Papers › A study on the adequacy of common IQA measures for medical images
A study on the adequacy of common IQA measures for medical images
Anna Breger, Clemens Karner, Ian Selby, Janek Gröhl, Sören Dittmer, Edward Lilley, Judith Babar, Jake Beckford, Thomas R Else, Timothy J Sadler, Shahab Shahipasand, Arthikkaa Thavakumar, Michael Roberts, Carola-Bibiane Schönlieb
Image quality assessment (IQA) is standard practice in the development stage of novel machine learning algorithms that operate on images. The most commonly used IQA measures have been developed and tested for natural images, but not in the medical setting. Reported inconsistencies arising in medical images are not surprising, as they have different properties than natural images. In this study, we test the applicability of common IQA measures for medical image data by comparing their assessment to manually rated chest X-ray (5 experts) and photoacoustic image data (2 experts). Moreover, we include supplementary studies on grayscale natural images and accelerated brain MRI data. The results of all experiments show a similar outcome in line with previous findings for medical images: PSNR and SSIM in the default setting are in the lower range of the result list and HaarPSI outperforms the other tested measures in the overall performance. Also among the top performers in our experiments are the full reference measures FSIM, LPIPS and MS-SSIM. Generally, the results on natural images yield considerably higher correlations, suggesting that additional employment of tailored IQA measures for medical imaging algorithms is needed.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Tasks
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections