PreprintCited by 1AI in cancer detectionArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationMultimodal Machine Learning Applications

PRISM2: Unlocking Multi-Modal General Pathology AI with Clinical Dialogue

Open access
Vorontsov, Eugene, Shaikovski, George, Casson, Adam, Viret, Julian, Zimmermann, Eric, Tenenholtz, Neil, Wang, Yi Kan, Bernhard, Jan H. +11 more·2025·arXiv

Abstract

Recent rapid progress in the field of computational pathology has been enabled by foundation models. These models are beginning to move beyond encoding image patches towards whole-slide understanding but their clinical utility remains limited. In this work, we present PRISM2, a multimodal slide-level foundation model trained on data from 700,000 diagnostic specimen-report pairs, the largest vision (2.3 million whole slide images) and language (14M question-answer pairs) histopathology dataset to date. By learning through clinical-dialogue supervision, PRISM2 aligns histomorphologic features with the language of diagnostic reasoning, producing slide-level representations that support both direct diagnostic question-answering and transferable embeddings for downstream tasks. Without additional training, PRISM2 matches or exceeds the cancer-detection performance of clinical-grade products. This is observed without loss of generality on other tasks, where PRISM2 achieves top performance. Finally, using survival prediction as the example, we show that task-specific finetuning with a large dataset can outperform task-specific models, further improving performance. These results demonstrate how language-supervised pretraining provides a scalable, clinically grounded signal for learning generalizable pathology representations, bridging human diagnostic reasoning and foundation-model performance.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2506.13063

Cites

33 of 33 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?

  • Mass-340K contains fewer slides compared to other pretraining datasets used for patch encoders and slide encoders.

    “Finally, Mass-340K contains fewer slides compared to other pretraining datasets used for patch encoders12,13,126 and slide encoders62,72.”

    From A multimodal whole-slide foundation model for pathology (2025) · cites this paper as [72]

    The Introduction (p. 3) reports that PRISM2 was trained on 2.3 million slides, more than the approximately 340,000 slides attributed to TITAN in Comparison models (p. 15). But that section also reports slide-encoder datasets of approximately 3,000 slides for COBRA and 170,000 for Prov-Gigapath—both smaller than 340,000—and does not establish the claimed comparison with patch-encoder datasets. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    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: 6

  1. [11][11] Tri Dao. 'FlashAttention-2: Faster Attention with Better Parallelism and Work Partitioning'. In: International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) . 2024. -
  2. [14][14] Utku Evci et al. 'Head2Toe: Utilizing Intermediate Representations for Better Transfer Learning'. In: Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) . Vol. 162. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research. July 2022, pp. 1-25. url : https://proceedings.mlr.press/v162/ evci22a/evci22a.pdf . -
  3. [16][16] Andrew Jaegle et al. 'Perceiver: General perception with iterative attention'. In: International conference on machine learning . PMLR. 2021, pp. 4651-4664. -
  4. [24][24] Ming Y Lu et al. 'A visual-language foundation model for computational pathology'. In: Nature Medicine 30.3 (2024), pp. 863-874. -
  5. [37][37] John N Weinstein et al. 'The cancer genome atlas pan-cancer analysis project'. In: Nature genetics 45.10 (2013), pp. 1113-1120. -
  6. [38][38] Hanwen Xu et al. 'A whole-slide foundation model for digital pathology from real-world data'. In: Nature 630.8015 (2024), pp. 181-188. -

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vorontsov, E., Shaikovski, G., Casson, A., Viret, J., Zimmermann, E., Tenenholtz, N., Wang, Y. K., Bernhard, J. H., Godrich, R. A., Retamero, J. A., Shia, J., Gonen, M., Weiser, M. R., Klimstra, D. S., Yousfi, R., Fusi, N., Fuchs, T. J., Severson, K., & Liu, S.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4415107977
Cited by
0
References
33
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
Keywords
computational pathology, multimodal foundation models, whole slide images, histopathology, diagnostic reasoning, cancer detection, survival prediction

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