CTscan Images remains crucial to achieve both better diagnosis results and clinical choices. This research analyzes through quantitative metrics the effectiveness of four popular noise reduction methods which include Fourier-based denoising and Wiener filtering as well as bilateral filtering and Contrast Limited Adaptive Histogram Equalization (CLAHE) applied to more than 500 CTscan Images. The investigated methods were assessed quantitatively through Peak Signal-to-Noise Ratio (PSNR) and Structural Similarity Index (SSIM) while Mean Squared Error (MSE) served as the additional metric for evaluation. The evaluated denoising methods revealed bilateral filtering as the best technique based on its 50.37 dB PSNR and 0.9940 SSIM together with its 0.5967 MSE. Denoising with Fourier-based methods succeeded in removing high-frequency noise however it produced PSNR of 25.89 dB along with SSIM of 0.8138 while maintaining MSE at 167.4976 indicating lost crucial Image information. The performance balance of Wiener filtering resulted in 40.87 dB PSNR and 0.9809 SSIM and 5.3270 MSE that outperformed Fourier denoising in SSIM yet demonstrated higher MSE. CLAHE produces poor denoising outcomes because it achieves the lowest PSNR of 21.51 dB together with SSIM of 0.5707, and the maximum MSE of 459.1894 while creating undesirable artifacts. This research stands out through a full evaluation of four denoising techniques on a big dataset to create more precise analysis than prior research. The research results show bilateral filtering to be the most reliable technique for CTscan Image noise reduction when maintaining picture quality and thus represents a suitable choice for clinical use. This research adds new information to medical imaging research about quality enhancement which directly benefits clinical diagnostics and therapeutic planning.
References
[1] R. P. V, P. S, J. R. Panicker, and L. R. Nair, “A Novel Framework For Preprocessing Of Breast Ultra Sound Images By Combining Non-Local Means Filter For Speckle Noise Reduction And Morphological Operations For Image Enhancement ,” International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 1671–1679, 2022.
[2] R. Gautam and Ms. R. Bharti, “Liver Ultrasound Image Enhancement Using Bilateral Filter,” International Journal of Engineering and Technical Research, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 69–75, 2018.
[3] H. Naimi, A. B. H. Adamou-Mitiche, and L. Mitiche, “Medical image denoising using dual tree complex thresholding wavelet transform and Wiener filter,” Journal of King Saud University - Computer and Information Sciences, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 40–45, Jan. 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.jksuci.2014.03.015.
[4] M. J. Kobra, M. O. Rahman, and A. M. Nakib, “A Novel Hybrid Framework for Noise Estimation in High-Texture Images using Markov, MLE, and CNN Approaches,” Scientific Journal of Engineering Research, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 54–63, 2025.
[5] P. Singh, “Feature enhanced speckle reduction in ultrasound images: algorithms for scan modelling, speckle filtering, texture analysis and feature improvement,” University of Canterbury, Christchurch, 2019.
[6] Sonali, S. P. Ghrera, and A. K. Singh, “De-noising and contrast enhancement of fundus image through integration of filtering techniques with CLAHE,” Jaypee University of Information Technology, Solan, 2018. Accessed: May 22, 2025. [Online]. Available: http://www.ir.juit.ac.in:8080/jspui/handle/123456789/5615
[7] L. Gabralla, H. Mahersia, and M. Zaroug, “Denoising CT Images using wavelet transform,” International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, vol. 6, no. 5, 2015, doi: 10.14569/IJACSA.2015.060520.
[8] K. Verma, S. Srivastava, and R. K. Mishra, “Novel fuzzy type-II driven modified Anisotropic Diffusion filter framework for restoration and enhancement of Rician noise corrupted MR images,” Multimed Tools Appl, vol. 83, no. 39, pp. 86621–86655, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.1007/s11042-024-19624-8.
[9] A. Kumar, S. Srivastava, R. Sarin, and R. Irizarry, “A comparative study of different denoising and enhancement techniques for blood cell images,” IET Conference Proceedings, vol. 2023, no. 5, pp. 297–303, Jul. 2023, doi: 10.1049/icp.2023.1506.
