Foundation Models in Cancer Diagnosis: A New Paradigm for Histopathological Image Analysis

Abstract

This article explores the transformative potential of foundation models in computational pathology for generalizable cancer diagnosis and prognosis. Tailored for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals, it provides a comprehensive analysis of how these large-scale AI models, pre-trained on massive datasets of histopathological images, are overcoming the limitations of traditional task-specific algorithms. We delve into the foundational concepts, methodological innovations, and diverse applications in tasks from patch-level classification to patient survival prediction. The scope also critically addresses significant challenges—including data robustness, computational demands, and safety vulnerabilities—and synthesizes evidence from recent multi-institutional validation studies, offering a balanced perspective on the current state and future trajectory of this rapidly evolving field.

The Rise of Foundation Models: Redefining Computational Pathology

The field of computational pathology is undergoing a fundamental transformation, moving away from isolated, task-specific artificial intelligence (AI) models toward comprehensive, general-purpose foundation models. This paradigm shift is particularly evident in cancer diagnosis from histopathological images, where the limitations of single-task models—including their dependency on extensive manual annotations, poor generalization across cancer types, and inability to leverage multimodal data—are being addressed by foundation models pre-trained on massive, diverse datasets of histopathological images. These foundation models establish a robust, generalizable base that can be efficiently adapted with minimal fine-tuning to a wide array of downstream tasks, from patch-level classification to whole-slide image (WSI) analysis and patient survival prediction [1] [2]. This evolution mirrors a broader trend in AI, where specialized models are being complemented or replaced by versatile foundation models that demonstrate superior performance, enhanced data efficiency, and greater adaptability in clinical and research settings [3] [4].

Application Notes: Quantitative Performance of Foundation Models

Foundation models for cancer diagnosis are demonstrating state-of-the-art performance across a diverse spectrum of tasks and cancer types. Their strength lies in their generalizability, achieving high accuracy not just on the specific data they were trained on, but also on external validation sets and for different clinical questions. The following table summarizes the quantitative performance of several key foundation models as reported in recent studies.

Table 1: Performance of Foundation Models in Computational Pathology

Model Name	Core Architecture / Approach	Task	Cancer Type(s)	Performance	Reference / Evaluation Context
BEPH	BEiT-based self-supervised learning; pre-trained on 11.77M patches from 32 cancers [1]	Patch-level classification	Breast Cancer (BreakHis)	Accuracy: 94.05% (patient level) [1]	Outperformed latest CNN and weakly supervised models by 5-10% [1]
		Patch-level classification	Lung Cancer (LC25000)	Accuracy: 99.99% [1]	Higher than reported models like ResNet and self-supervised DARC-ConvNet [1]
		WSI-level classification	Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC) Subtypes	Average AUC: 0.994 [1]	10-fold cross-validation on public RCC WSI dataset [1]
		WSI-level classification	Breast Cancer (BRCA) Subtypes	Average AUC: 0.946 [1]	10-fold cross-validation on public BRCA WSI dataset [1]
		WSI-level classification	Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) Subtypes	Average AUC: 0.970 [1]	10-fold cross-validation on public NSCLC WSI dataset [1]
TITAN	Transformer-based multimodal WSI model; vision-language pre-training on 335,645 WSIs [2]	Multiple slide-level tasks	Pan-Cancer (20 organs)	Outperformed supervised baselines and existing slide foundation models [2]	Linear probing, few-shot, and zero-shot classification [2]
Federated Transformer Model	Multiple instance learning transformer; federated learning across 3 clinical centers [5]	Disease progression risk prediction	Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma (cSCC)	AUROC: 0.82 across all cohorts (federated) [5]	Hazard Ratio of image-based risk score: 7.42 in multivariate analysis [5]
DeepNCCNet	MobileNetV2 fine-tuned on non-cancer and cancer regions [6]	Cancer diagnosis	Gastric Cancer (GC)	Accuracy: 93.96% [6]	External validation on TCGA dataset [6]

The data clearly illustrates the powerful capabilities of foundation models. BEPH shows remarkable consistency across all levels of analysis, from single patches to entire whole-slide images, and for various cancer subtypes [1]. The success of the federated learning model for cSCC underscores another critical advantage: the ability to improve model generalizability and address data privacy concerns by training across multiple institutions without sharing patient data [5]. Furthermore, research like that behind DeepNCCNet reveals that valuable diagnostic signals are not confined to tumor cells alone; the remodeled microenvironment in surrounding non-cancerous tissues also holds significant predictive power, which can be leveraged by deep learning models [6].

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Pre-training a Histopathology Foundation Model (BEPH)

This protocol outlines the procedure for self-supervised pre-training of a foundation model like BEPH, which can later be adapted to various downstream tasks.

1. Data Curation and Pre-processing:

• Data Source: Collect a massive and diverse set of unlabeled histopathological images. For example, BEPH utilized 11.76 thousand whole-slide images (WSIs) from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), encompassing 32 different cancer types [1].
• Exclusion Criteria: Exclude WSIs with indeterminate magnification levels to maintain data quality [1].
• Patch Extraction: Divide each WSI into smaller, manageable image patches (e.g., 224 x 224 pixels). This process generated a pre-training dataset of 11.77 million patches for BEPH, which is an order of magnitude larger than the ImageNet-1K dataset [1].
• Color Normalization: Apply color correction techniques to standardize the color and brightness of images across different scanners and staining conditions, reducing technical variability [6].

2. Self-Supervised Pre-training:

• Model Initialization: Initialize the network architecture (e.g., a Vision Transformer) with weights pre-trained on a large natural image dataset like ImageNet-1K [1].
• Pre-training Task: Employ a self-supervised learning paradigm. BEPH uses Masked Image Modeling (MIM), specifically the BEiTv2 framework [1].
• Process: Randomly mask a portion of the input image patches. The model is then tasked with reconstructing the missing visual tokens of the masked patches based on the context provided by the unmasked patches [1]. This forces the model to learn meaningful and robust representations of histopathological morphology without the need for manual labels.
• Objective: The primary outcome is a set of pre-trained model weights that have learned generalized features of histopathological images, which can serve as a "foundation" for various specific tasks.

Protocol 2: Fine-tuning for WSI-Level Classification and Survival Prediction

This protocol describes how to adapt a pre-trained foundation model for specific clinical tasks, such as cancer subtyping or predicting patient outcomes.

1. Feature Extraction:

• Input: Process a new WSI by dividing it into non-overlapping patches, using the same patch size and magnification as during pre-training.
• Feature Generation: Pass each patch through the pre-trained foundation model to extract a feature vector (embedding). This converts the WSI from a collection of image patches into a collection of feature vectors, often referred to as a "bag of instances" [1] [5].

2. Task-Specific Model Training:

• Multiple Instance Learning (MIL): Use an MIL framework to aggregate the patch-level features into a slide-level prediction. This approach is used because a WSI is a gigapixel image with only a single slide-level label (e.g., "invasive ductal carcinoma") [1] [5].
• Model Architecture:
  • Feature Encoder: The pre-trained foundation model (frozen or fine-tuned) serves as the feature encoder for each patch.
  • Aggregation Model: An aggregation model (e.g., a transformer or an attention-based network) processes the sequence of patch features. This model learns to weight the importance of different patches for the final slide-level task [1] [5].
  • Output Head: A final classification or regression layer maps the aggregated slide representation to the desired output.
    • For Classification: A softmax layer outputs probabilities for each cancer subtype [1].
    • For Survival Prediction: A Cox proportional hazards model can be used to output a risk score, which is then used to stratify patients into risk groups [1] [5].

