Cited by 62Medical Image Segmentation TechniquesImage Enhancement TechniquesAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications

A review of Methods for Bias Correction in Medical Images

Open access
Song, Shuang, Zheng, Yuanjie, He, Yunlong·2017·Biomedical Engineering Review

Abstract

Bias field in medical images is an undesirable artifact primarily arises from the improper image acquisition process or the specific properties of the imaged object. This artifact can be characterized by a smooth variation of intensities across the image and significantly degrade many medical image analysis techniques. Studies on bias correction have been investigated extensively over these years. In this paper, we proposed to category and analysis existing biascorrection methods, provide a complete review article that enables comparative studies on bias correction in medical images.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18103/bme.v3i1.1550

Cites

109 of 109 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Aldrich, J., et al. (1997). Ra fisher and the making of maximum likelihood 1912-1922. Statistical Science, 12(3), 162-176.
  2. Ashburner, J., & Friston, K. J. (2005). Unified segmentation. Neu- roimage, 26(3), 839-851.
  3. Boroomand, A., Shafiee, M. J., Khalvati, F., Haider, M. A., & Wong, A. (2015). Noise-compensated, bias-corrected diffusion weighted endorectal magnetic resonance imaging via a stochas- tically fully-connected joint conditional random field model. arXiv preprint arXiv:1512.04636. · arXiv
  4. Cohen, M. S., DuBois, R. M., & Zeineh, M. M. (2000). Rapid and effective correction of rf inhomogeneity for high field magnetic resonance imaging. Human brain mapping, 10(4), 204-211.
  5. Li, X., Li, L., Lu, H., & Liang, Z. (2005). Partial volume segmen- tation of brain magnetic resonance images based on maximum a posteriori probability. Medical Physics, 32(7), 2337-2345.
  6. Pop, P., Vaida, M.-F., et al. (2015). Bias field inhomogeneity mea- surements. In E-health and bioengineering conference (ehb), 2015 (pp. 1-4).
  7. Pruessmann, K. P., Weiger, M., Scheidegger, M. B., Boesiger, P., et al. (1999). Sense: sensitivity encoding for fast mri. Magnetic resonance in medicine, 42(5), 952-962.
  8. Santha Kumari, T., Suresh, B., Yashwanth, P., & Rao, R. R. (2015). Modified histogram based contrast enhancement using unsharp masking filter for medical images. IJRCCT, 4(2), 137-140.
  9. Sreenivasan, K. R., Havlicek, M., & Deshpande, G. (2015). Non- parametric hemodynamic deconvolution of fmri using homo- morphic filtering. IEEE transactions on medical imaging, 34(5), 1155-1163.
  10. Thulborn, K. R., Boada, F. E., Shen, G. X., Christensen, J. D., & Reese, T. G. (1998). Correction of b1 inhomogeneities using echo-planar imaging of water. Magnetic resonance in medicine, 39(3), 369-375.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Song, S., Zheng, Y., & He, Y.
Affiliations
Shandong Normal University (CN)
Venue
Biomedical Engineering Review
Published
2017
Volume
3
Issue
1
ISSN
  • 2375-9143 (ISSN-L)
  • 2375-9151
OpenAlex
W2768274329
Cited by
62
References
109
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1
FWCI
1.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Biomedical Engineering Review (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (ZR2014FM001, 61572300, TSHW201502038)
  • Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province (61572300, TSHW201502038, ZR2014FM001)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Image Enhancement Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Keywords
bias field correction, medical image registration, intensity inhomogeneity, image intensity variation, method comparison

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review