[10] K. Lavanya, D. S. Satish, Y. M. Reddy, and K. J. Rani, “A Two-Level Framework for CXR Image Enhancement with Gradient Assisted Guided Based CLAHE,” in 2024 Second International Conference on Advanced Computing & Communication Technologies (ICACCTech), IEEE, Nov. 2024, pp. 493–499. doi: 10.1109/ICACCTech65084.2024.00086.
[11] H. El Saady, “Denoising and Contrast Enhancement of CT Brain Image Using Median Filter and HE,” African Journal of Advanced Pure and Applied Sciences, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 141–148, 2024.
[12] T. Chhabra, G. Dua, and T. Malhotra, “Comparative Analysis of Methods to Denoise CT Scan Images ,” International Journal of Advanced Research in Electrical, Electronics and Instrumentation Engineering, vol. 2, no. 7, pp. 3363–3369, 2013.
[13] K. P. Das and J. Chandra, “A Review on Preprocessing Techniques for Noise Reduction in PET-CT Images for Lung Cancer,” in (eds) Congress on Intelligent Systems. Lecture Notes on Data Engineering and Communications Technologies, 2022, pp. 455–475. doi: 10.1007/978-981-16-9113-3_34.
[14] D. Thanh, P. Surya, and L. M. Hieu, “A Review on CT and X-Ray Images Denoising Methods,” Informatica, vol. 43, no. 2, Jun. 2019, doi: 10.31449/inf.v43i2.2179.
[15] N. Shrivastava and J. Bharti, “Multi-stage System for Preprocessing Mammograms,” IEIE Transactions on Smart Processing & Computing, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 119–126, Apr. 2020, doi: 10.5573/IEIESPC.2020.9.2.119.
[16] A. A. Muhd Suberi, W. N. Wan Zakaria, A. Nazari, R. Tomari, N. F. Nik Fuad, and M. N. Hj Mohd, “Comparative Performance of Filtering Methods for Reducing Noise in Ischemic Posterior Fossa CT Images,” Procedia Comput Sci, vol. 157, pp. 55–63, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2019.08.141.
[17] Y. R. Haddadi, B. Mansouri, and F. Z. I. Khodja, “A novel medical image enhancement algorithm based on CLAHE and pelican optimization,” Multimed Tools Appl, vol. 83, no. 42, pp. 90069–90088, Apr. 2024, doi: 10.1007/s11042-024-19070-6.
[18] Sonali, S. Sahu, A. K. Singh, S. P. Ghrera, and M. Elhoseny, “An approach for de-noising and contrast enhancement of retinal fundus image using CLAHE,” Opt Laser Technol, vol. 110, pp. 87–98, Feb. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.optlastec.2018.06.061.
[19] R. T. Sadia, J. Chen, and J. Zhang, “CT image denoising methods for image quality improvement and radiation dose reduction,” J Appl Clin Med Phys, vol. 25, no. 2, Feb. 2024, doi: 10.1002/acm2.14270.
[20] R. R. Kumar and R. Priyadarshi, “Denoising and segmentation in medical image analysis: A comprehensive review on machine learning and deep learning approaches,” Multimed Tools Appl, vol. 84, no. 12, pp. 10817–10875, May 2024, doi: 10.1007/s11042-024-19313-6.
[21] Z. A. Balogh and B. Janos Kis, “Comparison of CT noise reduction performances with deep learning-based, conventional, and combined denoising algorithms,” Med Eng Phys, vol. 109, p. 103897, Nov. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2022.103897.
[22] X. Guo et al., “Enhanced CT Images by the Wavelet Transform Improving Diagnostic Accuracy of Chest Nodules,” J Digit Imaging, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 44–49, Feb. 2011, doi: 10.1007/s10278-009-9248-y.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Mst Jannatul Kobra, Arman Mohammad Nakib, Peter Mweetwa, Md Owahedur Rahman
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