3. Validation:

• Cross-Validation: Perform k-fold cross-validation (e.g., 10-fold) on the training dataset to robustly estimate model performance [1].
• Hold-Out Test Set: Evaluate the final model on a completely independent test set that was not used during training or validation [1] [5].

Protocol 3: Federated Learning for Multi-Center Models

This protocol enables training a robust model on data from multiple clinical centers without centralizing the data, thus preserving privacy.

1. Local Model Training:

• Setup: Deploy the same model architecture (e.g., the transformer-based model from Protocol 2) at each participating clinical center.
• Local Training: Each center trains the model on its own local dataset of WSIs. The data never leaves the hospital's server [5].

2. Model Parameter Aggregation:

• Central Server: A central server initiates the process and holds a global model.
• Federated Averaging: After a set number of training epochs at each local site, the centers send their updated model parameters (weights) to the central server. The server then averages these parameters to update the global model [5].

3. Iteration and Deployment:

• Broadcast: The updated global model is sent back to all participating centers.
• Repetition: Steps 1 and 2 are repeated for multiple rounds until the global model converges and shows improved performance on all participating cohorts [5].
• Outcome: The final model is better generalized across different institutions and scanning protocols, as demonstrated by the cSCC study where federated learning boosted AUROC on an external cohort from 0.46 to 0.82 [5].

Visualization of Workflows

Foundation Model Adaptation Workflow

Federated Learning Across Hospitals

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 2: Key Resources for Developing Pathology Foundation Models

Resource Category	Specific Item / Tool	Function & Application in Research
Public Datasets	The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA)	A primary source of diverse, multi-cancer whole-slide images for pre-training and benchmarking foundation models [1].
	BreaKHis, LC25000	Curated, public benchmark datasets used for evaluating model performance on specific tasks like patch-level breast and lung cancer classification [1].
Model Architectures	BEiT (BERT pre-training of Image Transformers)	A self-supervised learning framework based on Masked Image Modeling, used for pre-training foundation models like BEPH [1].
	Vision Transformer (ViT)	A transformer-based architecture adapted for images, serving as the backbone for many modern foundation models like TITAN [2].
Software & Libraries	Multiple Instance Learning (MIL) Frameworks	Software libraries that implement MIL algorithms, essential for training models on gigapixel WSIs using only slide-level labels [1] [5].
	Federated Learning Platforms (e.g., NVIDIA FLARE, Flower)	Frameworks that facilitate the implementation of federated learning workflows across multiple institutions, preserving data privacy [5].
Computational Hardware	High-Performance GPUs (e.g., NVIDIA A100, H100)	Essential for processing the enormous computational load of pre-training on millions of image patches and fine-tuning large transformer models.

The development of artificial intelligence (AI) for cancer diagnosis from histopathological images faces a critical constraint: the scarcity of expensively annotated data. Traditional supervised deep learning models require vast datasets with pixel-level or slide-level annotations provided by expert pathologists, creating a significant bottleneck for scaling computational pathology solutions [7]. This limitation hinders the generalization of AI models across diverse tissue types, cancer subtypes, and institutional settings with varying slide preparation protocols [8].

Self-supervised learning (SSL) has emerged as a transformative paradigm that leverages the abundant unlabeled histopathology images available in clinical archives. By formulating pretext tasks that generate supervisory signals directly from the data itself, SSL enables models to learn robust feature representations without manual annotation [7]. This approach is particularly suited to computational pathology, where gigapixel whole-slide images (WSIs) contain rich biological information at multiple scales, from cellular morphology to tissue architecture [1]. Foundation models pre-trained using SSL on massive datasets establish a knowledge base that can be efficiently adapted to various diagnostic tasks with minimal labeled examples, substantially reducing reliance on expert annotations [1] [8].

SSL Methodologies and Performance Benchmarks

Core Technical Approaches

Self-supervised learning in histopathology primarily utilizes two complementary approaches: masked image modeling and contrastive learning. Masked image modeling (MIM) methods randomly obscure portions of an input image and train the model to reconstruct the missing content based on contextual cues. This approach forces the model to learn meaningful representations of tissue structures and cellular relationships [7] [1]. For example, the BEPH foundation model employs a BeiT-based architecture pre-trained on 11.76 million histopathological patches from 32 cancer types, demonstrating exceptional performance across multiple downstream tasks [1].

Contrastive learning methods learn representations by maximizing agreement between differently augmented views of the same image while distinguishing them from other images. This approach creates feature embeddings that are invariant to irrelevant transformations while capturing semantically meaningful patterns [9]. Hybrid frameworks have also been developed to combine the strengths of both approaches, such as the method proposed by [7] that integrates masked autoencoder reconstruction with multi-scale contrastive learning for histopathology image segmentation.

Quantitative Performance Evidence

Recent studies demonstrate that SSL-derived foundation models achieve state-of-the-art performance while dramatically reducing annotation requirements. The following table summarizes key quantitative results from recent SSL implementations in histopathology:

Table 1: Performance Benchmarks of SSL Models in Histopathology

Model	SSL Approach	Training Data	Key Results	Annotation Efficiency
Framework by [7]	Hybrid MIM + Contrastive	5 datasets (TCGA-BRCA, TCGA-LUAD, etc.)	Dice: 0.825 (+4.3%), mIoU: 0.742 (+7.8%)	70% reduction in annotations; 25% of labels needed for 95.6% of full performance
BEPH [1]	Masked Image Modeling	11.76M patches, 32 cancer types	BreakHis classification: 94.05% accuracy; WSI-level AUC up to 0.994	Effective adaptation with minimal fine-tuning data
CHIEF [8]	Unsupervised + Weakly Supervised	60,530 WSIs, 19 anatomical sites	Macro-average AUROC: 0.9397 across 15 datasets	Robust to domain shift from multiple institutions
SSCL (Colorectal) [10]	Contrastive Learning	Unlabeled colorectal images	Classification accuracy: 85.86% for HP vs. SSA	Reduced need for manual annotations

These results consistently show that SSL approaches achieve competitive or superior performance compared to fully supervised baselines while requiring only a fraction of the annotated data. The annotation efficiency is particularly noteworthy, with some frameworks achieving 95.6% of full performance with only 25% of labeled data compared to 85.2% for supervised baselines [7].

Experimental Protocols for SSL in Histopathology

Multi-Task SSL Pre-training Protocol

Objective: To learn general-purpose feature representations from unlabeled histopathology images that can be transferred to multiple downstream diagnostic tasks.

Materials:

• Unlabeled whole-slide images (WSIs)
• Computational resources with GPU acceleration
• Patch extraction pipeline (e.g., OpenSlide)

Procedure:

• Data Curation: Collect a diverse set of WSIs covering multiple tissue types, staining variations, and scanning protocols. Ensure patient privacy compliance.
• Patch Extraction: Extract representative tissue patches at multiple magnifications (e.g., 5×, 10×, 20×, 40×) using grid-based or tissue-detection algorithms.
• Pretext Task Implementation:
  • For Masked Image Modeling: Randomly mask 60-80% of each image patch and train a vision transformer to reconstruct the missing regions using a mean squared error loss.
  • For Contrastive Learning: Apply diverse augmentations (color jitter, rotation, blurring) to create positive pairs and use a momentum encoder to maximize feature similarity.
• Multi-Scale Integration: Implement a hierarchical architecture that aggregates features across magnification levels to capture both cellular and tissue-level context.
• Model Training: Train for sufficient epochs (typically 300-800) with learning rate warmup and cosine decay scheduling.

Validation: Evaluate representation quality by training a linear classifier on top of frozen features for a benchmark classification task.

Diagram 1: Multi-Task SSL Pre-training Workflow

Transfer Learning Protocol for Downstream Tasks

Objective: To adapt a pre-trained SSL foundation model to specific diagnostic tasks with minimal labeled data.

Materials:

• SSL pre-trained model weights
• Task-specific labeled dataset (small)
• Fine-tuning computational environment

Procedure:

• Task Formulation: Define the specific clinical task (classification, segmentation, survival prediction) and assemble the corresponding labeled dataset.
• Model Adaptation:
  • Linear Probing: Train a task-specific head on top of frozen features for rapid benchmarking.
  • Full Fine-tuning: Unfreeze all or part of the backbone network and train with a low learning rate (1e-5 to 1e-4).
• Progressive Fine-tuning: For segmentation tasks, employ boundary-focused loss functions and semantic-aware masking strategies to improve structural accuracy [7].
• Multi-Instance Learning: For WSI-level prediction, aggregate patch-level features using attention mechanisms to highlight diagnostically relevant regions [5].
• Regularization: Apply strong regularization (weight decay, dropout) to prevent overfitting to small labeled sets.

Validation: Use task-specific metrics (AUC for classification, Dice for segmentation, C-index for survival) on held-out test sets from multiple institutions to assess generalizability.

Implementation Toolkit for SSL in Cancer Diagnosis

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Components for SSL Implementation in Histopathology

Component	Function	Implementation Examples
Foundation Models	Pre-trained feature extractors	BEPH [1], CHIEF [8], UNI [7]
Data Augmentation	Generate diverse training views	Color jitter, rotation, masking, stain normalization
Multi-Scale Architecture	Capture cellular and tissue context	Hierarchical Vision Transformers (HIPT) [1]
Attention Mechanisms	Identify diagnostically relevant regions	Multi-head attention, Multiple Instance Learning (MIL)
Interpretability Tools	Explain model predictions	Grad-CAM [10], attention visualization
Federated Learning	Multi-institutional training	Federated averaging, secure aggregation [5]

Integration and Deployment Framework

Successful implementation of SSL for cancer diagnosis requires careful attention to the entire model development pipeline. The following diagram illustrates the integrated workflow from pre-training to clinical application:

Diagram 2: End-to-End SSL Pipeline for Cancer Diagnosis

Self-supervised learning represents a fundamental shift in how we develop AI systems for cancer diagnosis from histopathological images. By leveraging the abundant unlabeled data that already exists in clinical archives, SSL effectively addresses the critical data bottleneck that has constrained traditional supervised approaches. The emergence of foundation models like BEPH and CHIEF demonstrates that SSL-derived representations not only reduce annotation demands but also enhance generalization across diverse populations and institutional settings [1] [8].

Future research directions include the development of multi-modal foundation models that integrate histopathology images with genomic and clinical data, federated learning approaches to enable privacy-preserving model training across institutions [5], and more sophisticated interpretability methods to build clinical trust. As these technologies mature, SSL-powered diagnostic systems promise to make expert-level cancer diagnosis more accessible, standardized, and scalable worldwide.

Within the framework of developing foundation models for generalizable cancer diagnosis, the selection of core architectures is paramount. Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) have traditionally dominated histopathological image analysis but face inherent limitations, particularly their local receptive fields which struggle to capture the long-range spatial dependencies present in gigapixel Whole Slide Images (WSIs) [11]. Transformer architectures, coupled with Masked Image Modeling (MIM), have emerged as a powerful alternative. Transformers utilize a self-attention mechanism to model global context across all image patches, while MIM provides a potent self-supervised pre-training objective that learns rich, robust feature representations from vast quantities of unlabeled histopathology data, thereby reducing the reliance on expensive expert annotations [12] [1].

Performance Comparison of Core Architectures

The table below summarizes the quantitative performance of various Transformer-based models compared to traditional and other advanced methods on key histopathological tasks.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Architectures on Histopathology Tasks

Model	Core Architecture	Task	Dataset	Key Metric	Performance
BEPH [1]	BEiT-based Transformer (MIM)	Patch-level Binary Classification	BreakHis	Accuracy	94.05%
BEPH [1]	BEiT-based Transformer (MIM)	WSI-level Subtype Classification (RCC)	TCGA	AUC	0.994
UNI [13]	Transformer Foundation Model	8-class Breast Cancer Classification	BreakHis	Accuracy	95.5%
ConvNeXT [13]	Modernized CNN	Binary Breast Cancer Classification	BreakHis	AUC	0.999
Pathology-NAS [14]	LLM-optimized Lightweight Model	Breast Cancer Classification	BreakHis	Accuracy	99.98%

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: MIM-based Foundation Model Pre-training (BEPH)

This protocol outlines the pre-training of a histopathology-specific foundation model using Masked Image Modeling, as exemplified by the BEPH model [1].

• Data Curation:

  • Source: Collect ~11.76 million histopathological image patches (224x224 pixels) from a diverse source like The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), encompassing 32 cancer types.
  • Pre-processing: Standardize patches by filtering out those with indeterminate magnification. No manual annotations are required for the pre-training phase.

• Model Initialization:

  • Initialize the Transformer encoder (e.g., ViT-Base) with weights pre-trained on a natural image dataset (e.g., ImageNet-1K) using MIM (e.g., BEiTv2). This provides a strong starting point for visual feature extraction [1].

• Self-Supervised Pre-training with MIM:

  • Masking: Randomly mask a high proportion (e.g., 40-60%) of the input image patches.
  • Objective: Train the model to reconstruct the visual content of the masked patches. The loss function is typically a mean squared error (MSE) between the reconstructed and original pixel values or tokenized visual features.
  • Optimization: Use an optimizer like AdamW with a cosine learning rate scheduler, training on the large, unlabeled patch dataset.

Protocol 2: WSI-level Classification via Multiple Instance Learning

This protocol describes fine-tuning a pre-trained feature extractor for slide-level diagnosis, a common downstream task [1].

• Feature Extraction:

  • Input: Process a gigapixel WSI by dividing it into a bag of non-overlapping patches (e.g., 256x256 pixels at 20x magnification).
  • Backbone: Use a pre-trained MIM model (e.g., BEPH) as a feature extractor to generate a feature vector for each patch without any fine-tuning.

• Multiple Instance Learning (MIL) Aggregation:

  • Model: Employ an attention-based MIL aggregator (e.g., Attention-MIL). This model learns to assign an importance weight to each patch feature in the bag.
  • Training: The aggregator is trained on slide-level labels (e.g., cancer subtype). The weighted sum of all patch features produces a single, slide-level representation used for the final classification.
  • Evaluation: Perform k-fold cross-validation (e.g., 10-fold) and report metrics like AUC on a held-out test set.

Protocol 3: Hybrid Self-Supervised Learning for Segmentation

This protocol integrates MIM with contrastive learning for dense prediction tasks like segmentation, addressing limited pixel-level annotations [7].

• Multi-Resolution Architecture:

  • Implement a hierarchical Transformer architecture designed to process both high-magnification (cellular detail) and low-magnification (tissue context) views of the WSI.

• Hybrid Pre-training:

  • MIM Branch: Apply a masked autoencoder to reconstruct randomly masked patches from the input image.
  • Contrastive Learning Branch: Apply data augmentations to create different views of the same image and train the model to bring these views closer in the feature space while pushing them away from views of other images.
  • Joint Loss: Combine the MIM reconstruction loss (e.g., MSE) with the contrastive learning loss (e.g., NT-Xent).

