CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 11AI in cancer detectionArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Towards Robust Foundation Models for Digital Pathology

Open access
Kömen, Jonah, de Jong, Edwin D., Hense, Julius, Marienwald, Hannah, Dippel, Jonas, Naumann, Philip, Marcus, Eric, Ruff, Lukas, Alber, Maximilian, Teuwen, Jonas, Klauschen, Frederick, Müller, Klaus-Robert·2025·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2507.17845arXiv 2507.17845
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Biomedical Foundation Models (FMs) are rapidly transforming AI-enabled healthcare research and entering clinical validation. However, their susceptibility to learning non-biological technical features -- including variations in surgical/endoscopic techniques, laboratory procedures, and scanner hardware -- poses risks for clinical deployment. We present the first systematic investigation of pathology FM robustness to non-biological features. Our work (i) introduces measures to quantify FM robustness, (ii) demonstrates the consequences of limited robustness, and (iii) proposes a framework for FM robustification to mitigate these issues. Specifically, we developed PathoROB, a robustness benchmark with three novel metrics, including the robustness index, and four datasets covering 28 biological classes from 34 medical centers. Our experiments reveal robustness deficits across all 20 evaluated FMs, and substantial robustness differences between them. We found that non-robust FM representations can cause major diagnostic downstream errors and clinical blunders that prevent safe clinical adoption. Using more robust FMs and post-hoc robustification considerably reduced (but did not yet eliminate) the risk of such errors. This work establishes that robustness evaluation is essential for validating pathology FMs before clinical adoption and demonstrates that future FM development must integrate robustness as a core design principle. PathoROB provides a blueprint for assessing robustness across biomedical domains, guiding FM improvement efforts towards more robust, representative, and clinically deployable AI systems that prioritize biological information over technical artifacts.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2507.17845

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.

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?

  • 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 [122]

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

Still being checked.

