An Image Decomposition Fusion Method for Medical Images

<div>Comparison of various gradient operators and the GSG on the noisy image <span class="nowrap"><svg height="11.5564pt" id="M3" style="vertical-align:-2.26807pt" version="1.1" viewbox="-0.0498162 -9.28833 43.952 11.5564" width="43.952pt" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,0,0)"><path d="M300 -147C201 -63 143 98 143 270S200 602 300 686L282 710C136 610 70 450 70 271V270C70 89 136 -72 282 -170L300 -147Z"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,4.498,0)"><path d="M548 455L523 469C505 448 490 439 461 439C416 439 374 447 316 447C144 447 23 310 23 161C23 47 89 -12 179 -12C312 -12 429 106 429 244C429 303 419 344 368 386L371 388C404 383 440 378 474 378C507 378 530 411 548 455ZM350 274C350 191 308 25 198 25C144 25 108 75 108 157C108 264 170 395 276 395C296 395 320 384 333 360C347 334 350 316 350 274Z"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,15.477,0)"><path d="M535 323V373H52V323H535ZM535 138V188H52V138H535Z"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,26.74,0)"><path d="M412 140C382 77 369 73 315 73H129L270 222C362 320 402 379 402 466C402 571 322 635 234 635C177 635 130 609 99 576L42 495L64 475C90 514 133 568 201 568C274 568 318 519 318 435C318 349 255 267 193 193C144 135 87 78 32 23V0H405C417 45 427 89 440 131L412 140Z"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,32.98,0)"><path d="M241 635C89 635 35 457 35 312C35 153 89 -12 240 -12C390 -12 443 166 443 312C443 466 390 635 241 635ZM238 602C329 602 354 454 354 312C354 172 330 22 240 22C152 22 124 173 124 313S148 602 238 602Z"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,39.22,0)"><path d="M275 270C275 450 212 609 64 710L45 686C145 604 203 442 203 270S147 -63 45 -147L64 -170C213 -68 275 89 275 270Z"></path></g></svg>.</span> (a) Noisy image. (b) Roberts. (c) Prewitt. (d) Sobel. (e) GSC.</div>

Mathematical Problems in Engineering

An Image Decomposition Fusion Method for Medical Images

Figure 1