• Progressive Fine-tuning:

  • Initialize the segmentation model (e.g., a U-Net with a Transformer backbone) with the pre-trained weights.
  • Fine-tune on downstream segmentation tasks using a combination of standard cross-entropy loss and a boundary-focused loss function (e.g., Boundary Loss) to improve contour accuracy.

Workflow Visualization

The following diagram illustrates the core MIM pre-training workflow and its adaptation for WSI-level analysis, integrating the protocols above.

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 2: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for MIM in Histopathology

Item	Function & Explanation
TCGA & Camelyon Datasets	Primary sources of diverse, real-world WSIs across multiple cancer types for pre-training and benchmarking.
Vision Transformer (ViT)	The core neural architecture that processes image patches via self-attention, enabling global context modeling.
BEiT or MAE Framework	Implements the MIM pre-training strategy, defining how patches are masked and reconstructed.
Multiple Instance Learning (MIL)	A key method for aggregating patch-level predictions or features to form a slide-level diagnosis, crucial for handling WSIs.
PathChat / Synthetic Captions	Multimodal generative AI tools used to create fine-grained textual descriptions of image regions for vision-language pre-training.
Computational Resources (GPU clusters)	Essential for processing millions of image patches and training large Transformer models with billions of parameters.

The advent of foundation models in computational pathology represents a paradigm shift, moving from task-specific algorithms to versatile artificial intelligence (AI) tools capable of generalizing across diverse cancer types and diagnostic tasks. A significant challenge in clinical deployment has been the scarcity of expert-annotated histopathological data and the histological differences that hinder the broad application of conventional models [1] [15]. Foundation models, pre-trained on massive volumes of unlabeled whole slide images (WSIs), are designed to overcome these barriers by learning fundamental representations of histopathological morphology. These representations can be efficiently adapted, or fine-tuned, for downstream tasks with minimal labeled data, demonstrating remarkable generalizability [1] [16]. This Application Note details the quantitative performance and experimental protocols of such foundation models, providing a framework for their validation in cancer diagnosis and prognosis.

The generalizability of foundation models is demonstrated through their performance on a wide array of tasks, from patch-level classification to patient survival prediction. The data below summarizes key results from rigorous evaluations.

Table 1: Performance of the BEPH Foundation Model on Patch-Level Classification Tasks

Dataset	Task	Performance (Accuracy)	Comparison to Other Models
BreakHis	Binary Classification (Benign vs. Malignant)	94.05% (Patient Level)	5-10% higher than latest CNN models (Deep, SW, GLPB, RPDB) [1]
BreakHis	Binary Classification (Benign vs. Malignant)	93.65% (Image Level)	1.5-1.9% higher than best self-supervised model (MPCS-RP) [1]
LC25000	Three Lung Cancer Subtypes	99.99%	Higher than shallow-CNN, AlexNet, ResNet, VGG19, and DARC-ConvNet [1]

Table 2: WSI-Level Classification and Survival Prediction Performance of BEPH

Task Type	Cancer Type / Subtypes	Performance (Macro-Average AUC)
WSI Subtype Classification	Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC) - PRCC, CRCC, CCRCC	0.994 ± 0.0013 [1]
WSI Subtype Classification	Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) - LUAD, LUSC	0.970 ± 0.0059 [1]
WSI Subtype Classification	Breast Invasive Carcinoma (BRCA) - IDC, ILC	0.946 ± 0.019 [1]
Survival Prediction	BRCA, CRC, CCRCC, PRCC, LUAD, STAD	Significant performance improvement noted (Specific metrics in source) [1]

Beyond single-task models, multi-task learning (MTL) frameworks that integrate data from multiple cancer types have also shown enhanced performance, particularly for datasets with limited samples. For instance, an MTL approach integrating RNA-Seq and clinical data for BRCA, LUAD, and COAD led to a 26% increase in the concordance index and a 41% increase in the area under the precision-recall curve for Colon Adenocarcinoma (COAD) compared to single-task learning [17].

Experimental Protocols for Validation

To ensure the robust validation of foundation models for generalizable cancer diagnosis, the following experimental protocols are recommended. These protocols cover key tasks from patch-level classification to survival analysis.

Protocol 1: Patch-Level Cancer Diagnosis

Objective: To fine-tune and evaluate a pre-trained foundation model for the binary or multi-class classification of small image patches extracted from WSIs.

• Data Preparation:

  • Source: Obtain publicly available datasets such as BreakHis (for benign vs. malignant classification) or LC25000 (for lung cancer subtypes) [1].
  • Preprocessing: Resize images to the model's required input size (e.g., 224 X 224 pixels). While advanced patching strategies exist, a simple down-scaling of images can still yield high performance, as demonstrated with the BEPH model [1].
  • Partitioning: Randomly split the data into training, validation, and test sets at the patient level to ensure data from the same patient is confined to one set.

• Model Fine-Tuning:

  • Initialization: Load the weights of a foundation model pre-trained on a large-scale histopathology image corpus (e.g., BEPH pre-trained on 11 million patches from TCGA) [1].
  • Procedure: Replace the model's final task-specific layer with a new layer corresponding to the number of target classes. Fine-tune the entire model on the training set using a standard cross-entropy loss function and an optimizer like Adam or SGD.

• Evaluation:

  • Metrics: Calculate Accuracy at both the image and patient level. Perform multiple random runs (e.g., five) to report average performance and standard deviation [1].
  • Comparison: Benchmark the model's performance against state-of-the-art convolutional neural networks (CNNs) and self-supervised models reported in the literature.

Protocol 2: WSI-Level Cancer Subtype Classification

Objective: To perform slide-level cancer subtyping using a foundation model as a feature extractor within a multiple instance learning (MIL) framework.

• Data Preparation:

  • Source: Use WSI datasets from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), such as those for Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC), Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC), and Breast Invasive Carcinoma (BRCA) [1].
  • Patching: Segment each gigapixel WSI into hundreds or thousands of small, non-overlapping image patches (e.g., 224 X 224 pixels).

• Feature Extraction:

  • Procedure: Process each patch through the foundation model without its final classification head. Use the intermediate layer outputs as feature representations for each patch [1].
  • Output: A collection of feature vectors representing the entire WSI.

• Multiple Instance Learning (MIL):

  • Aggregation: Use an MIL aggregator (e.g., an attention mechanism) to combine the feature vectors from all patches into a single, slide-level representation [1].
  • Classification: Feed the slide-level representation into a classifier to predict the cancer subtype.

• Evaluation:

  • Metrics: Use a 10-fold cross-validation strategy. Report the macro-average Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUC) on an independent test set (e.g., 10% of WSIs), along with the standard deviation [1].

Protocol 3: Patient Survival Prediction

Objective: To predict patient survival outcomes using histopathological images and clinical data.

• Data Preparation:

  • Source: Utilize WSIs and clinical data (including survival time and event status) from resources like TCGA for cancers such as BRCA, COAD, and LUAD [1] [17].
  • Labeling: Formulate the task as a binary classification problem. For a five-year outcome window, label patients who died within five years of diagnosis as having a "poor prognosis" (1) and others as "good prognosis" (0) [17].

• Model Training:

  • Approach A (Histopathology-Based): Follow the feature extraction and MIL aggregation steps from Protocol 2. Use the resulting WSI-level features to train a survival predictor, such as a Cox proportional hazards model or a neural network classifier.
  • Approach B (Multi-Modal): Develop a bimodal neural network that integrates genomic data (e.g., RNA-Seq features selected via a systems biology feature selector) with clinical data. A multi-task learning setup can be employed to leverage data from multiple cancer types simultaneously [17].

