REVIEW 6 cited by
Current Pathology Foundation Models are unrobust to Medical Center Differences
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Current Pathology Foundation Models are unrobust to Medical Center Differences
read the original abstract
Pathology Foundation Models (FMs) hold great promise for healthcare. Before they can be used in clinical practice, it is essential to ensure they are robust to variations between medical centers. We measure whether pathology FMs focus on biological features like tissue and cancer type, or on the well known confounding medical center signatures introduced by staining procedure and other differences. We introduce the Robustness Index. This novel robustness metric reflects to what degree biological features dominate confounding features. Ten current publicly available pathology FMs are evaluated. We find that all current pathology foundation models evaluated represent the medical center to a strong degree. Significant differences in the robustness index are observed. Only one model so far has a robustness index greater than one, meaning biological features dominate confounding features, but only slightly. A quantitative approach to measure the influence of medical center differences on FM-based prediction performance is described. We analyze the impact of unrobustness on classification performance of downstream models, and find that cancer-type classification errors are not random, but specifically attributable to same-center confounders: images of other classes from the same medical center. We visualize FM embedding spaces, and find these are more strongly organized by medical centers than by biological factors. As a consequence, the medical center of origin is predicted more accurately than the tissue source and cancer type. The robustness index introduced here is provided with the aim of advancing progress towards clinical adoption of robust and reliable pathology FMs.
Forward citations
Cited by 6 Pith papers
-
The Good, the Bad, and the Brittle: Benchmarking Robustness and Generalisation of Histopathology Foundation Models
Mid-sized pathology foundation models match or beat billion-parameter ones on clinically realistic perturbations and distribution-shift tests, so scaling alone has largely saturated for robustness.
-
Semantic-Anchored Evidential Fusion for Domain-Robust Whole-Slide Survival Analysis
SAEFS uses VQA-derived semantic anchors, dual-stream evidence extraction, and Dirichlet-based evidential fusion to achieve 10.2% higher average C-index in zero-shot cross-domain WSI survival analysis.
-
When Are Multimodal Predictions Biologically Supported? A Diagnostic Evaluation Framework
DECAT classifies multimodal representations into four diagnostic scenarios using null-referenced metrics and a rule-based procedure to detect shared biology versus confounders without knowing the confounder identity.
-
Enabling clinical use of foundation models for computational pathology
Novel robustness losses added during downstream training on foundation-model features from pathology slides improve both robustness to technical variation and classification accuracy.
-
Mitigating Batch Effects in Histopathology via Language-Mediated Robust Embedding Generation
GLMP generates robust pathology embeddings by routing histology images through an intermediate textual representation produced by general-purpose MLLMs to mitigate batch effects.
-
Beyond the Failures: Rethinking Foundation Models in Pathology
Foundation models stumble in pathology due to conceptual mismatches with biological tissue, requiring explicitly designed models rather than adaptations of natural-image methods.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.