Cited by 580AI in cancer detectionRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

A pathology foundation model for cancer diagnosis and prognosis prediction

Open access
Wang, Xiyue, Zhao, Junhan, Marostica, Eliana, Yuan, Wei, Jin, Jietian, Zhang, Jiayu, Li, Ruijiang, Tang, Hongping +21 more·2024·Nature

Abstract

Histopathology image evaluation is indispensable for cancer diagnoses and subtype classification. Standard artificial intelligence methods for histopathology image analyses have focused on optimizing specialized models for each diagnostic task1,2. Although such methods have achieved some success, they often have limited generalizability to images generated by different digitization protocols or samples collected from different populations3. Here, to address this challenge, we devised the Clinical Histopathology Imaging Evaluation Foundation (CHIEF) model, a general-purpose weakly supervised machine learning framework to extract pathology imaging features for systematic cancer evaluation. CHIEF leverages two complementary pretraining methods to extract diverse pathology representations: unsupervised pretraining for tile-level feature identification and weakly supervised pretraining for whole-slide pattern recognition. We developed CHIEF using 60,530 whole-slide images spanning 19 anatomical sites. Through pretraining on 44 terabytes of high-resolution pathology imaging datasets, CHIEF extracted microscopic representations useful for cancer cell detection, tumour origin identification, molecular profile characterization and prognostic prediction. We successfully validated CHIEF using 19,491 whole-slide images from 32 independent slide sets collected from 24 hospitals and cohorts internationally. Overall, CHIEF outperformed the state-of-the-art deep learning methods by up to 36.1%, showing its ability to address domain shifts observed in samples from diverse populations and processed by different slide preparation methods. CHIEF provides a generalizable foundation for efficient digital pathology evaluation for patients with cancer. A study describes the development of a generalizable foundation machine learning framework to extract pathology imaging features for cancer diagnosis and prognosis prediction.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41586-024-07894-z

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Current slide foundation models still require end-to-end training or fine-tuning and lack the capability of learning transferable slide representations for challenging clinical scenarios.

    “Even with multimodal techniques such as vision-language pretraining that augment the pretraining dataset with pathology reports, current slide foundation models still require end-to-end training or fine-tuning and lack the capability of learning transferable slide representations for challenging clinical scenarios58,82,83.”

    From A multimodal whole-slide foundation model for pathology (2025) · cites this paper as [83]

    The Introduction says earlier image–text methods focused mainly on individual tiles and had not evaluated whether their features generalized across tasks, cancer types, and data sources. Online Methods reports fine-tuning CHIEF for its prediction tasks. But the Abstract and Discussion report that CHIEF learned generalizable whole-slide features across clinical applications, so the claim that current slide foundation models lack that capability overstates what this paper says. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Slide foundation models are developed with orders of magnitude fewer samples and limited optimization of SSL recipes compared to patch foundation models, leading to slide representations with restricted generalization capability.

    “Second, whereas current patch foundation models are trained with millions of histology image patches, slide foundation models are developed with orders of magnitude fewer samples and limited optimization of SSL recipes, leading to slide representations with restricted generalization capability58,62,82,83.”

    From A multimodal whole-slide foundation model for pathology (2025) · cites this paper as [83]

    The Introduction reports CHIEF pretraining on 15 million image tiles and 60,530 whole-slide images, supporting the difference in sample counts. The paper does not say slide models received limited SSL-recipe optimization; its Abstract and Discussion instead describe CHIEF's slide representations as generalizable across independent datasets. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • AI agents continuously evolve through iterative learning from new datasets, enabling them to adapt to emerging medical knowledge and evolving clinical standards.

    “Moreover, AI agents continuously evolve through iterative learning from new datasets, enabling them to adapt to emerging medical knowledge and evolving clinical standards.73,74”

    From A foundational architecture for AI agents in healthcare (2025) · cites this paper as [74]

    The Online Methods sections on CHIEF pretraining and fine-tuning describe training on multiple datasets and adapting the pretrained model to specific pathology tasks (page not specified). They do not describe AI agents continuously learning from newly arriving datasets or adapting to emerging medical knowledge and changing clinical standards. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • AI-driven medical imaging analysis significantly improves the accuracy and efficiency of diagnostic processes.

    “AI-driven medical imaging analysis has emerged as a pivotal tool in modern healthcare, significantly improving the accuracy and efficiency of diagnostic processes.66,74,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83”

    From A foundational architecture for AI agents in healthcare (2025) · cites this paper as [74]

    The Results section (‘CHIEF augmented cancer cell detection’; page unavailable) reports significantly better cancer-detection performance than comparator AI methods, supporting improved accuracy for this pathology-imaging task. The Introduction describes efficient whole-slide image feature aggregation, but the paper does not establish that AI imaging improves the efficiency of clinical diagnostic processes. Its findings also concern cancer histopathology rather than medical imaging generally. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • CHIEF considered tissue origin as a label by applying a weakly supervised method during pretraining.

    “CHIEF considered the tissue origin as a label by applying a weakly supervised method during pretraining [196].”

    From Challenges in AI-driven Biomedical Multimodal Data Fusion and Analysis (2025) · cites this paper as [196]

    The Online Methods (CHIEF Model Architecture; page unavailable) describe weakly supervised pretraining and say anatomical-site information was added as text to enhance supervision. The site was supplied in a text prompt, however, rather than described as a tissue-origin label for the weakly supervised task. The Online Methods (Evaluation; page unavailable) describe a separate fine-tuning step for tumor-origin prediction. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [34]Ilse M, Tomczak J & Welling M Attention-based deep multiple instance learning. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 2127– 2136 (PMLR, 2018).
  2. [57]Loshchilov I & Hutter F SGDR: Stochastic gradient descent with warm restarts. In International Conference on Learning Representations (2016).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wang, X., Zhao, J., Marostica, E., Yuan, W., Jin, J., Zhang, J., Li, R., Tang, H., Wang, K., Li, Y., Wang, F., Peng, Y., Zhu, J., Zhang, J., Jackson, C. R., Zhang, J., Dillon, D., Lin, N. U., Sholl, L., Denize, T., Meredith, D., Ligon, K. L., Signoretti, S., Ogino, S., Golden, J. A., Nasrallah, M. P., Han, X., Yang, S., & Yu, K.-H.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Sichuan University (CN)
  • Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center (CN)
  • Tencent (China) (CN)
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
  • Shenzhen Maternity and Child Healthcare Hospital (CN)
  • Chongqing University (CN)
  • Qingdao University (CN)
  • First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University (CN)
  • Sun Yat-sen University (CN)
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Broad Institute (US)
  • Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
Corresponding author
  • Yang, Sen
  • Yu, Kun-Hsing
Venue
Nature
Published
2024-09-04
Volume
634
Issue
8035
Pages
970-978
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
OpenAlex
W4402220065
Cited by
580
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 304 · 2025: 259 · 2024: 17
FWCI
85.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • ScholarSphere (Penn State Libraries) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Defense
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital
  • Nvidia
  • Seoul National University
  • Seoul National University Hospital
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL174679)
  • National Cancer Institute (P50CA165962)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R35GM142879)
  • DOD Peer Reviewed Cancer Research Program
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
histopathology, whole slide images, foundation models, cancer diagnosis, outcome prediction, unsupervised pre-training, domain shift, digital pathology, cancer cell detection, cancer subtyping
MeSH terms
Supervised Machine Learning, Deep Learning, Female, Histocytochemistry, Humans, Male, Neoplasms, Pathology, Clinical, Pattern Recognition, Automated, Prognosis, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Datasets as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review