• Evaluation:

  • Metrics: Evaluate model performance using the Concordance Index (C-index), Area Under the Precision-Recall Curve (AUPRC), and Area Under the ROC Curve (AUROC) [17].
  • Validation: Perform external validation on datasets from different institutions or use cross-validation within the primary dataset.

The following table catalogues essential datasets, models, and computational tools critical for developing and benchmarking generalizable AI models in computational pathology.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Resources

Resource Name	Type	Description	Key Function in Research
The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA)	Dataset	A comprehensive public database containing molecular and clinical data for over 32 cancer types, including WSIs [1].	Primary source of histopathological images for large-scale pre-training and task-specific fine-tuning.
BEPH Model	Foundation Model	A BEiT-based model pre-trained on 11 million histopathological images from TCGA using Masked Image Modeling [1] [16].	A versatile feature extractor that can be fine-tuned for various downstream tasks with high label efficiency.
BEETLE Dataset	Dataset	BrEast cancEr hisTopathoLogy sEgmentation dataset; a multicentric dataset for breast cancer segmentation with annotations across four classes [18].	Provides high-quality, diverse data for benchmarking model generalizability, especially for segmentation tasks.
Adversarial Fourier-based Domain Adaptation (AIDA)	Algorithm	A domain adaptation method that uses Fourier transforms to make models less sensitive to color variations (amplitude) and focus on shape (phase) [19].	Improves model generalizability across multi-center data by addressing the domain shift problem.
Multi-Task Learning (MTL) Bimodal Network	Algorithm/Architecture	A neural network designed to learn from multiple cancer types (tasks) and integrate different data modalities (e.g., RNA-Seq and clinical data) [17].	Enhances prognosis prediction, especially for cancer types with limited data, by leveraging shared patterns.

The experimental data and protocols outlined in this document underscore the transformative potential of foundation models in computational pathology. By demonstrating state-of-the-art performance across a spectrum of diagnostic tasks—from patch-level classification to complex WSI-level subtyping and survival prediction—models like BEPH establish a new benchmark for generalizability. The integration of multi-modal data and domain adaptation techniques further enhances their robustness across diverse clinical settings. As these tools become publicly available, they promise to accelerate biomarker discovery, standardize pathological diagnosis, and ultimately, contribute to the advancement of precision oncology.

Architectures in Action: Building and Applying Pathology Foundation Models

Computational pathology, which uses whole slide images (WSIs) for diagnostic purposes, faces significant challenges including the scarcity of annotated data and histological differences across cancer types that hinder the general application of artificial intelligence (AI) methods [1]. Conventional approaches often rely on models pre-trained on natural image datasets like ImageNet, but the inherent differences between natural images and histopathological images limit their performance [1]. The BEPH (BEiT-based model Pre-training on Histopathological image) foundation model addresses these limitations by leveraging self-supervised learning on massive unlabeled histopathological data, establishing a robust framework for generalizable cancer diagnosis and survival prediction [1] [20].

BEPH Model Architecture and Pre-training Methodology

Model Design and Theoretical Foundation

BEPH employs a transformer-based architecture built upon the BEiTv2 framework, which utilizes masked image modeling (MIM) as its core pre-training strategy [1] [21]. Unlike contrastive learning methods that require constructing positive and negative sample pairs - challenging in histopathology due to strong inter-image resemblance - MIM is designed to reconstruct obscured image features and has demonstrated superior performance in downstream task fine-tuning [1]. The model was initialized with weights pre-trained on ImageNet-1k natural images before further pre-training on histopathological data, leveraging transfer learning to enhance feature representation [1].

Data Curation and Pre-processing Pipeline

The pre-training dataset was constructed from 11,760 whole-slide images covering 32 different cancer types from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) [1] [20]. Through a rigorous sampling process, these WSIs were processed into 11.77 million patches of 224×224 pixels, creating a dataset approximately 10 times larger than ImageNet-1K [1]. The pre-processing workflow involved multiple critical steps to ensure data quality and suitability for training, as visualized below:

Diagram 1: BEPH Data Pre-processing and Pre-training Workflow. The pipeline processes thousands of whole-slide images through sampling, filtering, and patching stages to generate millions of training patches.

Each patch was sampled from image regions of 1024×224×224 pixels (approximately 1024 images per pathological image), with a quality control filter ensuring that sampled regions contained at least 75% tissue area [21]. These regions were then cropped into 224×224 tiles at 40X magnification while maintaining the tissue proportion threshold [21].

Pre-training Implementation

The self-supervised pre-training employed the masked image modeling approach, where portions of input images are randomly masked and the model is trained to reconstruct the missing features [1]. This methodology enables the model to learn meaningful representations of histopathological images without requiring expert annotations, significantly reducing the reliance on labeled data [1] [20]. The complete technical implementation is available through the official GitHub repository, including scripts for data processing and model training [21].

Experimental Framework and Performance Benchmarking

Patch-Level Classification Experiments

The first evaluation assessed BEPH's performance on patch-level classification tasks using the BreakHis dataset for binary classification (benign vs. malignant tumors) and the LC25000 dataset for lung cancer subtype classification [1]. For BreakHis, images were downscaled by a factor of 3.125 to 224×224 pixels, intentionally sacrificing image details to test robustness [1]. The results demonstrated BEPH's superior performance compared to existing models:

Table 1: Patch-Level Classification Performance on BreakHis Dataset

Model Type	Specific Model	Patient-Level ACC (%)	Image-Level ACC (%)
Foundation Models	BEPH	94.05 ± 1.3875	93.65 ± 0.6730
CNN Models	Deep [1]	~84-89	~83-88
	SW [1]	~84-89	~83-88
	GLPB [1]	~84-89	~83-88
Weakly Supervised	MIL-NP [1]	~84-89	~83-88
	MILCNN [1]	~84-89	~83-88
Self-Supervised	MPCS-RP [1]	~92.15	~92.15

On the LC25000 lung cancer dataset, BEPH achieved remarkable accuracy of 99.99% ± 0.03 across three lung cancer subtypes, outperforming established architectures including shallow-CNN, AlexNet, ResNet, VGG19, EfficientNet-B0, and the self-supervised model DARC-ConvNet [1].

WSI-Level Classification and Survival Prediction

For whole slide image analysis, BEPH was integrated with a multiple instance learning (MIL) framework where it served as the feature extractor [1] [22]. The model was evaluated on three critical clinical diagnostic tasks: renal cell carcinoma (RCC) subtypes, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) subtypes, and nonspecific invasive breast cancer (BRCA) subtypes [1]. The workflow for WSI-level analysis illustrates how BEPH processes gigapixel whole slide images:

Diagram 2: BEPH WSI-Level Analysis Workflow. The model processes gigapixel whole slide images through patching, feature extraction using BEPH, and aggregation for slide-level predictions.

The WSI-level classification performance across multiple cancer types demonstrated consistently superior results:

Table 2: WSI-Level Classification Performance Across Cancer Types

Cancer Type	Subtypes	Macro-Average AUC	Performance Benchmark
Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC)	PRCC, CRCC, CCRCC	0.994 ± 0.0013	Superior to existing weakly supervised models
Breast Cancer (BRCA)	IDC, ILC	0.946 ± 0.019	Consistent outperformance across data reductions
Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC)	LUAD, LUSC	0.970 ± 0.0059	Maintains performance with 50% training data

For survival prediction, BEPH was evaluated on multiple cancer types including BRCA, CRC, CCRCC, PRCC, LUAD, and STAD [1]. The model demonstrated significant improvements over baseline approaches, enhancing ResNet and DINO by an average of 6.44% and 3.28%, respectively, on survival prediction tasks [23].