Research works printed but not linked: 59

  1. Bommasani, R. et al. On the opportunities and risks of foundation models. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2108. 07258 (2021). · DOI · Paper page
  2. Azad, B. et al. Foundational models in medical imaging: A com- prehensive survey and future vision. Preprint at https://doi.org/10. 48550/arXiv.2310.18689 (2023). · DOI
  3. Khan, W. et al. A comprehensive survey of foundation models in medicine. In Proceedings of the IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engi- neering (2025).
  4. Bilal, M. et al. Foundation models in computational pathology: A review of challenges, opportunities, and impact. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2502.08333 (2025). · DOI
  5. Ciga, O., Xu, T. & Martel, A. Self supervised contrastive learning for digital histopathology. Mach. Learn. Appl. 7, 100198 (2022).
  6. Campanella, G. et al. A clinical benchmark of public self- supervised pathology foundation models. Nat. Commun. 16, 3640 (2025).
  7. Gu, Y. et al. Domain-specific language model pretraining for bio- medical natural language processing. ACM Trans. Comput. Healthc. 3, 1-23 (2021).
  8. Zimmermann, E. et al. Virchow2: Scaling self-supervised mixed magnification models in pathology. Preprint at https://doi.org/10. 48550/arXiv.2408.00738 (2024). · DOI · Paper page
  9. Alber, M. et al. Atlas: A novel pathology foundation model by Mayo Clinic, Charité, and Aignostics. Preprint at https://doi.org/10. 48550/arXiv.2501.05409 (2025). · DOI
  10. Schirris, Y., Gavves, E., Nederlof, I., Horlings, H. M. & Teuwen, J. DeepSMILE: Contrastive self-supervised pre-training benefits MSI and HRD classification directly from H&E whole-slide images in colorectal and breast cancer. Med. Image Anal. 79, 102464 (2022).
  11. Dippel, J. et al. Rudolfv: A foundation model by pathologists for pathologists. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2401. 04079 (2024). · DOI · Paper page
  12. Jaume, G. et al. HEST-1k: A dataset for spatial transcriptomics and histology image analysis. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 37, 53798-53833 (2024).
  13. Zhang, A., Jaume, G., Vaidya, A., Ding, T. & Mahmood, F. Accel- erating data processing and benchmarking of AI models for pathology. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2502. 06750 (2025). · DOI
  14. Vaidya, A. et al. Molecular-driven foundation model for oncologic pathology. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.16652 (2025). · DOI
  15. Ma, J. et al. Pathbench: A comprehensive comparison benchmark for pathology foundation models towards precision oncology. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2505.20202 (2025). · DOI
  16. Lee, J., Lim, J., Byeon, K. & Kwak, J. T. Benchmarking pathology foundation models: Adaptation strategies and scenarios. Comput. Biol. Med. 190, 110031 (2025).
  17. Mulliqi, N. et al. Foundation models a panacea for artificial intel- ligence in pathology? Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv. 2502.21264 (2025). · DOI
  18. Bareja, R. et al. Evaluating vision and pathology foundation models for computational pathology: A comprehensive benchmark study. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.05.08.25327250 (2025). · DOI
  19. Neidlinger, P. et al. Benchmarking foundation models as feature extractors for weakly supervised computational pathology. Nat. Biomed. Eng. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41551-025-01516-3 (2025). · DOI · Paper page
  20. Howard, F. M. et al. The impact of site-specific digital histology signatures on deep learning model accuracy and bias. Nat. Commun. 12, 4423 (2021).
  21. Finak, G. et al. Standardizing flow cytometry immunophenotyping analysis from the human immunophenotyping consortium. Sci. Rep. 6, 20686 (2016).
  22. Čuklina, J. et al. Diagnostics and correction of batch effects in large-scale proteomic studies: a tutorial. Mol. Syst. Biol. 17, e10240 (2021).
  23. Kömen, J., Marienwald, H., Dippel, J. & Hense, J. Do histopatho- logical foundation models eliminate batch effects? A comparative study. In Advancements In Medical Foundation Models: Explain- ability, Robustness, Security, and Beyond (AIM-FM Workshop at NeurIPS, 2024).
  24. de Jong, E. D., Marcus, E. & Teuwen, J. Current pathology foun- dation models are unrobust to medical center differences. Pre- print at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.18055 (2025). · DOI · Paper page
  25. Filiot, A. et al. Distilling foundation models for robust and efficient models in digital pathology. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention 162-172 (2025).
  26. Gustafsson, F. K. & Rantalainen, M. Evaluating computational pathology foundation models for prostate cancer grading under distribution shifts. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv. 2410.06723 (2024). · DOI
  27. Ji, X. et al. Physical color calibration of digital pathology scanners for robust artificial intelligence-assisted cancer diagnosis. Mod. Pathol. 38, 100715 (2025).
  28. Drexlin, D. J. et al. Medi: Metadata-guided diffusion models for mitigating biases in tumor classification. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention 379-388 (2025).
  29. Reinhard, E., Adhikhmin, M., Gooch, B. & Shirley, P. Color transfer between images. IEEE Comput.Graph. Appl. 21, 34-41 (2001).
  30. Behdenna, A. et al. pyComBat, a Python tool for batch effects correction in high-throughput molecular data using empirical Bayes methods. BMC Bioinform. 24, 459 (2023).
  31. Murchan, P., Broin, P. Ó, Baird, A.-M., Sheils, O. & Finn, S. P. Deep feature batch correction using ComBat for machine learning applications in computational pathology. J. Pathol. Inform. 15, 100396 (2024).
  32. Bándi, P. et al. From detection of individual metastases to classi- fication of lymph node status at the patient level: The CAMEL- YON17 challenge. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 38, 550-560 (2019).
  33. Komura, D. et al. Universal encoding of pan-cancer histology by deep texture representations. Cell Rep. 38, 110424 (2022).
  34. Lapuschkin, S. et al. Unmasking Clever Hans predictors and assessing what machines really learn. Nat. Commun. 10, 1096 (2019).
  35. Hermann, K., Mobahi, H., Fel, T. & Mozer, M. C. On the foundations of shortcut learning. In Proceedings of the International Con- ference on Learning Representations (ICLR, 2024).
  36. Brown, A. et al. Detecting shortcut learning for fair medical AI using shortcut testing. Nat. Commun. 14, 4314 (2023).
  37. De Angeli, K. et al. Class imbalance in out-of-distribution datasets: Improving the robustness of the textcnn for the classification of rare cancer types. J. Biomed. Inform. 125, 103957 (2022).
  38. Song, A. H. et al. Multimodal prototyping for cancer survival pre- diction. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML, 2024).
  39. Ilse, M., Tomczak, J. & Welling, M. Attention-based deep multiple instance learning (2018). In Proceedings of the International Con- ference on Machine Learning (ICML).
  40. Tizhoosh, H. & Pantanowitz, L. On image search in histopathology. J. Pathol. Inform. 15, 100375 (2024).
