LinkedIn

 آمار

تعداد نشریات20
تعداد شماره‌ها1,113
تعداد مقالات10,208
تعداد مشاهده مقاله40,780,436
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله8,804,148
Mozaffarilegha, M, Yaghobi Joybari, A, Mostaar, A. (1399). Medical Image Fusion using bi-dimensional empirical mode decomposition (BEMD) and an Efficient Fusion Scheme. سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 10(6), 727-736. doi: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.830
M Mozaffarilegha; A Yaghobi Joybari; A Mostaar. "Medical Image Fusion using bi-dimensional empirical mode decomposition (BEMD) and an Efficient Fusion Scheme". سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 10, 6, 1399, 727-736. doi: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.830
Mozaffarilegha, M, Yaghobi Joybari, A, Mostaar, A. (1399). 'Medical Image Fusion using bi-dimensional empirical mode decomposition (BEMD) and an Efficient Fusion Scheme', سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 10(6), pp. 727-736. doi: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.830
Mozaffarilegha, M, Yaghobi Joybari, A, Mostaar, A. Medical Image Fusion using bi-dimensional empirical mode decomposition (BEMD) and an Efficient Fusion Scheme. سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 1399; 10(6): 727-736. doi: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.830

Medical Image Fusion using bi-dimensional empirical mode decomposition (BEMD) and an Efficient Fusion Scheme

Journal of Biomedical Physics and Engineering
مقاله 52، دوره 10، شماره 6، بهمن و اسفند 2020، صفحه 727-736    اصل مقاله (1.07 M)
نوع مقاله: Original Research
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.830
نویسندگان
M Mozaffarilegha1؛ A Yaghobi Joybari2؛ A Mostaar* 1، 3
1PhD, Department of Biomedical Engineering and Medical Physics, School of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2MD, Department of Radiation Oncology, School of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
3PhD, Radiation Biology Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
چکیده
Background: Medical image fusion is being widely used for capturing complimentary information from images of different modalities. Combination of useful information presented in medical images is the aim of image fusion techniques, and the fused image will exhibit more information in comparison with source images.
Objective: In the current study, a BEMD-based multi-modal medical image fusion technique is utilized. Moreover, Teager-Kaiser energy operator (TKEO) was applied to lower BIMFs. The results were compared to six routine methods.
Material and Methods: In this study, which is of experimental type, an image fusion technique using bi-dimensional empirical mode decomposition (BEMD), Teager-Kaiser energy operator (TKEO) as a local feature selection and Hierarchical Model And X (HMAX) model is presented. BEMD fusion technique can preserve much functional information. In the process of fusion, we adopt the fusion rule of TKEO for lower bi-dimensional intrinsic mode functions (BIMFs) of two images and HMAX visual cortex model as a fusion rule for higher BIMFs, which are verified to be more appropriate for human vision system. Integrating BEMD and this efficient fusion scheme can retain more spatial and functional features of input images.
Results: We compared our method with IHS, DWT, LWT, PCA, NSCT and SIST methods. The simulation results and fusion performance show that the presented method is effective in terms of mutual information, quality of fused image (QAB/F), standard deviation, peak signal to noise ratio, structural similarity and considerably better results compared to six typical fusion methods.
Conclusion: The statistical analyses revealed that our algorithm significantly improved spatial features and diminished the color distortion compared to other fusion techniques. The proposed approach can be used for routine practice. Fusion of functional and morphological medical images is possible before, during and after treatment of tumors in different organs. Image fusion can enable interventional events and can be further assessed.
کلیدواژه‌ها
Image Fusion؛ Empirical Mode Decomposition؛ Diagnostic Imaging؛ Image Processing, Computer-Assisted؛ Multimodal Imaging
سایر فایل های مرتبط با مقاله
مراجع
  1. Wang L, Li B, Tian L-F. Multi-modal medical image fusion using the inter-scale and intra-scale dependencies between image shift-invariant shearlet coefficients. Information Fusion. 2014;19:20-8.
  2. Wang L, Li B, Tian L-F. EGGDD: An explicit dependency model for multi-modal medical image fusion in shift-invariant shearlet transform domain. Information Fusion. 2014;19:29-37.
