Medical Image Analysis · 2025

Speckle2Self: Self-Supervised Ultrasound Speckle Reduction Without Clean Data

aComputer Aided Medical Procedures (CAMP), Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany bMunich Center for Machine Learning (MCML), Munich, Germany *Corresponding Author
Despeckling results and average homogeneity values on in vivo carotid dataset.
Despeckling results and average SSIM values on Synthetic dataset.

Swipe the figures sideways to see every method.

Abstract

Image denoising is a fundamental task in computer vision, particularly in medical ultrasound (US) imaging, where speckle noise significantly degrades image quality. Although recent advancements in deep neural networks have led to substantial improvements in denoising for natural images, these methods cannot be directly applied to US speckle noise, as it is not purely random. Instead, US speckle arises from complex wave interference within the body microstructure, making it tissue-dependent. This dependency means that obtaining two independent noisy observations of the same scene, as required by pioneering Noise2Noise, is not feasible. Additionally, blind-spot networks also cannot handle US speckle noise due to its high spatial dependency. To address this challenge, we introduce Speckle2Self, a novel self-supervised algorithm for speckle reduction using only single noisy observations. The key insight is that applying a multi-scale perturbation (MSP) operation introduces tissue-dependent variations in the speckle pattern across different scales, while preserving the shared anatomical structure. This enables effective speckle suppression by modeling the clean image as a low-rank signal and isolating the sparse noise component. To demonstrate its effectiveness, Speckle2Self is comprehensively compared with conventional filter-based denoising algorithms and SOTA learning-based methods, using both realistic simulated US images and human carotid US images. Additionally, data from multiple US machines are employed to evaluate model generalization and adaptability to images from unseen domains.

Framework

Overview of the proposed despeckling framework. (a) Overall training process. (b) Inference using the trained despeckling model. The network generates despeckled images directly from original US images.

Compare Methods

Drag the slider to compare the results of different despeckling methods side by side. Use the frame slider to select different B-mode slices.

vs
0

If the views become unsynchronized after switching methods, please switch to another frame to refresh.

Quantitative Results

Quantitative comparison of different methods for US speckle reduction in terms of PSNR, SSIM, Homogeneity (Hom), and LPIPS. The best-performing method for each metric, trained without clean images, is highlighted in bold. The supervised method results are marked in a gray shade. Note that for clinical carotid images, the Noise2Noise and supervised Noise2True methods are not applicable.

Method S-I Data S-II Data S-III Data Carotid Time
PSNR ↑︎ SSIM ↑︎ Hom ↑︎ LPIPS ↓︎ PSNR ↑︎ SSIM ↑︎ Hom ↑︎ LPIPS ↓︎ PSNR ↑︎ SSIM ↑︎ Hom ↑︎ LPIPS ↓︎ Hom ↑︎
Non-learning based
SRAD 19.40 0.734 0.763 0.411 19.57 0.735 0.768 0.419 20.81 0.880 0.874 0.246 0.705 6 s
NLM 19.40 0.736 0.714 0.417 19.52 0.738 0.740 0.428 20.94 0.881 0.839 0.310 0.691 80 ms
BM3D 19.26 0.684 0.691 0.397 19.34 0.679 0.694 0.407 21.01 0.875 0.844 0.245 0.656 3 s
OBNLM 18.84 0.703 0.577 0.470 18.88 0.702 0.621 0.484 21.49 0.885 0.774 0.299 0.460 12 s
Supervised (Noisy-Clean Pairs)
Noise2True 23.33 0.936 0.910 0.059 23.25 0.937 0.923 0.049 27.66 0.973 0.941 0.062 × 6 ms
Self-supervised (Noisy-Noisy Pairs)
N2N 18.05 0.705 0.683 0.369 17.74 0.691 0.689 0.410 21.99 0.895 0.820 0.240 × 6 ms
Self-supervised (Single Noisy Images)
DIP(*) 18.87 0.543 0.515 0.484 18.93 0.523 0.531 0.501 20.98 0.831 0.747 0.323 0.436 ×
N2V 17.62 0.311 0.312 0.561 17.55 0.314 0.339 0.551 19.87 0.613 0.573 0.388 0.215 6 ms
N2S(*) 17.32 0.303 0.308 0.549 17.64 0.310 0.339 0.545 19.69 0.587 0.576 0.399 0.227 ×
N2S 18.14 0.346 0.316 0.543 17.64 0.344 0.330 0.547 20.41 0.657 0.573 0.399 0.184 6 ms
Neighbor2Neighbor 17.63 0.319 0.310 0.556 17.79 0.321 0.339 0.549 20.19 0.637 0.574 0.384 0.213 6 ms
ZS-N2N(*) 17.58 0.315 0.312 0.557 17.71 0.318 0.340 0.550 20.04 0.625 0.576 0.384 0.214 ×
Speckle2Self (our) 18.59 0.771 0.803 0.231 18.94 0.777 0.792 0.233 22.90 0.922 0.876 0.173 0.725 7 ms
S-I / S-II / S-III
Simulated datasets with paired clean and speckled images. S-I includes heavy artifacts beyond speckle; S-II and S-III have fewer artifacts, with S-II sharing similar shapes with S-I and S-III featuring different shapes.
Carotid
In vivo carotid images acquired with a Clarius L7 scanner, without clean targets; evaluated with the no-reference GLCM homogeneity (Hom).
(*)
The method needs to be retrained in zero-shot self-supervised mode for each image.
×
Not applicable.

Swipe the table sideways to see every column. View the original table image.

BibTeX

@article{li2025speckle2self,
  title={Speckle2Self: Self-supervised ultrasound speckle reduction without clean data},
  author={Li, Xuesong and Navab, Nassir and Jiang, Zhongliang},
  journal={Medical Image Analysis},
  pages={103755},
  year={2025},
  publisher={Elsevier}
}