Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Path-RAG: Knowledge-Guided Key Region Retrieval for Open-ended Pathology Visual Question Answering

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Path-RAG claims that routing a pathology image through nuclei-density-based patch selection—using the HistoCartography toolkit—before asking a vision-language model to answer, then fusing the patch-level answers with GPT-4, raises…

desk verdict The controlled patch-selection effect is real but small; the headline 38-to-47 gain mostly reflects adding GPT-4 and longer outputs, not domain-guided retrieval. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17073 v1 pith:4MM2Y5BX submitted 2024-11-26 cs.CV cs.AI

Awais Naeem , Tianhao Li , Huang-Ru Liao , Jiawei Xu , Aby M. Mathew , Zehao Zhu , Zhen Tan , Ajay Kumar Jaiswal
show 4 more authors
Raffi A. Salibian Ziniu Hu Tianlong Chen Ying Ding
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords PathologyvisualquestionansweringRetrieval-augmentedgenerationHistoCartographyNuclei-graphpatchselectionH&EimagesOpen-endedVQAMultimodallargelanguagemodelARCH-Opendataset
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that open-ended pathology visual question answering can be substantially improved without extra model training, by first retrieving the most diagnostically informative image regions and then reasoning over their textual descriptions. Its Path-RAG pipeline uses HistoCartography to recognize H&E-stained pathology images, detect nuclei, build a graph of nearby nuclei, split the image into nine overlapping patches, and rank the patches by nuclei count. The top patches are captioned by a biomedical vision-language model, and the captions plus the whole-image answer are merged by a text-only reasoning model into the final answer. On the PathVQA open-ended test set this raises recall from 38.1% with the base model to 47.4%, and on H&E-stained images from 36.4% to 64.1%; similar gains appear on the new ARCH-Open long-form benchmark. The paper's point is that cheap, off-the-shelf domain knowledge—where the nuclei are—can outperform expensive fine-tuning for this task.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is nuclei-density-guided patch selection built on the HistoCartography toolkit. HistoCartography normalizes stain, detects nuclei, extracts ResNet34 features per nucleus, and builds a k-nearest-neighbor graph (5 neighbors, 50-pixel threshold); Path-RAG then tiles the image into nine 20%-overlapping patches and keeps the top patches by nuclei count. This converts an unconstrained whole-image question into focused sub-questions about cell-dense regions, whose textual answers are fused by GPT-4. Ablations identify this selection step as the source of the gain: without patches recall is 38.1%, with three random patches 46.2%, and with three HistoCartography patches 47.4%.