  3. Wang Q, Li S, Qin H, Hao A. Robust multi-modal medical image fusion via anisotropic heat diffusion guided low-rank structural analysis. Information Fusion. 2015;26:103-21.
  4. Singh R, Khare A. Fusion of multimodal medical images using Daubechies complex wavelet transform-A multiresolution approach. Information Fusion. 2014;19:49-60.
  5. Polo A, Cattani F, Vavassori A, Origgi D, Villa G, Marsiglia H, et al. MR and CT image fusion for postimplant analysis in permanent prostate seed implants. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;60:1572-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2004.08.033. PubMed PMID: 15590189.
  6. Javed U, Riaz MM, Ghafoor A, Ali SS, Cheema TA. MRI and PET image fusion using fuzzy logic and image local features. Scientific World Journal. 2014;2014:708075. doi: 10.1155/2014/708075. PubMed PMID: 24574912. PubMed PMCID: PMC3916105.
  7. Faulhaber P, Nelson A, Mehta L, O’Donnell J. 24. The Fusion of Anatomic and Physiologic Tomographic Images to Enhance Accurate Interpretation. Clin Positron Imaging. 2000;3:178. PubMed PMID: 11150781.
  8. Mutic S, Palta JR, Butker EK, Das IJ, Huq MS, Loo LN, et al. Quality assurance for computed-tomography simulators and the computed-tomography-simulation process: report of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group No. 66. Med Phys. 2003;30:2762-92. doi: 10.1118/1.1609271. PubMed PMID: 14596315.
  9. Bowsher JE, Johnson VE, Turkington TG, Jaszczak RJ, Floyd CR, Coleman RE. Bayesian reconstruction and use of anatomical a priori information for emission tomography. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1996;15:673-86. doi: 10.1109/42.538945. PubMed PMID: 18215949.
  10. Scott AM, Macapinlac H, Zhang JJ, Kalaigian H, Graham MC, Divgi CR, et al. Clinical applications of fusion imaging in oncology. Nucl Med Biol. 1994;21:775-84. PubMed PMID: 9241654.
  11. Giesel FL, Mehndiratta A, Locklin J, McAuliffe MJ, White S, Choyke PL, et al. Image fusion using CT, MRI and PET for treatment planning, navigation and follow up in percutaneous RFA. Exp Oncol. 2009;31:106-14. PubMed PMID: 19550401. PubMed PMCID: PMC2850071.
  12. Yap JT, Carney JP, Hall NC, Townsend DW. Image-guided cancer therapy using PET/CT. Cancer J. 2004;10:221-33. PubMed PMID: 15383203.
  13. Ferrari De Oliveira L, Azevedo Marques PM. Coregistration of brain single-positron emission computed tomography and magnetic resonance images using anatomical features. J Digit Imaging. 2000;13:196-9. PubMed PMID: 10847399. PubMed PMCID: PMC3453243.
  14. Vannier MW, Gayou DE. Automated registration of multimodality images. Radiology. 1988;169:860-1. doi: 10.1148/radiology.169.3.3263667. PubMed PMID: 3263667.
  15. Forster GJ, Laumann C, Nickel O, Kann P, Rieker O, Bartenstein P. SPET/CT image co-registration in the abdomen with a simple and cost-effective tool. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30:32-9. doi: 10.1007/s00259-002-1013-0. PubMed PMID: 12483407.
  16. Antoch G, Kanja J, Bauer S, Kuehl H, Renzing-Koehler K, Schuette J, et al. Comparison of PET, CT, and dual-modality PET/CT imaging for monitoring of imatinib (STI571) therapy in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:357-65. PubMed PMID: 15001674.
  17. Keidar Z, Israel O, Krausz Y. SPECT/CT in tumor imaging: technical aspects and clinical applications. Semin Nucl Med. 2003;33:205-18. doi: 10.1053/snuc.2003.127310. PubMed PMID: 12931322.
  18. Israel O, Mor M, Gaitini D, Keidar Z, Guralnik L, Engel A, et al. Combined functional and structural evaluation of cancer patients with a hybrid camera-based PET/CT system using (18)F-FDG. J Nucl Med. 2002;43:1129-36. PubMed PMID: 12215549.
