Back

Comparison of Deep Learning Approaches for Extreme Low-SNR Image Restoration

Buhn, N. E.; Adunur, S. R.; Hamilton, J.; Levis, S.; Hagen, G. M.; Ventura, J.

2026-01-20 bioinformatics
10.64898/2026.01.16.700026 bioRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundLive-cell fluorescence microscopy enables the study of dynamic cellular processes. However, fluorescence microscopy can damage cells and disrupt these dynamic processes through photobleaching and phototoxicity. Reducing light exposure mitigates the effects of photobleaching and phototoxicity but results in low signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) images. Deep learning provides a solution for restoring these low-SNR images. However, these deep learning methods require large, representative datasets for training, testing, and benchmarking, as well as substantial GPU memory, particularly for denoising large images. ResultsWe present a new fluorescence microscopy dataset designed to expand the range of imaging conditions and specimens currently available for evaluating denoising methods. The dataset contains 324 paired high/low-SNR images ranging from four to 282 megapixels across 12 sub-datasets that vary in specimen, objective used, staining type, excitation wavelength, and exposure time. The dataset also includes spinning disk confocal microscopy examples and extreme-noise cases. We evaluated three state-of-the-art deep learning denoising models on the dataset: a supervised transformer-based model, a supervised CNN model, and an unsupervised single image model. We also developed an image stitching method that enables large images to be processed in smaller crops and reconstructed. ConclusionsOur dataset provides a diverse benchmark for evaluating deep learning denoising methods, and our stitching method provides a solution to GPU memory constraints encountered when processing large images. Among the evaluated deep learning models, the supervised transformer-based model had the highest denoising performance but required the longest training time.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Biomedical Optics Express
84 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
23.3%
2
Bioinformatics
1061 papers in training set
Top 3%
8.5%
3
Journal of Microscopy
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.6%
4
Biological Imaging
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.0%
5
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 21%
5.0%
6
Journal of Biophotonics
16 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.5%
50% of probability mass above
7
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 33%
4.5%
8
BMC Bioinformatics
383 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.8%
9
Journal of Biomedical Optics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.7%
10
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
216 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.4%
11
BMC Methods
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.0%
12
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 14%
2.0%
13
Optics Letters
13 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.4%
14
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.4%
15
Physics in Medicine & Biology
17 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.3%
16
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 58%
1.0%
17
Bioengineering
24 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.0%
18
BMC Biology
248 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
19
Optics Express
23 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
20
GigaScience
172 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
21
Frontiers in Bioinformatics
45 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
22
Applied Sciences
24 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.8%
23
Biology Open
130 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
24
Nature Methods
336 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
25
Wellcome Open Research
57 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
26
Journal of Cell Biology
333 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%
27
Journal of Structural Biology
58 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
28
Journal of Neuroscience Methods
106 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
29
Communications Biology
886 papers in training set
Top 31%
0.5%
30
Plant Methods
39 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.5%