Advance Search

A comparative study of enhancement techniques applied to noisy mammogram images: An Experimental Evaluation Based on the MIAS Dataset

An Experimental Evaluation Based on the MIAS Dataset

Zhian Y. Rajab
Department of Physics, College of Education, Salahaddin University-Erbil, Kurdistan Region, Iraq
Sardar P. Yaba
Department of Physics, College of Education, Salahaddin University-Erbil, Kurdistan Region, Iraq
Keywords:
Copyright and Licensing:

Copyright (c) 2026 Zhian Y. Rajab, Sardar P. Yaba (Author)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Share:
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Abstract

Background and objective: Mammography is a common imaging method, utilizing low-dose X-rays to detect calcifications and other tissue abnormalities. The aim of this study was to determine the most effective techniques for enhancing mammogram images to ensure accurate and reliable breast cancer detection.

Methods: Mammogram images from the MIAS database were enhanced using various techniques to improve image quality for more accurate diagnostic identification. The methodology proceeded in two steps. First, artificial noise — Gaussian, quantum, salt-and-pepper, Poisson, and speckle — was purposefully added to create a controlled testing environment and replicate noisy settings; although mammogram images naturally contain some noise, this artificial addition allowed systematic evaluation of enhancement and denoising techniques. Second, contrast enhancement (histogram equalization and contrast-limited adaptive histogram equalization, CLAHE) and denoising (Gaussian, median, and Wiener filters) were applied to restore image clarity while preserving diagnostically significant information. Peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR) was used to evaluate effectiveness, and one-way ANOVA was used to determine the significance of each technique's effect on PSNR values.

Results: The Gaussian filter achieved the best performance, with PSNR values of 66.79 dB and 46.6 dB for salt-and-pepper and Poisson noise, respectively, while CLAHE performed best for Gaussian noise (PSNR=50 dB). PSNR values were significantly affected by the enhancement technique used, according to ANOVA (F=1.08×10⁴, p <0.001).

Conclusion: The Gaussian filter successfully lowers noise and greatly improves image contrast, making these techniques useful for the precise and early identification of breast cancer in mammograms.

PDF
PDF

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

  1. Arnold M, Morgan E, Rumgay H, Mafra A, Singh D, Laversanne M, et al. Current and future burden of breast cancer: global statistics for 2020 and 2040. Breast. 2022;66:15-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2022.08.010
  2. Bhushan A, Gonsalves A, Menon JU. Current state of breast cancer diagnosis, treatment, and theranostics. Pharmaceutics. 2021;13(5):723. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics13050723
  3. Rashid SA, Bapir RN. Correlation of mammographic density and breast cancer characteristics. Adv Med J. 2022;7(2):139-47. https://doi.org/10.56056/amj.2022.190
  4. Wang L. Mammography with deep learning for breast cancer detection. Front Oncol. 2024;14:1281922. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2024.1281922
  5. Dawood SN, Jamal AF. Tumor size measurements predicted by digital mammography, ultrasonography, and magnetic resonance imaging in primary invasive breast cancer disease. Zanco J Med Sci. 2024;28(2):341-50. https://doi.org/10.15218/zjms.2024.032
  6. Kavuri A, Das M. Relative contributions of anatomical and quantum noise in signal detection and perception of tomographic digital breast images. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2020;39(11):3321-30. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2020.2991295
  7. Singh AR, Athisayamani S, Karim FK, Ibrahim AZ, Alshetewi S, Mostafa SM. An enhanced denoising system for mammogram images using deep transformer model with fusion of local and global features. Sci Rep. 2025;15(1):6562. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-89451-w
  8. Mehdy MM, Ng P, Shair EF, Saleh NM, Gomes C. Artificial neural networks in image processing for early detection of breast cancer. Comput Math Methods Med. 2017;2017(1):2610628. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/2610628
  9. Sorin V, Sklair-Levy M, Glicksberg BS, Konen E, Nadkarni GN, Klang E. Deep learning for contrast enhanced mammography — a systematic review. Acad Radiol. 2025;32(5):2497-508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2024.11.035
  10. Almalki YE, Soomro TA, Irfan M, Alduraibi SK, Ali A. Impact of image enhancement module for analysis of mammogram images for diagnostics of breast cancer. Sensors. 2022;22(5):1868. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22051868
  11. Bhateja V, Misra M, Urooj S. Non-linear polynomial filters for edge enhancement of mammogram lesions. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2016;129:125-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2016.01.007
  12. Rajaguru H, SR SC. Efficient denoising framework for mammogram images with a new impulse detector and non-local means. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2020;21(1):179. https://doi.org/10.31557/APJCP.2020.21.1.179
  13. Almalki YE, Soomro TA, Irfan M, Alduraibi SK, Ali A. Computerized analysis of mammogram images for early detection of breast cancer. Healthcare (Basel). 2022;10(5):801. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10050801
  14. Avcı H, Karakaya J. A novel medical image enhancement algorithm for breast cancer detection on mammography images using machine learning. Diagnostics (Basel). 2023;13(3):348. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13030348
  15. Deng H, Deng W, Sun X, Liu M, Ye C, Zhou X. Mammogram enhancement using intuitionistic fuzzy sets. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2016;64(8):1803-14. https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2016.2624306
  16. Boudouh SS, Bouakkaz M. Enhanced breast mass mammography classification approach based on pre-processing and hybridization of transfer learning models. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2023;149(16):14549-64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-023-05249-1
  17. Yoon WB, Oh JE, Chae EY, Kim HH, Lee SY, Kim KG. Automatic detection of pectoral muscle region for computer-aided diagnosis using MIAS mammograms. Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016(1):5967580. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/5967580
  18. Chan HP, Helvie MA, Gao M, Hadjiiski L, Zhou C, Garver K, et al. Deep learning denoising of digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study of the effect on detection of microcalcifications in breast phantom images. Med Phys. 2023;50(10):6177-89. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.16439
  19. Geng C, Paganetti H, Grassberger C. Prediction of treatment response for combined chemo- and radiation therapy for non-small cell lung cancer patients using a bio-mathematical model. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):13542. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-13646-z
  20. Okoye K, Hosseini S. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) in R: one-way and two-way ANOVA. In: R Programming: Statistical Data Analysis in Research. Singapore: Springer; 2024. P. 187-209. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-3385-9_9
  21. Hamed G, Marey M, Amin SE-S, Tolba MF. A proposed model for denoising breast mammogram images. In: 2018 13th International Conference on Computer Engineering and Systems (ICCES). IEEE; 2018. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCES.2018.8639307
  22. Okoh FO, Ocheje JA. Evaluating denoising performances of basic filters in the detection of microcalcifications on mammogram images. Int J Sci Res Arch. 2023;9(2):201-10. https://doi.org/10.30574/ijsra.2023.9.2.0544
How to Cite
Y. Rajab, Z., & P. Yaba, S. . (2026). A comparative study of enhancement techniques applied to noisy mammogram images: An Experimental Evaluation Based on the MIAS Dataset. Zanco Journal of Medical Sciences (ZJMS), 808–821. https://doi.org/10.15218/zjms.2026.058

Send mail to Author

Send Cancel