  19. Beyer T, Townsend DW. Putting ‘clear’ into nuclear medicine: a decade of PET/CT development. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006;33:857-61. doi: 10.1007/s00259-006-0137-z. PubMed PMID: 16794821.
  20. Goshtasby AA, Nikolov S. Image fusion: advances in the state of the art. Information fusion. 2007;8:114-8.
  21. Gooding MJ, Rajpoot K, Mitchell S, Chamberlain P, Kennedy SH, Noble JA. Investigation into the fusion of multiple 4-D fetal echocardiography images to improve image quality. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2010;36:957-66. doi: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2010.03.017. PubMed PMID: 20447758.
  22. Maintz JB, Viergever MA. A survey of medical image registration. Med Image Anal. 1998;2:1-36. PubMed PMID: 10638851.
  23. Petrovic V. Multisensor pixel-level image fusion. Manchester: University of Manchester; 2001.
  24. Leduc F, Lewis J, O’Callaghan R, Nikolov S, Bull D, Canagarajah C, editors. Region-Based Image Fusion Using Complex Wavelets. Seventh International Conference on Information Fusion; Stockholm, Sweden: FUSION; 2004.
  25. Zhao Y, Yin Y, Fu D, editors. Decision-level fusion of infrared and visible images for face recognition. Control and Decision Conference; Chinese: IEEE; 2008.
  26. Nirosha Joshitha J, Selin RM. Image fusion using PCA in multifeature based palmprint recognition. International Journal of Soft Computing and Engineering. 2012:P2.
  27. Daneshvar S, Ghassemian H. MRI and PET image fusion by combining IHS and retina-inspired models. Information Fusion. 2010;11:114-23.
  28. Pradhan PS, King RL, Younan NH, Holcomb DW. Estimation of the number of decomposition levels for a wavelet-based multiresolution multisensor image fusion. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing. 2006;44:3674-86.
  29. WWang Z, Ziou D, Armenakis C, Li D, Li Q. A comparative analysis of image fusion methods. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing. 2005;43:1391-402.
  30. Kor S, Tiwary U. Feature level fusion of multimodal medical images in lifting wavelet transform domain. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2004;2:1479-82. doi: 10.1109/IEMBS.2004.1403455. PubMed PMID: 17271975.
  31. Sim HM, Asmuni H, Hassan R, Othman RM. Multimodal biometrics: Weighted score level fusion based on non-ideal iris and face images. Expert Systems with Applications. 2014;41:5390-404.
  32. Alipour SHM, Houshyari M, Mostaar A. A novel algorithm for PET and MRI fusion based on digital curvelet transform via extracting lesions on both images. Electron Physician. 2017;9:4872-9. doi: 10.19082/4872. PubMed PMID: 28894548. PubMed PMCID: PMC5587006.
  33. Yang L, Guo B, Ni W. Multimodality medical image fusion based on multiscale geometric analysis of contourlet transform. Neurocomputing. 2008;72:203-11.
  34. Li T, Wang Y. Biological image fusion using a NSCT based variable-weight method. Information Fusion. 2011;12:85-92.
  35. Miao Q-g, Shi C, Xu P-f, Yang M, Shi Y-b. A novel algorithm of image fusion using shearlets. Opt Commun. 2011;284:1540-7.
  36. Amolins K, Zhang Y, Dare P. Wavelet based image fusion techniques-An introduction, review and comparison. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing. 2007;62:249-63.
  37. Do MN, Vetterli M. The contourlet transform: an efficient directional multiresolution image representation. IEEE Trans Image Process. 2005;14:2091-106. PubMed PMID: 16370462.
  38. Candes E, Demanet L, Donoho D, Ying L. Fast discrete curvelet transforms. Multiscale Modeling & Simulation. 2006;5:861-99.
  39. Huang NE, Shen Z, Long SR, Wu MC, Shih HH, Zheng Q, et al., editors. The empirical mode decomposition and the Hilbert spectrum for nonlinear and non-stationary time series analysis. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. 1998;454(1971):903-95. doi: 10.1098/rspa.1998.0193.