What would settle it

Re-run the PathVQA-Open and ARCH-Open evaluations using a length-controlled metric that keeps recall's word-overlap spirit but penalizes verbosity, for example token-level F1, ROUGE with a brevity penalty, or answer-relevant keyword coverage normalized by generated-answer length; if Path-RAG's margin over LLaVA-Med shrinks to near zero under that metric, the central claim that domain guidance improves open-ended pathology VQA would be seriously weakened. A human reader study of answer correctness would settle the question definitively.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that domain guidance—selecting patches by nuclei density rather than randomly or not at all—is what drives the improvement in open-ended pathology VQA. Ablations show HistoCartography-selected patches beat random patches (47.4% vs 46.2% overall recall, with bootstrapped differences of +3.07 points and confidence interval [1.13, 5.04]) and no patches (38.1%), and the benefit appears both with and without the final GPT-4 reasoning step, and even when the vision-language model has not been fine-tuned on PathVQA. The authors further claim state-of-the-art recall of 47.4% on the PathVQA open set and consistent gains of 32.5% (ARCH-Open PubMed) and 30.6% (ARCH-Open Books) on H&E-stained images. They also release the ARCH-Open dataset of longer-form question-answer pairs for evaluation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that recall—the fraction of ground-truth answer words appearing in the generated answer—is a fair metric for comparing methods whose outputs have very different lengths, since Path-RAG's final answers are GPT-4-generated multi-perspective paragraphs while the LLaVA-Med baseline outputs a short phrase, so longer output can inflate recall without improving true question-answering quality.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, any pathology VQA pipeline can be improved by routing images through nuclei-based patch selection before captioning, with no additional model training.
  • The 27.7-point gain on H&E images implies that cell-dense regions carry most of the answer signal for open-ended pathology questions, and question-agnostic patch selection may be a sufficient proxy for relevant regions on standard benchmarks.
  • The positive results without fine-tuning and without GPT-4 indicate domain-guided retrieval is the active ingredient, not the particular reasoning model.
  • More patches improve recall (64.1% to 66.9% on H&E with six patches), suggesting the method benefits from broader coverage of nucleus-rich tissue.
  • ARCH-Open provides a longer-answer benchmark for open-ended pathology VQA, where the method claims 32.5% and 30.6% recall gains over the base model on PubMed and Books H&E subsets.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: a length-controlled evaluation, such as token-level F1 or answer-keyword coverage normalized by generated-answer length, is the natural next test, because Path-RAG's GPT-4 outputs are multi-sentence paragraphs while the baseline outputs a short phrase, so part of the recall gain may reflect verbosity rather than content.
  • Editorial inference: patch scoring by nuclei count ignores the question text, so conditioning patch selection on the question, for example on nuclei type or tissue context, is a testable extension that could raise gains further.
  • Editorial inference: ARCH-Open is generated by GPT-4 from image captions rather than from images themselves, so some QA pairs may be answerable from caption text; human-pathologist quality checks will determine how much of the reported gain transfers to real clinical questions.
  • Editorial inference: replacing the text-only final reasoner with a vision-language model that can re-inspect the chosen patches might preserve fine-grained visual evidence that textual captions drop; comparing the two is a direct follow-up.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Path-RAG, a pipeline for open-ended pathology visual question answering (PathVQA-Open) that uses HistoCartography to detect nuclei and construct a cell graph, selects the three image patches with the highest nuclei density, obtains answers or descriptions for the whole image and each patch from LLaVA-Med, and finally feeds these textual inputs to GPT-4 for a single reasoning step. The authors claim that this domain-guided retrieval improves fine-tuned LLaVA-Med recall from 38.1% to 47.4% on PathVQA-Open, with a 27.7-point gain on H&E-stained images, and larger gains on a new ARCH-Open dataset of longer-form question-answer pairs synthesized with GPT-4. Ablations compare HistoCartography-selected patches with random patches and vary the number of patches.

Significance. If the headline claims were fully supported, Path-RAG would be a useful low-cost way to inject histopathology domain knowledge into a VQA pipeline, and ARCH-Open could become a benchmark for longer-form pathology VQA. The paper has several genuine strengths: the code and datasets are released; the controlled comparison in Table 3 between HistoCartography-selected and random patches includes bootstrap confidence intervals; and the method is clearly described and easy to reproduce. The cleanest experiment, Table 3, does provide evidence for a real but modest benefit of domain-guided patch selection on H&E images. However, the central quantitative claims in the abstract and contributions overstate this benefit because they compare pipelines that differ in two ways at once (patch selection and the presence of a long-form GPT-4 reasoning stage), and the recall metric used throughout is length-sensitive. The ARCH-Open benchmark is also not yet human-validated and may inherit text-derived facts from the captions used to generate it. These issues are fixable within the manuscript's scope, but they require reframing the claims and adding supporting analyses.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract, §4.1, Table 1] The headline claim that domain guidance 'significantly boost[s] the accuracy of LLaVA-Med from 38% to 47%' conflates two interventions. The 38.1% row is fine-tuned LLaVA-Med alone, while the 47.4% row is Path-RAG (answer), which adds both HistoCartography-selected patches and a GPT-4 stage that is prompted to generate a 'comprehensive answer that integrates multiple perspectives' (Appendix A). Table 3 isolates the patch-selection effect by holding the GPT-4 stage fixed: HistoCartography patches outperform random patches by only 1.2 points overall (47.4 vs. 46.2) and 3.7 points on H&E images (64.1 vs. 60.4). The abstract and contribution bullets should be rewritten to attribute the gain accordingly and to report the controlled patch-selection advantage rather than the end-to-end difference.
  2. [§4.1, Appendix A] Recall, defined as the fraction of ground-truth answer words appearing in the generated answer, is not a length-neutral measure of VQA quality. The LLaVA-Med baseline returns short open-ended answers, while Path-RAG's final answer is produced by GPT-4 with a prompt that explicitly asks for a 'comprehensive answer' and 'balanced conclusion.' Longer outputs mechanically inflate recall, so the 27.7-point H&E gain in Table 1 and the 30+ point gains in Table 2 are not attributable to better image understanding. The authors should report precision, F1, or a length-controlled recall (e.g., truncating outputs to the first N tokens), or at least add a baseline that passes LLaVA-Med's short answer through GPT-4 under a length-matched prompt.
  3. [§3.2, Appendix C] The ARCH-Open dataset is generated by GPT-4 from image captions alone, without access to the images. The prompt in Appendix C instructs GPT-4 to avoid text-specific facts, but the provided example responses contain exactly such facts: 'leiomyosarcoma,' 'eosinophilic spindle cells,' and 'paranuclear vacuolisation' are terms that would not be visually identifiable without the caption. The paper also states that human-pathologist quality checks are 'part of our ongoing efforts,' so the benchmark has no demonstrated validity. Consequently, the ARCH-Open results in Table 2 should be treated as preliminary, and the paper should either include human validation statistics or explicitly de-emphasize these results and label the dataset as an unvalidated synthetic benchmark.
  4. [§4.1–§4.4] The main comparisons in Tables 1, 2, and 4 report point estimates only, with no error bars or significance tests. Only Table 3 provides bootstrap confidence intervals. Since LLaVA-Med and GPT-4 outputs are stochastic at nonzero temperature and since some reported differences are small (e.g., 1.2 points in Table 3), the claims of 'significant improvement' in the abstract are not statistically supported for the datasets that drive those claims. The authors should report confidence intervals or repeated-run variability for the headline PathVQA-Open and ARCH-Open results.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2.1] The threshold of five nuclei for classifying an image as H&E-stained pathology appears to be chosen without sensitivity analysis; a short experiment or a sentence justifying it would strengthen the method description.
  2. [§4.4, Table 4] Table 4 shows that six patches outperform three patches in both settings, yet the paper's headline results use three patches; the authors should explain why three was chosen and whether the choice was made on a validation set rather than the test set.
  3. [§4.1, Table 1] The comparison with 'prior state-of-the-art supervised methods' includes only Quilt-LLaVA and LLaVA-Med; a broader comparison with other open-ended PathVQA methods, including those cited in the PathVQA paper, would make the SoTA claim more convincing.
  4. [Figures 2–6] The word-count histograms lack axis labels and numeric tick values in the compiled version; adding clear labels and grid lines would make the distributions easier to read.
  5. [Conclusion] The sentence 'GPT4-V OpenAI and et al. (2024)' is grammatically broken and the citation is malformed; the arXiv reference to the GPT-4 technical report is duplicated in the reference list.
  6. [Throughout] There are minor spelling and capitalization inconsistencies, such as 'LlaVa-Med' versus 'LLaVA-Med' and 'the image to be diagnosed' in §1; a copyedit pass would improve presentation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No derivation-level circularity: external benchmark, controlled ablations, and no input-to-output reduction; the recall-length and ARCH-Open validity issues are evaluation concerns, not circularity.

full rationale

Path-RAG is evaluated on PathVQA, an external benchmark, and its retrieval component (HistoCartography) and base VLM (LLaVA-Med) are independent third-party systems. No parameter is fitted to the test answers, and no equation defines the claimed result in terms of its own inputs. Table 3 is a controlled comparison that fixes the GPT-4 reasoning stage and contrasts no patches, random patches, and HistoCartography patches; this is the experiment needed to isolate the patch-selection effect, so the central ablation is not circular. The manuscript's own Section 3.2 flags ARCH-Open quality checks as 'part of our ongoing efforts,' and Section 4.1 with Appendix A show that the recall metric and the 'comprehensive answer' prompt can reward longer outputs; these are evaluation-validity and attribution concerns, such as the 38-to-47 headline bundling patch augmentation and GPT-4 with domain guidance, rather than derivation-level circularity. There is no load-bearing self-citation: HistoCartography, LLaVA-Med, and GPT-4 are all external citations with no author overlap. Under the hard rule that circularity requires a quoted reduction of the claimed result to its inputs, no such reduction is present in this paper.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no new mathematical or physical entities. It relies on existing tools (HistoCartography, LLaVA-Med, GPT-4) and makes several domain assumptions about nuclei density as a relevance signal and about the validity of the recall metric.

