The DOI matches its DataCite record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Current Pathology Foundation Models are unrobust to Medical Center Differences
Open accessAbstract
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.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Patch foundation models and, consequently, slide foundation models are susceptible to encoding nonbiological features such as tissue processing sites and scanners, which may compromise their translational impact.
“Next, despite our best efforts to curate a diverse pretraining dataset, patch foundation models and, consequently, slide foundation models are susceptible to encoding nonbiological features, such as tissue processing sites and scanners, which may compromise their translational impact120–123.”
From A multimodal whole-slide foundation model for pathology (2025) · cites this paper as [120]
The Results (§5.2; page unavailable) show that patch-model embeddings encode medical-center differences that can influence classification. The Introduction and Related Work identify staining and imaging equipment as nonbiological sources of variation and describe a risk to clinical use. But the Discussion (§7.1; page unavailable) says the analysis was patch-level; it does not establish the claimed consequence for slide foundation models. (LLM, conf=0.85)
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.
Citations
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Research works printed but not linked: 11
- Richard J Chen, Chengkuan Chen, Yicong Li, Tiffany Y Chen, Andrew D Trister, Rahul G Krishnan, and Faisal Mahmood. Scaling vision trans- formers to gigapixel images via hierarchical self-supervised learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pat- tern Recognition, pages 16144-16155, 2022.
- Alexandre Filiot, Ridouane Ghermi, Antoine Olivier, Paul Jacob, Lucas Fi- don, Alice Mac Kain, Charlie Saillard, and Jean-Baptiste Schiratti. Scaling self-supervised learning for histopathology with masked image modeling. medRxiv, 2023.
- Alexandre Filiot, Paul Jacob, Alice Mac Kain, and Charlie Saillard. Phikon-v2, a large and public feature extractor for biomarker prediction. arXiv e-prints, 2024.
- Gavino Faa, Ferdinando Coghe, Andrea Pretta, Massimo Castagnola, Peter Van Eyken, Luca Saba, Mario Scartozzi, and Matteo Fraschini. Artificial intelligence models for the detection of microsatellite instability from whole- slide imaging of colorectal cancer. Diagnostics, 14(15), 2024.
- Taher Dehkharghanian, Azam Asilian Bidgoli, Abtin Riasatian, Pooria Mazaheri, Clinton JV Campbell, Liron Pantanowitz, HR Tizhoosh, and Shahryar Rahnamayan. Biased data, biased ai: deep networks predict the acquisition site of tcga images. Diagnostic pathology, 18(1):67, 2023.
- Laurens Van der Maaten and Geoffrey Hinton. Visualizing data using t-sne. Journal of machine learning research, 9(11), 2008.
- Francesco Ciompi, Oscar Geessink, Babak Ehteshami Bejnordi, Gabriel Silva de Souza, Alexi Baidoshvili, Geert Litjens, Bram van Ginneken, Iris Nagtegaal, and Jeroen van der Laak. The importance of stain normalization in colorectal tissue classification with convolutional networks. In 2017 IEEE 14th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI 2017), pages 160-163, 2017.
- Milad Sikaroudi, Shahryar Rahnamayan, and Hamid R Tizhoosh. Hospital- agnostic image representation learning in digital pathology. In 2022 44th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society (EMBC), pages 3055-3058. IEEE, 2022.
- Jian Ren, Ilker Hacihaliloglu, Eric A Singer, David J Foran, and Xin Qi. Adversarial domain adaptation for classification of prostate histopathology whole-slide images. In Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention-MICCAI 2018: 21st International Conference, Granada, Spain, September 16-20, 2018, Proceedings, Part II 11, pages 201-209. Springer, 2018.
- Taher Dehkharghanian, Azam Asilian Bidgoli, Abtin Riasatian, Pooria Mazaheri, Clinton JV Campbell, Liron Pantanowitz, HR Tizhoosh, and Shahryar Rahnamayan. Biased data, biased ai: deep networks predict the acquisition site of tcga images. Diagnostic pathology, 18(1):67, 2023.
- Frederick M Howard, James Dolezal, Sara Kochanny, Jefree Schulte, Heather Chen, Lara Heij, Dezheng Huo, Rita Nanda, Olufunmilayo I Olopade, Jakob N Kather, et al. The impact of site-specific digital histology signatures on deep learning model accuracy and bias. Nature communica- tions, 12(1):4423, 2021.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A multimodal whole-slide foundation model for pathology
Ding, T., Wagner, S. J., Song, A. H., Chen, R. J., Lu, M. Y., Zhang, A., Vaidya, A. J., Jaume, G., Shaban, M., Kim, A., et al. (2025) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-025-03982-3 · Cited by 171
Grisi, C., Kartasalo, K., Eklund, M., Egevad, L., van der Laak, J. A. W. M., & Litjens, G. J. S. (2025) · Medical Image Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.media.2025.103663 · Cited by 5
Rethinking foundation models in pathology
Tizhoosh, H. R. (2026) · Nature Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1038/s41551-026-01696-6 · Cited by 2
Benchmarking biomedical foundation models
Sáez-Rodríguez, J., Schäfer, P. S. L., Kalavros, N., & Stolovitzky, G. A. (2026) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/s41592-026-03182-y · Cited by 5
Hao, N., Yang, X., Yan, B., Li, D., Huang, J., Wu, X., Ruiz, E. S., de Luzuriaga, A. R., Zhao, C., & Wan, G. (2026) · Briefings in Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bib/bbag387 · Cited by 1
Faure, G., Soglio, D. B. D., Patey, N., Oligny, L. L., Girard, S., & Séoud, L. (2025) · Computers in Biology and Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2025.110634
Zhao, Z., Maliga, Z., Ogbonna, E. C., Talemi, S. R., Coy, S., Gagné, A., Lumamba, K. D., Solomon, I. H., Santagata, S., Steyn, A. J. C., et al. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.06.03.725182
Webers, J., Martens, S., Gervois, P., Mertens, I., Tolkach, Y., Sucaet, Y., Wolfs, E., & Valkenborg, D. (2026) · Histopathology · doi:10.1111/his.70268
Metadata
- Authors
- de Jong, E. D., Marcus, E., & Teuwen, J.
- Affiliations
- The Netherlands Cancer Institute (NL)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2501.18055
- OpenAlex
- W4407012980
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 2
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- Technische Universität Berlin
- 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
- pathology foundation models, robustness index, cancer type classification, tissue source, model robustness, clinical adoption of AI
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