  40. Hariharan H, Gribok A, Abidi MA, Koschan A. Image fusion and enhancement via empirical mode decomposition. Journal of Pattern Recognition Research. 2006;1:16-32.
  41. Qiao L-H, Peng L-Z, Guo W, Yuan W-T, editors. A novel image fusion algorithm based on 2D EMD and IHS. International Conference on Machine Learning and Cybernetics; Kunming, China: IEEE; 2008.
  42. Chen S, Su H, Zhang R, Tian J, Yang L. Improving Empirical Mode Decomposition Using Support Vector Machines for Multifocus Image Fusion. Sensors (Basel). 2008;8:2500-8. doi: 10.3390/s8042500. PubMed PMID: 27879831. PubMed PMCID: PMC3673427.
  43. Zhang X, editor. Comparison of EMD based image fusion methods. International Conference on Computer and Automation Engineering; Bangkok, Thailand: IEEE; 2009.
  44. Ahmed MU, Mandic DP, editors. Image fusion based on fast and adaptive bidimensional empirical mode decomposition. 13th International Conference on Information Fusion; Edinburgh, UK: IEEE; 2010.
  45. Wielgus M, Antoniewicz A, Bartyś M, Putz B, editors. Fast and adaptive bidimensional empirical mode decomposition for the real-time video fusion. 15th International Conference on Information Fusion; Singapore: IEEE; 2012.
  46. Zhao H, Zhang X, Li X, Zang X. A New Model for Image Fusion Using Bi-dimensional Empirical Mode Decomposition with Directional Information. Journal of Information & Computational Science. 2014;11:3461-8.
  47. Deng C, Wang S, Chen X, editors. Remote sensing images fusion algorithm based on shearlet transform. International Conference on Environmental Science and Information Application Technology; Wuhan, China: IEEE; 2009.
  48. Teng J, Wang X, Zhang J, Wang S, editors. Wavelet-based texture fusion of CT/MRI images. 3rd International Congress on Image and Signal Processing; Yantai, China: IEEE; 2010.
  49. Li M, Cai W, Tan Z. A region-based multi-sensor image fusion scheme using pulse-coupled neural network. Pattern Recognition Letters. 2006;27:1948-56.
  50. Jiang H, Tian Y. Fuzzy image fusion based on modified Self-Generating Neural Network. Expert Systems with Applications. 2011;38:8515-23.
  51. Cexus J-C, Boudraa A. Teager-Huang analysis applied to sonar target recognition. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology. 2005:111-4.
  52. Cexus J, Boudraa A. Teager-Huang analysis applied to sonar target recognition. Int J Signal Process. 2004;1:23-7.
  53. De Vleeschauwer D, De Smet P, Cheikh FA, Hamila R, Gabbouj M, editors. Optimal performance of the watershed segmentation of an image enhanced by Teager energy driven diffusion. Proceedings Workshop on Very Low Bit Rate Coding; Champaign: Department of Telecommunications and information processing; 1998.
  54. De Vleesschauwer D, Cheikh FA, Hamila R, Gabbouj M, editors. Watershed segmentation of an image enhanced by teager energy driven diffusion. Sixth International Conference on Image Processing and Its Applications; Dublin, Ireland: IET; 1997.
  55. Boudraa A-O, Salzenstein F, Cexus J-C. Two-dimensional continuous higher-order energy operators. Optical Engineering. 2005;44:117001.
  56. Mitra SK, Li H, Lin I-S, Yu T-H, editors. A new class of nonlinear filters for image enhancement. International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing; Toronto, Ontario, Canada: IEEE; 1991.
  57. Li S, Yang B, Hu J. Performance comparison of different multi-resolution transforms for image fusion. Information Fusion. 2011;12:74-84.
  58. Naidu V, Raol JR. Pixel-level image fusion using wavelets and principal component analysis. Def Sci J. 2008;58:338.
  59. Wang Z, Bovik AC, Sheikh HR, Simoncelli EP. Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Trans Image Process. 2004;13:600-12. PubMed PMID: 15376593.
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 1,600
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 554


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب