| Literature DB >> 35685673 |
Zhongxiao Zhang1, Zehua Wang2.
Abstract
To improve the quality of computed tomography (CT) images and provide help for benign and malignant diagnosis of renal parenchymal tumors, the independent component analysis (ICA) denoising algorithm was used. An improved ICA X-ray CT (X-CT) medical image denoising algorithm was proposed. ICA provided a higher signal-to-noise ratio for CT image denoising. Forty patients with renal tumor were selected as the observation group. The CT image performance of patients was evaluated by the denoising algorithm and compared with the wavelet transform algorithm, and the peak signal-to-noise ratio of the proposed algorithm was analyzed and compared. The results showed that among the 40 patients with renal tumors, 12 were renal clear cell carcinoma cases and 28 were cystic renal carcinoma cases. The accuracy of the enhanced CT image was 93.8%, and that of the CT image using the denoising algorithm was 96.3%; the difference between the two was significant (P < 0.05). The peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR) of the algorithm proposed was higher than the PSNR values of CT and noisy images. The PSNR of the proposed algorithm was significantly higher than that of mean filtering. The root mean square error (RMSE) algorithm of the proposed algorithm was significantly lower than that of the mean algorithm in image data processing (P < 0.05), which showed the superiority of the proposed algorithm. Enhanced CT can be staged significantly. In conclusion, the algorithm had a significant effect on the edge contour of detailed features, and the accuracy of CT images based on intelligent calculation was significantly higher than that of conventional CT images for benign and malignant renal parenchyma tumors, which was worth promoting in clinical diagnosis.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35685673 PMCID: PMC9166996 DOI: 10.1155/2022/5871385
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Contrast Media Mol Imaging ISSN: 1555-4309 Impact factor: 3.009
Figure 1Wavelet transform denoising flowchart.
Figure 2Flow chart of the X-CT denoising algorithm.
Subjective evaluation image criteria.
| Level | Standard | Evaluation |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Changes in image quality affect the observation | Poor |
| 2 | The deterioration of image quality can be directly observed | General |
| 3 | Slight changes in image quality were observed but did not affect the observation | Good |
| 4 | The quality of the image did not change | Excellent |
Comparison of clinical data of patients.
| Group | Cases | Male | Female | Age (years) | Cystic renal cancer | Clear cell carcinoma of the kidney |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observation group | 40 | 27 | 13 | 56.3 ± 5.6 | 28 cases | 12 cases |
| Control group | 40 | 21 | 19 | 57.1 ± 6.0 | 0 | 0 |
|
| −0.133 | 0.284 | — | — | ||
|
| 0.672 | 0.759 | — | — | ||
Figure 3Comparison of image denoising. A significant difference, P < 0.05.
Figure 4Comparison of CT images. (a) The image before CT enhancement. (b) The CT image after PSNR denoising. (c) The CT image after mean filtering algorithm denoising.
Figure 5PSNR comparison of different algorithms.
Comparison of diagnostic results.
| Treatment | Cases | Malignant tumor | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Enhanced CT | 40 | 37 | 90.0 | 97.5 | 93.8% |
| Denoising algorithm treated-CT | 40 | 39 | 95.0 | 97.5 | 96.3% |
Note: a significant difference, P < 0.05.
Figure 6Enhanced CT images.