Advertisement

Performance Evaluation of Mammogram Enhancement Approaches

  • Vikrant BhatejaEmail author
  • Mukul Misra
  • Shabana Urooj
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 861)

Abstract

Image quality is defined as a characteristic of an image that estimates the magnitude of degradation or improvement in its perceived visual characteristics, generally when compared to a reference image.

References

  1. K. Bovis, S. Singh, Enhancement technique evaluation using quantitative measures on digital mammograms, in Proceedings of 5th International Workshop on Digital Mammography, Toronto, Canada, June 2000, ed. by M.J. Yaffe (Medical Physics Publishing, 2000), pp. 547–553Google Scholar
  2. K. Bovis, S. Singh, Learning the optimal contrast enhancement of mammographic breast masses, in Digital Mammography (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2003), pp. 179–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. S.D. Chen, A new image quality measure for assessment of histogram equalization-based contrast enhancement techniques. Digit. Signal Process. 22(4), 640–647 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. C.J. D’Orsi, L.W. Bassett, W.A. Berg, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: ACR BI-RADS Mammography, 4th edn. (American College of Radiology, Reston, VA, 2003)Google Scholar
  5. M. Heath, K. Bowyer, D. Kopans, R. Moore, W.P. Kegelmeyer, The digital database for screening mammography, in Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Digital Mammography, Toronto Canada, June 2001, ed. by M.J. Yaffe (Medical Physics Publishing, 2001), pp. 212–218Google Scholar
  6. P. Ivonne, ACR BI-RADS Atlas: Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, 5th edn. (American College of Radiology, Reston, VA, 2013)Google Scholar
  7. E.A. Krupinski, Current perspectives in medical image perception. Attent. Percept. Psychophys. 72(5), 1205–1217 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. K.A. Panetta, E.J. Wharton, S.S. Agaian, Human visual system-based image enhancement and logarithmic contrast measure. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part B: Cybern. 38(1), 174–188 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. K. Panetta, A. Samani, S. Agaian, Choosing the optimal spatial domain measure of enhancement for mammogram images. Int. J. Biomed. Imaging 2014(1), 1–8 (2014)Google Scholar
  10. S. Singh, R. Al-Mansoori, Identification of regions of interest in digital mammograms. J. Intell. Syst. 10(2), 183–217 (2000)Google Scholar
  11. S. Singh, K. Bovis, An evaluation of contrast enhancement techniques for mammographic breast masses. IEEE Trans. Inf. Technol. Biomed. 9(1), 109–119 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Z. Wang, A.C. Bovik, H.R. Sheikh, E.P. Simoncelli, Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 13(4), 600–612 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Z. Wang, Objective image quality assessment: facing the real-world challenges. Electron. Imaging 13(2), 1–6 (2016)Google Scholar
  14. X. Zhu, P. Milanfar, Automatic parameter selection for denoising algorithms using a no-reference measure of image content. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 19(12), 3116–313 (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Electronics and Communication EngineeringShri Ramswaroop Memorial Group of Professional Colleges (SRMGPC)LucknowIndia
  2. 2.Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical UniversityLucknowIndia
  3. 3.Faculty of Electronics and Communication EngineeringShri Ramswaroop Memorial University (SRMU)BarabankiIndia
  4. 4.Department of Electrical Engineering, College of EngineeringPrincess Nourah Bint Abdulrahman UniversityRiyadhKingdom of Saudi Arabia

Personalised recommendations