  41. Alfasly, S. et al. Validation of histopathology foundation models through whole slide image retrieval. Sci. Rep. 15, 3990 (2025).
  42. Zhang, Y. et al. Histopathology images-based deep learning pre- diction of prognosis and therapeutic response in small cell lung cancer. Npj Digit. Med. 7, 15 (2024).
  43. Chelebian, E., Avenel, C., Ciompi, F. & Wählby, C. Depicter: Deep representation clustering for histology annotation. Comput. Biol. Med. 170, 108026 (2024).
  44. Radford, A. et al. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In Proceedings of the International Con- ference on Machine Learning (ICML, 2021).
  45. Jia, C. et al. Scaling up visual and vision-language representation learning with noisy text supervision. In Proceedings of the Inter- national Conference on Machine Learning (ICML, 2021).
  46. Achiam, J. et al. Gpt-4 technical report. Preprint at https://doi.org/ 10.48550/arXiv.2303.08774 (2023). · DOI · Paper page
  47. Kovács, D. P., Batatia, I., Arany, E. S. & Csányi, G. Evaluation of the mace force field architecture: From medicinal chemistry to materials science. J. Chem. Phys. 159, 044118 (2023).
  48. Awais, M. et al. Foundation models defining a new era in vision: A survey and outlook. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 47, 2245-2264 (2025).
  49. Shaban, M. et al. A foundation model for spatial proteomics. Pre- print at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2506.03373 (2025). · DOI
  50. Chormai, P., Herrmann, J., Müller, K.-R. & Montavon, G. Disen- tangled explanations of neural network predictions by finding relevant subspaces. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 46, 7283-7299 (2024).
  51. Huben, R., Cunningham, H., Smith, L. R., Ewart, A. & Sharkey, L. Sparse autoencoders find highly interpretable features in lan- guage models. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations(ICLR, 2024).
  52. Gindra, R. H. et al. A large-scale benchmark of cross-modal learning for histology and gene expression in spatial tran- scriptomics. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Con- ference on Computer Vision 1182-1192 (2025).
  53. Ouyang, L. et al. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 35, 27730-27744 (2022).
  54. Bai, Y. et al. Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI feedback. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2212.08073 (2022). · DOI
  55. Cover, T. & Hart, P. Nearest neighbor pattern classification. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 13, 21-27 (1967).
  56. Loeffler, C. M. L. et al. Prediction of homologous recombination deficiency from routine histology with attention-based multiple instance learning in nine different tumor types. BMC Biol. 22, 225 (2024).
  57. El Nahhas, O. S. et al. Regression-based deep-learning predicts molecular biomarkers from pathology slides. Nat. Commun. 15, 1253 (2024).
  58. Zadeh, S. G. & Schmid, M. Bias in cross-entropy-based training of deep survival networks. IEEE Trans. pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 43, 3126-3137 (2020). 100. Chen, R. J. et al. Multimodal co-attention transformer for survival prediction in gigapixel whole slide images. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR, 2021). 101. Rousseeuw, P. J. Silhouettes: a graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 20, 53-65 (1987). 102. Hubert, L. & Arabie, P. Comparing partitions. J. Classif. 2, 193-218 (1985). 103. Jahanifar, M. et al. Domain generalization in computational pathology: survey and guidelines. ACM Comput. Surv. 57, 1-37 (2025). 104. Macenko, M. et al. A method for normalizing histology slides for quantitative analysis. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging: From Nano to Macro (ISBI). 105.
  59. Lane, D. M. Confidence interval on pearson's correlation.https:// onlinestatbook.com/2/estimation/correlation_ci.html (2018). 106. Kömen, J. et al. Towards robust foundation models for digital pathology. GitHub repository: PathoROB https://doi.org/10.5281/ zenodo.18961604 (2026). 107. Chen, R. J. et al. Scaling vision transformers to gigapixel images via hierarchical self-supervised learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR, 2022). 108. Wang, X. et al. Retccl: Clustering-guided contrastive learning for whole-slide image retrieval. Med. Image Anal. 83, 102645 (2023). 109. Wang, X. et al. Transformer-based unsupervised contrastive learning for histopathological image classification. Med. Image Anal. 81, 102559 (2022). 110. Kang, M., Song, H., Park, S., Yoo, D. & Pereira, S. Benchmarking self-supervised learning on diverse pathology datasets. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR, 2023). 111. Aben, N. et al. Towards large-scale training of pathology founda- tion models. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2404. 15217 (2024). 112. Filiot, A. et al. Scaling self-supervised learning for histopathology with masked image modeling. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.1101/ 2023.07.21.23292757 (2023). 113. Filiot, A., Jacob, P., Mac Kain, A. & Saillard, C. Phikon-v2, a large and public feature extractor for biomarker prediction. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2409.09173 (2024). 114. Lu, M. Y. et al. A visual-language foundation model for computa- tional pathology. Nat. Med. 30, 863-874 (2024). 115. Xiang, J. et al. A vision-language foundation model for precision oncology. Nature 638, 769-778 (2025). · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Kömen, J., de Jong, E. D., Hense, J., Marienwald, H., Dippel, J., Naumann, P., Marcus, E., Ruff, L., Alber, M., Teuwen, J., Klauschen, F., & Müller, K.-R.
Affiliations
  • Berlin Institute for the Foundations of Learning and Data (DE)
  • The Netherlands Cancer Institute (NL)
  • Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin (DE)
  • German Cancer Research Center (DE)
  • Korea University (KR)
Corresponding author
  • de Jong, Edwin D.
  • Klauschen, Frederick
  • Müller, Klaus-Robert
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
Volume
17
Issue
1
ISSN
2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2507.17845
arXiv
2507.17845
OpenAlex
W4415231643
Cited by
10
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 10
FWCI
33.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Nature Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (01IS14013A-E, 01GQ1115, 01GQ0850, 01IS18056A, 01IS18025A, 13GW0744D, BIFOLD25B)
  • Korea University (RS-2024-00457882, RS-2019-II190079, RS-2024-00457882, RS-2019-II190079)
  • Ministry of Science and ICT, South Korea (01GQ1115, RS-2024-00457882, 01GQ0850, 01IS18025A, RS-2019-II190079)
  • Institute for Information and Communications Technology Promotion (RS-202400457882, RS-2019-II190079)
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 › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Keywords
digital pathology, robustness benchmark, vision-language alignment, diagnostic errors, case retrieval
MeSH terms
Digital Health, Humans, Pathology

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