Diagnostic Quality of Compressed Medical Images: Objective and Subjective Evaluation

Ghrare, Seddeq E.; Ali, Mohd; Ismail, Mahamod; Jumari, Kasmiran

doi:10.1109/ams.2008.10

Cited by 23 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In subjective listening tests based on human acoustic perception, the subjects are asked to discern the watermarked or steganography information and the host. MOS is the methodology utilized in this measurement. When participating in a subjective test, a viewer or listener focuses on the difference between the manipulated image, audio, or video and the original one.…”

Section: Methodology Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

A new digital watermarking evaluation and benchmarking methodology using an external group of evaluators and multi‐criteria analysis based on ‘large‐scale data’

Zaidan

Karim

et al. 2016

Softw Pract Exp

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Digital watermarking evaluation and benchmarking are challenging tasks because of multiple evaluation and conflicting criteria. A few approaches have been presented to implement digital watermarking evaluation and benchmarking frameworks. However, these approaches still possess a number of limitations, such as fixing several attributes on the account of other attributes. Well‐known benchmarking approaches are limited to robust watermarking. Therefore, this paper presents a new methodology for digital watermarking evaluation and benchmarking based on large‐scale data by using external evaluators and a group decision making context. Two experiments are performed. In the first experiment, a noise gate‐based digital watermarking approach is developed, and the scheme for the noise gate digital watermarking approach is enhanced. Sixty audio samples from different audio styles are tested with two algorithms. A total of 120 samples were evaluated according to three different metrics, namely, quality, payload, and complexity, to generate a set of digital watermarking samples. In the second experiment, the situation in which digital watermarking evaluators have different preferences is discussed. Weight measurement with a decision making solution is required to solve this issue. The analytic hierarchy process is used to measure evaluator preference. In the decision making solution, the technique for order of preference by similarity to the ideal solution with different contexts (e.g., individual and group) is utilized. Therefore, selecting the proper context with different aggregation operators to benchmark the results of experiment 1 (i.e., digital watermarking approaches) is recommended. The findings of this research are as follows: (1) group and individual decision making provide the same result in this case study. However, in the case of selection where the priority weights are generated from the evaluators, group decision making is the recommended solution to solve the trade‐off reflected in the benchmarking process for digital watermarking approaches. (2) Internal and external aggregations show that the enhanced watermarking approach demonstrates better performance than the original watermarking approach. © 2016 The Authors. Software: Practice and Experience published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

show abstract

Section: Methodology Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

A new digital watermarking evaluation and benchmarking methodology using an external group of evaluators and multi‐criteria analysis based on ‘large‐scale data’

Zaidan

Karim

et al. 2016

Softw Pract Exp

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Image pixels are primary image attributes for measuring image presentation quality [18,34]. Presentation-subjective quality is achieved by human judgment of quality based on the entire image [19], practically based on all the pixels of the image.…”

Section: A Presentation Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are many objective and subjective presentation quality measurements to choose from [34]. A practitioner should at least employ one measurement for each of the presentation quality dimensions.…”

Section: A Presentation Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality evaluation of medical image compression: What to measure?

Dragan

Ivetić

2010

IEEE 8th International Symposium on Intelligent Systems and Informatics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although the objective test plays a significant role, subjective test from a radiologist is also needed [52]. This is important to ensure the generated medical images not only contributes for better compression system, but also retains the medical interest of the images.…”

Section: Medical Image Compressionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficient reconfigurable architectures for 3D medical image compression

Ahmad

Amira

2009

2009 International Conference on Field-Programmable Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A AbstractRecently, the more widespread use of three-dimensional (3-D) imaging modalities, such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), positron emission tomography (PET), and ultrasound (US) have generated a massive amount of volumetric data. These have provided an impetus to the development of other applications, in particular telemedicine and teleradiology. In these fields, medical image compression is important since both efficient storage and transmission of data In summary, this research is tackling the issues of massive 3-D medical volumes data that requires compression as well as hardware implementation to accelerate the slowest operations in the system. Results obtained also reveal a significant achievement in terms of the architecture efficiency and applications performance.

show abstract

Diagnostic Quality of Compressed Medical Images: Objective and Subjective Evaluation

Cited by 23 publications

References 7 publications

A new digital watermarking evaluation and benchmarking methodology using an external group of evaluators and multi‐criteria analysis based on ‘large‐scale data’

A new digital watermarking evaluation and benchmarking methodology using an external group of evaluators and multi‐criteria analysis based on ‘large‐scale data’

Quality evaluation of medical image compression: What to measure?

Efficient reconfigurable architectures for 3D medical image compression

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About