Cited by 968Multimodal Machine Learning ApplicationsAI in cancer detectionArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 88 of the 88 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A visual-language foundation model for computational pathology

Open access

Abstract

The accelerated adoption of digital pathology and advances in deep learning have enabled the development of robust models for various pathology tasks across a diverse array of diseases and patient cohorts. However, model training is often difficult due to label scarcity in the medical domain, and a model’s usage is limited by the specific task and disease for which it is trained. Additionally, most models in histopathology leverage only image data, a stark contrast to how humans teach each other and reason about histopathologic entities. We introduce CONtrastive learning from Captions for Histopathology (CONCH), a visual-language foundation model developed using diverse sources of histopathology images, biomedical text and, notably, over 1.17 million image–caption pairs through task-agnostic pretraining. Evaluated on a suite of 14 diverse benchmarks, CONCH can be transferred to a wide range of downstream tasks involving histopathology images and/or text, achieving state-of-the-art performance on histology image classification, segmentation, captioning, and text-to-image and image-to-text retrieval. CONCH represents a substantial leap over concurrent visual-language pretrained systems for histopathology, with the potential to directly facilitate a wide array of machine learning-based workflows requiring minimal or no further supervised fine-tuning. Developed using diverse sources of histopathology images, biomedical text and over 1.17 million image–caption pairs, evaluated on a suite of 14 diverse benchmarks, a visual-language foundation model achieves state-of-the-art performance on a wide array of clinically relevant pathology tasks.

Overview

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/s41591-024-02856-4

Cites

88 of 88 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. Li, J., Li, D., Xiong, C. & Hoi, S. BLIP: bootstrapping language–image pre-training for unified vision-language understanding and generation. In International Conference on Machine Learning (eds Chaudhur, K. et al.) 12888–12900 (PMLR, 2022).
  2. Maleki, D. & Tizhoosh, H. R. LILE: look in-depth before looking elsewhere—a dual attention network using transformers for cross-modal information retrieval in histopathology archives. In International Conference on Medical Imaging with Deep Learning (eds Konukoglu, E. et al.) 879–894 (PMLR, 2022).
  3. Zhang, Y., Jiang, H., Miura, Y., Manning, C. D. & Langlotz, C. P. Contrastive learning of medical visual representations from paired images and text. In Machine Learning for Healthcare Conference (eds Lipton, Z. et al.) 2–25 (PMLR, 2022).
  4. Tsuneki, M. & Kanavati, F. Inference of captions from histopathological patches. In International Conference on Medical Imaging with Deep Learning (eds Konukoglu, E. et al.) 1235–1250 (PMLR, 2022).
  5. Zhang, R., Weber, C., Grossman, R. & Khan, A. A. Evaluating and interpreting caption prediction for histopathology images. In Machine Learning for Healthcare Conference (eds Doshi-Velez, F. et al.) 418–435 (PMLR, 2020).
  6. Ilse, M., Tomczak, J. & Welling, M. Attention-based deep multiple instance learning. In International Conference on Machine Learning (eds Dy, J. & Krause, A.) 2127–2136 (PMLR, 2018).
  7. Perez, E., Kiela, D. & Cho, K. True few-shot learning with language models. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 34, 11054–11070 (2021).
  8. Dosovitskiy, A. et al. An image is worth 16×16 words: transformers for image recognition at scale. In 9th International Conference on Learning Representations https://openreview.net/forum?id=YicbFdNTTy (OpenReview.net, 2021).
  9. Zhou, J. et al. Image BERT pre-training with online tokenizer. In 10th International Conference on Learning Representations https://openreview.net/forum?id=ydopy-e6Dg (OpenReview.net, 2022).
  10. Li, J., Li, D., Savarese, S. & Hoi, S. BLIP-2: bootstrapping language–image pre-training with frozen image encoders and large language models. In Proc. 40th International Conference on Machine Learning (eds Krause, A. et al.) 19730–19742 (PMLR, 2023).
  11. Banerjee, S. & Lavie, A. METEOR: an automatic metric for MT evaluation with improved correlation with human judgments. In Proc. ACL Workshop on Intrinsic and Extrinsic Evaluation Measures for Machine Translation and/or Summarization 65–72 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2005).
  12. Lin, C.-Y. ROUGE: a package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In Text Summarization Branches Out 74–81 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2004).
  13. Lewis, M., Dauphin, Y. & Fan, A. Hierarchical neural story generation. In Proc. 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (eds Gurevych, I. & Miyao, Y.) 889–898 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2018).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 968

Metadata

Authors
Lu, M. Y., Chen, B., Williamson, D. F. K., Chen, R. J., Liang, I., Ding, T., Jaume, G., Odintsov, I., Le, L. P., Gerber, G., Parwani, A. V., Zhang, A., & Mahmood, F.
Affiliations
  • Broad Institute (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Mahmood, Faisal
Venue
Nature Medicine
Published
2024-03
Volume
30
Issue
3
Pages
863-874
ISSN
  • 1078-8956 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-170X
OpenAlex
W4392947532
Cited by
966
References
79
Citations by year
2026: 491 · 2025: 388 · 2024: 87
FWCI
135.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (T32HG002295)
  • National Cancer Institute (T32CA251062)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R35GM149270, R35GM138216)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (P30DK034854)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
histopathology, digital pathology, contrastive learning, image-caption pairs, biomedical text, histology image classification, image captioning, text-to-image retrieval, image-to-text retrieval, transfer learning, limited labeled data
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Humans, Language, Workflow

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