Multi-marker Similarity Enables Reduced-Reference and Interpretable Image Quality Assessment in Optical Microscopy.

IF 11 1区 综合性期刊 Q1 Multidisciplinary
Research Pub Date : 2025-07-18 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.34133/research.0783
Elena Corbetta, Thomas Bocklitz
{"title":"Multi-marker Similarity Enables Reduced-Reference and Interpretable Image Quality Assessment in Optical Microscopy.","authors":"Elena Corbetta, Thomas Bocklitz","doi":"10.34133/research.0783","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Optical microscopy contributes to the ever-increasing progress in biological and biomedical studies, as it allows the implementation of minimally invasive experimental pipelines to translate the data of measured samples into valuable knowledge. Within these pipelines, reliable quality assessment must be ensured to validate the generated results. Image quality assessment is often applied with full-reference methods to estimate the similarity between the ground truth and the output images. However, current methods often show poor agreement with visual perception and lead to the generation of various full-reference metrics tailored to specific applications. Additionally, they rely on pixel-wise comparisons, emphasizing local intensity similarity while often overlooking comprehensive and interpretable image quality assessment. To address these issues, we have developed a multi-marker similarity method that compares standard quality markers, such as resolution, signal-to-noise ratio, contrast, and high-frequency components. The method computes a similarity score between the image and the ground truth for each marker and then combines these scores into an overall similarity estimate. This provides a full-reference estimate of image quality while extracting global quality features and detecting experimental artifacts. Multi-marker similarity provides a reliable and interpretable method for image quality assessment and the generation of quality rankings. By focusing on the comparison of quality markers rather than direct image distances, the method enables reduced-reference implementations, where a single field of view is used as a benchmark for multiple measurements. This opens a way for reliable automatic evaluation of big datasets, typical of large biomedical studies, when manually assessing single images and defining the ground truth for each field of view is not feasible.</p>","PeriodicalId":21120,"journal":{"name":"Research","volume":"8 ","pages":"0783"},"PeriodicalIF":11.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12271742/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34133/research.0783","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Multidisciplinary","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Optical microscopy contributes to the ever-increasing progress in biological and biomedical studies, as it allows the implementation of minimally invasive experimental pipelines to translate the data of measured samples into valuable knowledge. Within these pipelines, reliable quality assessment must be ensured to validate the generated results. Image quality assessment is often applied with full-reference methods to estimate the similarity between the ground truth and the output images. However, current methods often show poor agreement with visual perception and lead to the generation of various full-reference metrics tailored to specific applications. Additionally, they rely on pixel-wise comparisons, emphasizing local intensity similarity while often overlooking comprehensive and interpretable image quality assessment. To address these issues, we have developed a multi-marker similarity method that compares standard quality markers, such as resolution, signal-to-noise ratio, contrast, and high-frequency components. The method computes a similarity score between the image and the ground truth for each marker and then combines these scores into an overall similarity estimate. This provides a full-reference estimate of image quality while extracting global quality features and detecting experimental artifacts. Multi-marker similarity provides a reliable and interpretable method for image quality assessment and the generation of quality rankings. By focusing on the comparison of quality markers rather than direct image distances, the method enables reduced-reference implementations, where a single field of view is used as a benchmark for multiple measurements. This opens a way for reliable automatic evaluation of big datasets, typical of large biomedical studies, when manually assessing single images and defining the ground truth for each field of view is not feasible.

多标记相似性使光学显微镜中减少参考和可解释的图像质量评估成为可能。
光学显微镜有助于生物和生物医学研究的不断进步,因为它允许实施微创实验管道,将测量样品的数据转化为有价值的知识。在这些管道中,必须确保可靠的质量评估来验证生成的结果。图像质量评估通常采用全参考方法来估计地面真值与输出图像之间的相似度。然而,目前的方法往往显示与视觉感知的一致性较差,并导致生成针对特定应用的各种全参考度量。此外,它们依赖于像素比较,强调局部强度相似性,而经常忽略全面和可解释的图像质量评估。为了解决这些问题,我们开发了一种多标记相似度方法,用于比较标准质量标记,如分辨率、信噪比、对比度和高频成分。该方法为每个标记计算图像和地面真值之间的相似度分数,然后将这些分数组合成总体相似度估计。这提供了一个完整的参考估计图像质量,同时提取全局质量特征和检测实验伪影。多标记相似性为图像质量评价和质量排名的生成提供了一种可靠的、可解释的方法。通过专注于质量标记的比较,而不是直接的图像距离,该方法实现了减少参考的实现,其中单个视场被用作多个测量的基准。这为大数据集的可靠自动评估开辟了一条道路,典型的大型生物医学研究,当手动评估单个图像并定义每个视场的基本真相是不可行的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Research
Research Multidisciplinary-Multidisciplinary
CiteScore
13.40
自引率
3.60%
发文量
0
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: Research serves as a global platform for academic exchange, collaboration, and technological advancements. This journal welcomes high-quality research contributions from any domain, with open arms to authors from around the globe. Comprising fundamental research in the life and physical sciences, Research also highlights significant findings and issues in engineering and applied science. The journal proudly features original research articles, reviews, perspectives, and editorials, fostering a diverse and dynamic scholarly environment.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信