free parameters (4)
  • Nuclei count threshold for H&E classification = 5
    Hand-chosen threshold in Section 2.1 to decide whether an image is a pathology image; no sensitivity analysis provided.
  • Number of selected patches = 3
    Main experiments use 3 patches; Section 4.4 shows 6 patches give higher recall, suggesting 3 was chosen after observing results.
  • Patch grid overlap = 20%
    Custom overlap for the 9-patch decomposition (Section 2.2); no ablation.
  • Graph construction parameters = 5 nearest neighbors, 50-pixel max distance
    These are HistoCartography defaults used as configured; they affect which patches are ranked.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption HistoCartography's nuclei detector reliably identifies nuclei in H&E-stained pathology images
    Used in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 to classify images and rank patches; if nuclei detection fails, patch selection is meaningless.
  • domain assumption Nuclei-dense patches are the diagnostically relevant regions for the questions asked
    The whole method ranks patches by nuclei count (Section 2.2); questions about other aspects (color, texture) may not align with nuclei density.
  • domain assumption LLaVA-Med's generated answers and descriptions are accurate enough to support GPT-4 reasoning
    The pipeline in Section 2.3 passes LLaVA-Med outputs to GPT-4; errors propagate.
  • domain assumption Recall (word overlap) is an appropriate evaluation metric for open-ended VQA
    Used in Section 4; the metric rewards long outputs and does not penalize hallucinations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Path-RAG: Knowledge-Guided Key Region Retrieval for Open-ended Pathology Visual Question Answering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4MM2Y5BX

@misc{pith2026241117073,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Path-RAG: Knowledge-Guided Key Region Retrieval for Open-ended Pathology Visual Question Answering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4MM2Y5BX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17073}
}
read the original abstract

Accurate diagnosis and prognosis assisted by pathology images are essential for cancer treatment selection and planning. Despite the recent trend of adopting deep-learning approaches for analyzing complex pathology images, they fall short as they often overlook the domain-expert understanding of tissue structure and cell composition. In this work, we focus on a challenging Open-ended Pathology VQA (PathVQA-Open) task and propose a novel framework named Path-RAG, which leverages HistoCartography to retrieve relevant domain knowledge from pathology images and significantly improves performance on PathVQA-Open. Admitting the complexity of pathology image analysis, Path-RAG adopts a human-centered AI approach by retrieving domain knowledge using HistoCartography to select the relevant patches from pathology images. Our experiments suggest that domain guidance can significantly boost the accuracy of LLaVA-Med from 38% to 47%, with a notable gain of 28% for H&E-stained pathology images in the PathVQA-Open dataset. For longer-form question and answer pairs, our model consistently achieves significant improvements of 32.5% in ARCH-Open PubMed and 30.6% in ARCH-Open Books on H\&E images. Our code and dataset is available here (https://github.com/embedded-robotics/path-rag).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17073 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The overview of our Path-RAG framework. unlike PathVQA where majority of the open-ended answers contain just 2-3 words. Our primary contri￾butions can be summarized as: • Significant Performance Improvement with up to 28% increase in the recall. Path-RAG is a human-centered AI approach by retrieving domain knowledge using His￾toCartography to select the most relevant patches for a given pathology image, which can si… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Word Count distribution of open-ended an￾swers in PathVQA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Word Count distribution in ARCH-Open Questions - PubMed 3. Experimental Setup 3.1. PathVQA Dataset. PathVQA He et al. (2020) contains 32,799 question￾answer pairs and 4,998 images from pathology text￾books. Each question has been manually checked to ensure correctness. For each image, several questions may be asked regarding multiple aspects such as lo￾cation, shape, color, appearance, etc. All of the ques￾tions can… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Word Count distribution in ARCH-Open Answers - PubMed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Word Count distribution in ARCH-Open Questions - Books mains low. We use the official training, validation, and test splits in the dataset. Since we do not per￾form fine-tuning in our work, we only evaluate open￾ended questions in the test set to establish consis￾tency…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Example overview of Path-RAG with 3 patches. Detailed GPT-4 reasoning to come up with the correct answer (bold) is provided in Appendix A, B. model, generating descriptions enhance the recall by 6.8% compared to generating answers directly. This indicates that, in the …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Adapting to LLMs: How Insiders and Outsiders Reshape Scientific Knowledge Production

    cs.HC 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Researchers outside core AI fields became markedly more application-oriented, transdisciplinary, and socially accountable in their LLM-era papers, while AI insiders mainly responded by diversifying collaborations.

  2. Engineering RAG Systems for Real-World Applications: Design, Development, and Evaluation

    cs.SE 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A field study of five real-world RAG systems evaluated by 100 users, yielding user ratings and twelve engineering lessons.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    A survey on graph-based deep learning for computational histopathology

    David Ahmedt-Aristizabal, Mohammad Ali Armin, Simon Denman, Clinton Fookes, and Lars Petersson. A survey on graph-based deep learning for computational histopathology. Comput. Med. Imaging Graph., 95 0 (102027): 0 102027, January 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Precise identification of cell and tissue features important for histopathologic diagnosis by a whole slide imaging system

    Thomas W Bauer, Cynthia Behling, Dylan V Miller, Bernard S Chang, Elena Viktorova, Robert Magari, Perry E Jensen, Keith A Wharton, Jr, and Jinsong Qiu. Precise identification of cell and tissue features important for histopathologic diagnosis by a whole slide imaging system. J. Pathol. Inform., 11 0 (1): 0 3, February 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    FABnet : feature attention-based network for simultaneous segmentation of microvessels and nerves in routine histology images of oral cancer

    M M Fraz, S A Khurram, S Graham, M Shaban, M Hassan, A Loya, and N M Rajpoot. FABnet : feature attention-based network for simultaneous segmentation of microvessels and nerves in routine histology images of oral cancer. Neural Comput. Appl., 32 0 (14): 0 9915--9928, July 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Multiple instance captioning: Learning representations from histopathology textbooks and articles

    Jevgenij Gamper and Nasir Rajpoot. Multiple instance captioning: Learning representations from histopathology textbooks and articles. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2021

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    PanNuke : An open Pan-Cancer histology dataset for nuclei instance segmentation and classification

    Jevgenij Gamper, Navid Alemi Koohbanani, Ksenija Benet, Ali Khuram, and Nasir Rajpoot. PanNuke : An open Pan-Cancer histology dataset for nuclei instance segmentation and classification. In Digital Pathology, Lecture notes in computer science, pages 11--19. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    MILD-Net : Minimal information loss dilated network for gland instance segmentation in colon histology images

    Simon Graham, Hao Chen, Jevgenij Gamper, Qi Dou, Pheng-Ann Heng, David Snead, Yee Wah Tsang, and Nasir Rajpoot. MILD-Net : Minimal information loss dilated network for gland instance segmentation in colon histology images. Med. Image Anal., 52: 0 199--211, February 2019

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    The cell graphs of cancer

    Cigdem Gunduz, B \"u lent Yener, and S Humayun Gultekin. The cell graphs of cancer. Bioinformatics, 20 Suppl 1 0 (suppl\_1): 0 i145--51, August 2004

    work page 2004

  8. [8]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 770--778, 2016

    2016

Show all 25 references
  1. [9]

    Pathvqa: 30000+ questions for medical visual question answering

    Xuehai He, Yichen Zhang, Luntian Mou, Eric Xing, and Pengtao Xie. Pathvqa: 30000+ questions for medical visual question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.10286, 2020

    2003 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Histocartography: A toolkit for graph analytics in digital pathology

    Guillaume Jaume, Pushpak Pati, Valentin Anklin, Antonio Foncubierta, and Maria Gabrani. Histocartography: A toolkit for graph analytics in digital pathology. In Manfredo Atzori, Nikolay Burlutskiy, Francesco Ciompi, Zhang Li, Fayyaz Minhas, Henning Müller, Tingying Peng, Nasir...

    2021

  3. [11]

    Cellular community detection for tissue phenotyping in colorectal cancer histology images

    Sajid Javed, Arif Mahmood, Muhammad Moazam Fraz, Navid Alemi Koohbanani, Ksenija Benes, Yee-Wah Tsang, Katherine Hewitt, David Epstein, David Snead, and Nasir Rajpoot. Cellular community detection for tissue phenotyping in colorectal cancer histology images. Med. Image Anal., ...

    2020

  4. [12]

    Multi-class texture analysis in colorectal cancer histology

    Jakob Nikolas Kather, Cleo-Aron Weis, Francesco Bianconi, Susanne M Melchers, Lothar R Schad, Timo Gaiser, Alexander Marx, and Frank Gerrit Z \"o llner. Multi-class texture analysis in colorectal cancer histology. Sci. Rep., 6 0 (1), September 2016

    2016

  5. [13]

    Llava-med: Training a large language-and-vision assistant for biomedicine in one day

    Chunyuan Li, Cliff Wong, Sheng Zhang, Naoto Usuyama, Haotian Liu, Jianwei Yang, Tristan Naumann, Hoifung Poon, and Jianfeng Gao. Llava-med: Training a large language-and-vision assistant for biomedicine in one day. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Comprehensive computational pathological image analysis predicts lung cancer prognosis

    Xin Luo, Xiao Zang, Lin Yang, Junzhou Huang, Faming Liang, Jaime Rodriguez-Canales, Ignacio I Wistuba, Adi Gazdar, Yang Xie, and Guanghua Xiao. Comprehensive computational pathological image analysis predicts lung cancer prognosis. J. Thorac. Oncol., 12 0 (3): 0 501--509, March 2017

    2017

  7. [15]

    Gpt-4 technical report, 2024

    OpenAI. Gpt-4 technical report, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Gpt-4 technical report, 2024

    OpenAI and Josh Achiam et al. Gpt-4 technical report, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.08774

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Quilt-llava: Visual instruction tuning by extracting localized narratives from open-source histopathology videos

    Mehmet Saygin Seyfioglu, Wisdom O Ikezogwo, Fatemeh Ghezloo, Ranjay Krishna, and Linda Shapiro. Quilt-llava: Visual instruction tuning by extracting localized narratives from open-source histopathology videos. arXiv e-prints, pages arXiv--2312, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Context-aware convolutional neural network for grading of colorectal cancer histology images

    Muhammad Shaban, Ruqayya Awan, Muhammad Moazam Fraz, Ayesha Azam, Yee-Wah Tsang, David Snead, and Nasir M Rajpoot. Context-aware convolutional neural network for grading of colorectal cancer histology images. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging, 39 0 (7): 0 2395--2405, July 2020

    2020

  11. [19]

    Aligning large multimodal models with factually augmented rlhf, 2023

    Zhiqing Sun, Sheng Shen, Shengcao Cao, Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Yikang Shen, Chuang Gan, Liang-Yan Gui, Yu-Xiong Wang, Yiming Yang, Kurt Keutzer, and Trevor Darrell. Aligning large multimodal models with factually augmented rlhf, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.14525

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Deep graph library: A graph-centric, highly-performant package for graph neural networks

    Minjie Wang, Da Zheng, Zihao Ye, Quan Gan, Mufei Li, Xiang Song, Jinjing Zhou, Chao Ma, Lingfan Yu, Yu Gai, Tianjun Xiao, Tong He, George Karypis, Jinyang Li, and Zheng Zhang. Deep graph library: A graph-centric, highly-performant package for graph neural networks. arXiv prepr...

    1909 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Qwen2-vl: Enhancing vision-language model's perception of the world at any resolution, 2024

    Peng Wang, Shuai Bai, Sinan Tan, Shijie Wang, Zhihao Fan, Jinze Bai, Keqin Chen, Xuejing Liu, Jialin Wang, Wenbin Ge, Yang Fan, Kai Dang, Mengfei Du, Xuancheng Ren, Rui Men, Dayiheng Liu, Chang Zhou, Jingren Zhou, and Junyang Lin. Qwen2-vl: Enhancing vision-language model's pe...

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Artificial intelligence in lung cancer pathology image analysis

    Shidan Wang, Donghan M Yang, Ruichen Rong, Xiaowei Zhan, Junya Fujimoto, Hongyu Liu, John Minna, Ignacio Ivan Wistuba, Yang Xie, and Guanghua Xiao. Artificial intelligence in lung cancer pathology image analysis. Cancers (Basel), 11 0 (11): 0 1673, October 2019 b

    2019

  15. [23]

    Medtrinity-25m: A large-scale multimodal dataset with multigranular annotations for medicine, 2024

    Yunfei Xie, Ce Zhou, Lang Gao, Juncheng Wu, Xianhang Li, Hong-Yu Zhou, Sheng Liu, Lei Xing, James Zou, Cihang Xie, and Yuyin Zhou. Medtrinity-25m: A large-scale multimodal dataset with multigranular annotations for medicine, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.02900

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eid howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url volume year label INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION in...

  17. [25]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.