Interpretability and Attention Analysis

Critical for clinical adoption, BEPH's decision-making process was evaluated through heatmap analysis comparing model attention regions with expert pathologist annotations [20]. The visualization demonstrated that BEPH's attention regions (highlighted in red) aligned closely with cancerous regions identified by pathologists, with focused attention on cancerous regions and their boundaries rather than random tissue areas [20]. This precise localization enhances reliability and trust in the model's predictions for clinical applications.

Research Reagent Solutions: Essential Materials for Implementation

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Resources for BEPH Implementation

Resource Category	Specific Resource	Function in Workflow	Source/Reference
Histopathology Data	TCGA WSIs (32 cancer types)	Pre-training and evaluation	The Cancer Genome Atlas [1]
Benchmark Datasets	BreakHis	Patch-level classification	[1]
	LC25000	Lung cancer subtype classification	[1]
Computational Framework	BEiTv2	Masked image modeling implementation	[1]
Implementation Code	CLAM	Multiple instance learning framework	[21]
Evaluation Metrics	AUC, Accuracy	Performance quantification	[1]

Experimental Protocols and Implementation Guidelines

Pre-training Protocol

For researchers seeking to replicate or build upon BEPH's methodology, the pre-training protocol involves:

• Data Acquisition and Curation: Download diagnostic whole-slide images for 32 cancer types using the GDC Data Transfer Tool [21].
• Patch Generation: Sample image regions of 1024×224×224 from each pathological image, ensuring sampled regions maintain >75% tissue proportion [21].
• Pre-processing: Crop sampled regions into 224×224 tiles at 40X magnification while maintaining tissue proportion threshold [21].
• Model Configuration: Implement BEiT-based architecture with masked image modeling pre-training approach [1].
• Training Schedule: Initialize with ImageNet pre-trained weights, then continue pre-training on the collected pathology images [1].

Fine-tuning for Downstream Tasks

The adaptation of BEPH for specific clinical applications follows a structured fine-tuning protocol:

• Task-Specific Data Preparation: For patch-level tasks, resize images to 224×224 pixels [1]. For WSI-level tasks, implement multiple instance learning framework with BEPH as feature extractor [1] [22].
• Model Adaptation: Replace pre-training head with task-specific classification layers while maintaining frozen backbone initially [1].
• Evaluation Framework: Implement k-fold cross-validation (typically 10-fold) with independent test set validation [1]. Use macro-average AUC for imbalanced datasets and accuracy for balanced classification tasks [1].

Computational Requirements

The original implementation utilized high-performance computing resources, with specific requirements detailed in the published work [20]. The model is implemented in PyTorch, with detailed code available through the GitHub repository [21].

The BEPH foundation model represents a significant advancement in computational pathology by demonstrating strong generalizability across diverse cancer types and clinical tasks including diagnosis, subtyping, and survival prediction [1] [20]. Its self-supervised pre-training on 11 million histopathological images effectively addresses the critical challenge of annotation scarcity in medical AI [1]. The model's robust performance with reduced data requirements positions it as a practical solution for clinical environments where labeled data is limited [20] [23]. By providing publicly available pre-trained weights and implementation code, BEPH serves as a foundational resource for accelerating research and development in AI-powered computational pathology, potentially bridging the gap between experimental AI models and clinically deployable diagnostic tools [21].

Foundation models, trained on broad data using self-supervision at scale, represent a paradigm shift in computational pathology by providing a versatile base that can be adapted to a wide range of downstream diagnostic and prognostic tasks [24]. These models address critical limitations of traditional approaches, which often require training specialized deep neural networks for each narrow diagnostic task—a process hampered by the scarcity of annotated data and poor generalization across different cancer types and imaging domains [8]. By leveraging self-supervised learning (SSL) on massive unlabeled histopathological image datasets, foundation models learn meaningful representations of cellular morphologies and tissue architecture that capture underlying biological structures without the need for extensive manual annotation [1] [2]. This approach has demonstrated remarkable success across various adaptation scenarios, from patch-level classification to whole-slide image (WSI) analysis and multimodal integration, ultimately enabling more accurate cancer diagnosis, subtype classification, mutation prediction, and survival analysis [1] [8] [2].

Current foundation models in computational pathology employ diverse architectural strategies and training methodologies. The BEPH (BEiT-based model Pre-training on Histopathological image) framework utilizes masked image modeling (MIM) pre-training on 11.77 million histopathological image patches from 32 cancer types, leveraging the BEiTv2 architecture to learn generalized representations that transfer effectively to multiple downstream tasks [1]. In contrast, the CHIEF (Clinical Histopathology Imaging Evaluation Foundation) model employs a dual pretraining approach combining unsupervised pretraining on 15 million unlabeled image tiles for tile-level feature identification with weakly supervised pretraining on over 60,000 WSIs for whole-slide pattern recognition [8]. Meanwhile, TITAN (Transformer-based pathology Image and Text Alignment Network) introduces a multimodal framework that aligns histopathological images with corresponding pathology reports and synthetic captions, enabling cross-modal retrieval and zero-shot classification capabilities [2].

These models fundamentally enhance generalizability across diverse data sources by learning domain-invariant features that remain robust to variations in slide preparation, staining protocols, and digitization scanners—a significant advancement over traditional models that often experience substantial performance degradation when applied to images from different institutions or processing protocols [8].

Table 1: Comparison of Major Pathology Foundation Models

Model	Architecture	Pretraining Data	Adaptation Method	Key Capabilities
BEPH [1]	BEiT-based (MIM)	11.77M patches from 32 cancer types	Fine-tuning, MIL	Patch & WSI classification, survival prediction
CHIEF [8]	Dual pretraining (unsupervised + weakly supervised)	15M tiles + 60,530 WSIs	Weakly supervised learning	Cancer detection, tumor origin, genomic prediction
TITAN [2]	Vision Transformer + language alignment	335,645 WSIs + pathology reports	Zero-shot, linear probing	Cross-modal retrieval, report generation

Quantitative Performance Comparison

Foundation models have demonstrated exceptional performance across multiple cancer types and diagnostic tasks. In patch-level classification on the BreakHis dataset for binary benign/malignant classification, BEPH achieved an average accuracy of 94.05% at the patient level and 93.65% at the image level, outperforming conventional CNN models and weakly supervised approaches by 5-10% [1]. For WSI-level classification tasks, BEPH attained remarkable AUC scores across multiple cancer subtypes: 0.994 for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) subtypes, 0.946 for breast cancer (BRCA) subtypes, and 0.970 for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) subtypes [1].

The CHIEF model demonstrated robust generalizability across 15 independent datasets comprising 13,661 WSIs spanning 11 cancer types, achieving a macro-average AUROC of 0.9397 for cancer detection—approximately 10-14% higher than baseline methods including CLAM, ABMIL, and DSMIL [8]. In genomic mutation prediction, CHIEF identified nine genes with AUROCs greater than 0.8 in pan-cancer analysis, successfully predicting mutations in clinically relevant genes including TP53, CTNNB1, and IDH1/2 from histopathological images alone [8].

For hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) specifically, models leveraging histopathological image features achieved outstanding performance in predicting somatic mutations including TERT promoter (AUC = 0.926), TP53 (AUC = 0.893), and CTNNB1 (AUC = 0.885), demonstrating the capability of these approaches to capture molecular features from morphological patterns [25].

Table 2: Performance Metrics of Foundation Models Across Cancer Types and Tasks

Task	Cancer Type	Model	Performance	Baseline Comparison
Patch Classification	Breast Cancer	BEPH	ACC: 94.05% (patient), 93.65% (image)	5-10% higher than CNN models [1]
WSI Subtype Classification	RCC	BEPH	AUC: 0.994 ± 0.0013	Superior to existing methods [1]
WSI Subtype Classification	BRCA	BEPH	AUC: 0.946 ± 0.019	Superior to existing methods [1]
WSI Subtype Classification	NSCLC	BEPH	AUC: 0.970 ± 0.0059	Superior to existing methods [1]
Cancer Detection	Pan-cancer (11 types)	CHIEF	AUROC: 0.9397	10-14% higher than CLAM, ABMIL, DSMIL [8]
Mutation Prediction	HCC	Image Features	TERT AUC: 0.926, TP53 AUC: 0.893	Demonstrates molecular feature capture [25]
Survival Prediction	HCC	Multi-platform Model	5-year AUC: 0.904	Superior to single-platform models [25]

Experimental Protocols for Model Adaptation

Protocol 1: Patch-Level Classification Using BEPH

Objective: Fine-tune BEPH for patch-level binary classification of breast cancer histopathology images.

Materials:

• BreakHis dataset containing 7,909 breast cancer histopathology images collected from 82 patients [1]
• Pre-trained BEPH model weights
• Computational environment with GPU acceleration

Procedure:

• Data Preparation:
  • Resize all images to 224 × 224 pixels using a downscaling factor of 3.125
  • Apply color normalization to address staining variations across samples
  • Split data into training (70%), validation (15%), and test (15%) sets, ensuring patient-level separation

• Model Adaptation:

  • Load pre-trained BEPH weights, initialize classification head with random weights
  • Set initial layers as frozen, fine-tune last three transformer blocks plus classification head
  • Use AdamW optimizer with learning rate of 5e-5, weight decay of 0.05
  • Employ cross-entropy loss function with label smoothing (factor=0.1)

• Training:

  • Train for 100 epochs with batch size of 64
  • Implement learning rate warmup for first 10% of iterations followed by cosine decay
  • Apply random horizontal flipping, color jitter, and Gaussian blur for augmentation

• Evaluation:

  • Calculate accuracy, sensitivity, specificity at both image and patient levels
  • Compare performance across different magnification levels (40X, 100X, 200X, 400X)
  • Conduct five independent runs with different random seeds to ensure statistical significance

Expected Outcomes: The adapted model should achieve >94% accuracy in distinguishing benign from malignant breast tissues, outperforming traditional CNN-based approaches by significant margins [1].

Protocol 2: WSI-Level Classification with Multiple Instance Learning

Objective: Adapt foundation models for WSI-level subtype classification using weakly supervised multiple instance learning.

Materials:

• TCGA WSI datasets for target cancer types (BRCA, NSCLC, RCC)
• Pre-trained feature extractor (BEPH or CHIEF)
• Computational resources capable of processing gigapixel whole-slide images

Procedure:

• WSI Processing:
  • Segment tissue regions using Otsu thresholding or semantic segmentation approaches
  • Patch extraction: Tile WSIs into non-overlapping 224×224 or 256×256 patches at 20× magnification
  • Filter out patches with less than 30% tissue content using intensity thresholding

• Feature Extraction:

  • Process each patch through pre-trained foundation model to extract feature embeddings
  • Aggregate patch-level features into a feature matrix representing the entire WSI
  • Reduce feature dimensionality using PCA (optional) for computational efficiency

• MIL Model Architecture:

  • Implement attention-based MIL pooling to learn weighted combinations of informative patches
  • Design attention branch with two fully-connected layers and tanh activation
  • Add classification head with softmax activation for subtype prediction

• Training Strategy:

  • Use Adam optimizer with learning rate 1e-4, trained for 100 epochs
  • Apply early stopping with patience of 15 epochs based on validation loss
  • Utilize weighted cross-entropy loss to handle class imbalance

• Interpretation and Visualization:

  • Generate attention heatmaps overlayed on original WSIs to highlight regions of high diagnostic value
  • Correlate high-attention regions with known pathological features for clinical validation

Expected Outcomes: The adapted model should achieve AUC >0.94 for BRCA subtype classification and >0.99 for RCC subtype classification, with attention maps aligning well with pathologist-annotated regions of interest [1].

Protocol 3: Multimodal Integration with Pathology Reports

Objective: Align histopathological image representations with textual pathology reports for cross-modal retrieval.

Materials:

• Paired WSI and pathology report dataset (e.g., 183k pairs from TITAN pretraining)
• Pre-trained vision encoder (TITANV) and language encoder (ClinicalBERT)
• Synthetic caption generation model (PathChat) [2]

Procedure:

• Data Preprocessing:
  • Generate synthetic fine-grained captions for ROI crops using PathChat model
  • Preprocess clinical reports: de-identification, tokenization, and vocabulary construction
  • Create balanced dataset covering 20 organ types with diverse staining protocols

• Vision-Language Pretraining:

  • Implement contrastive learning to align image and text embeddings in shared latent space
  • Use image-text matching as pretraining task with hard negative mining
  • Employ cross-modal attention layers to enable fine-grained alignment between image regions and text tokens

• Model Architecture:

  • Vision encoder: TITANV transformer processing feature grids from patch encoders
  • Text encoder: Transformer-based model with clinical domain vocabulary
  • Projection heads to map both modalities to shared embedding space

• Training Objectives:

  • Contrastive loss (InfoNCE) to maximize similarity between matched image-text pairs
  • Masked language modeling loss to enhance text understanding
  • Image-text matching loss as binary classification task

• Downstream Application:

  • Zero-shot classification: Use text prompts of diagnostic categories to classify images
  • Cross-modal retrieval: Query images with text descriptions and vice versa
  • Report generation: Conditioned on WSI features, generate preliminary pathology findings

Expected Outcomes: The adapted model should enable cross-modal retrieval with >0.75 recall@10 and generate clinically relevant pathology reports that align with ground truth diagnoses [2].

Visualization of Workflows and Signaling Pathways

Foundation Model Adaptation Workflow: This diagram illustrates the three-phase process of adapting pathology foundation models, from self-supervised pretraining on unlabeled data to various adaptation methods and downstream applications.

TITAN Multimodal Architecture: This diagram outlines the TITAN multimodal framework that processes whole-slide images and textual data through parallel pathways, aligning them in a shared embedding space to enable cross-modal applications [2].

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools for Foundation Model Adaptation

Resource	Type	Function in Research	Example/Implementation
Whole-Slide Image Datasets	Data	Model pretraining and validation	TCGA (The Cancer Genome Atlas): 32 cancer types [1]
Patch Extraction Tools	Software	Divide WSIs into analyzable patches	Openslide-Python: Extract non-overlapping patches [25]
Feature Extractors	Model	Convert image patches to feature vectors	CONCHv1.5: Extract 768-dimensional features [2]
Multiple Instance Learning Frameworks	Algorithm	Aggregate patch-level predictions to slide-level	Attention-MIL: Weighted combination of patch features [1]
Multimodal Alignment Models	Architecture	Align visual and textual representations	TITAN: Contrastive learning for image-text alignment [2]
Synthetic Data Generators	Tool	Generate training data and captions	PathChat: Create fine-grained morphological descriptions [2]
Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA)	Method	Parameter-efficient fine-tuning	LoRA: Decompose weight updates into low-rank matrices [26]

Foundation models represent a transformative approach in computational pathology, enabling robust adaptation to diverse downstream tasks from patch-level classification to slide-level prognosis prediction. Through sophisticated adaptation protocols including fine-tuning, multiple instance learning, and multimodal alignment, these models leverage knowledge gained from large-scale self-supervised pretraining to achieve state-of-the-art performance across multiple cancer types and diagnostic tasks. The integration of histopathological images with multimodal data sources, including genomic profiles and clinical reports, further enhances their predictive capability and clinical utility. As these models continue to evolve, they hold significant promise for standardizing pathological diagnosis, identifying novel morphological biomarkers, and ultimately improving patient care through more accurate and personalized cancer management.

The advent of foundation models is heralding a transformative era in computational pathology, shifting the paradigm from training task-specific models for individual diagnostic challenges to developing general-purpose artificial intelligence (AI) systems [8]. These models, pre-trained on massive, diverse datasets of histopathological images, learn universal representations of tissue morphology that can be efficiently adapted to a wide array of downstream tasks with minimal labeled data [27]. This approach directly addresses critical limitations that have hindered traditional AI models, including their limited generalizability across different cancer types, imaging protocols, and healthcare institutions, as well as their heavy reliance on costly expert annotations [1] [8]. This application note provides a comprehensive benchmarking analysis of the performance of these foundation models on two fundamental tasks in computational pathology: patch-level classification and whole slide image (WSI)-level classification, detailing experimental protocols and key resources for researchers in the field.

Benchmarking Patch-Level Classification

Patch-level classification involves the analysis of small, segmented regions of tissue, typically a few hundred pixels in dimension. This task is fundamental for identifying local morphological features indicative of disease.

Performance Benchmarking on Public Datasets

Foundation models have demonstrated exceptional performance on standard patch-level classification benchmarks, often significantly outperforming traditional convolutional neural networks (CNNs) and earlier self-supervised learning approaches. The table below summarizes the quantitative performance of the BEPH foundation model on two key public datasets.

Table 1: Patch-level classification performance of the BEPH foundation model on public datasets.

Dataset	Task Description	Model	Performance (Accuracy)	Comparison with Previous Best
BreakHis [1]	Binary classification (Benign vs. Malignant) at patient level	BEPH	94.05% ± 1.39	~5-10% higher than reported CNN models (Deep, SW, GLPB, RPDB)
BreakHis [1]	Binary classification (Benign vs. Malignant) at image level	BEPH	93.65% ± 0.67	~5-10% higher than reported CNN models; 1.5% higher than MPCS-RP
LC25000 [1]	3-class lung cancer subtyping	BEPH	99.99% ± 0.03	Higher than shallow-CNN, AlexNet, ResNet, VGG19, EfficientNet-B0, DARC-ConvNet

The BEPH model, which leverages masked image modeling (MIM) pre-training on 11.77 million histopathological patches from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), showcases strong generalizability across different cancer types and robustness to variations in image magnification [1]. Its performance on the BreakHis dataset is particularly notable as it was achieved even after downscaling images, resulting in a loss of fine details, underscoring the model's ability to learn meaningful and robust feature representations [1].

Experimental Protocol: Patch-Level Classification

Objective: To fine-tune a pre-trained pathology foundation model for a specific patch-level classification task (e.g., benign/malignant, or cancer subtype classification).

Materials:

• Hardware: A high-performance workstation with at least one modern GPU (e.g., NVIDIA A100, RTX 4090) is recommended for efficient fine-tuning.
• Software: Python (v3.8+), PyTorch or TensorFlow, and associated libraries for handling whole slide images (e.g., OpenSlide).
• Model: A publicly available pre-trained foundation model. For this protocol, we reference the BEPH model, available at: https://github.com/Zhcyoung/BEPH [1].
• Dataset: A labeled patch dataset. The protocol can be validated using the BreakHis (breast cancer) or LC25000 (lung cancer) datasets.

Procedure:

• Data Preprocessing:
  • Patch Extraction (if starting from WSIs): Using a tool like OpenSlide, extract patches of size 224x224 pixels from the tissue regions of WSIs, excluding background areas.
  • Data Splitting: Randomly split the patch dataset into training (70%), validation (15%), and test (15%) sets. Ensure patches from the same patient are contained within a single split to prevent data leakage.
  • Data Augmentation: Apply standard image augmentation techniques to the training patches, such as random rotation, flipping, color jitter (to account for staining variations), and blurring.

• Model Fine-Tuning:

  • Model Loading: Initialize the model architecture (e.g., Vision Transformer) and load the weights from the pre-trained BEPH checkpoint.
  • Classifier Head: Replace the pre-training head (e.g., the MIM decoder) with a new, randomly initialized classification head suitable for the number of target classes.
  • Training Loop: Train the model on the training set. It is recommended to use a low learning rate (e.g., 1e-5 to 1e-4) for the pre-trained backbone and a higher one for the new classification head. Use a standard cross-entropy loss function and an optimizer like AdamW.

• Validation and Model Selection:

  • Evaluation: Monitor the model's accuracy and loss on the validation set after each training epoch.
  • Early Stopping: Implement an early stopping mechanism to halt training if the validation performance does not improve for a pre-defined number of epochs (e.g., 10). Save the model checkpoint with the best validation performance.

• Testing and Reporting:

  • Final Evaluation: Evaluate the best-performing saved model on the held-out test set.
  • Metrics: Report standard classification metrics, including Accuracy, Precision, Recall, F1-Score, and the Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUC-ROC).

The following workflow diagram illustrates the fine-tuning protocol for patch-level classification:

Benchmarking WSI-Level Classification

WSI-level classification represents a more complex challenge, as it requires aggregating information from thousands of patches within a gigapixel image to predict a single slide-level label, such as cancer subtype.

Performance Benchmarking on TCGA Cancer Subtypes

Foundation models have shown state-of-the-art performance in WSI-level classification across multiple cancer types. The table below details the performance of BEPH on subtype classification tasks using TCGA data.

Table 2: WSI-level cancer subtype classification performance of the BEPH foundation model on TCGA datasets.

Cancer Type	Subtypes (Number)	Evaluation Metric	Model	Performance
Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC) [1]	PRCC, CRCC, CCRCC (3)	Macro-average AUC	BEPH	0.994 ± 0.0013
Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) [1]	LUAD, LUSC (2)	Macro-average AUC	BEPH	0.970 ± 0.0059
Breast Cancer (BRCA) [1]	IDC, ILC (2)	Macro-average AUC	BEPH	0.946 ± 0.019

The CHIEF foundation model, which combines unsupervised tile-level and weakly supervised WSI-level pre-training on over 60,000 slides, has also demonstrated remarkable generalizability. In external validations across 15 independent datasets comprising 13,661 WSIs from 11 cancer types, CHIEF achieved a macro-average AUROC of 0.940 for cancer detection, outperforming other weakly supervised methods like CLAM, ABMIL, and DSMIL by 10-14% [8]. This highlights the capability of foundation models to effectively handle the domain shifts commonly encountered in multi-institutional data.

Experimental Protocol: WSI-Level Classification with Multiple Instance Learning

Objective: To train a model for WSI-level classification (e.g., cancer subtyping) using a pre-trained foundation model as a feature extractor within a Multiple Instance Learning (MIL) framework.

Materials:

• Hardware: Similar to the patch-level protocol, a powerful GPU is recommended.
• Software: Same as above, with additional need for MIL libraries (can be implemented in PyTorch).
• Model: A pre-trained foundation model (e.g., BEPH, CHIEF, UNI) to be used as a fixed feature extractor.
• Dataset: A set of WSIs with slide-level labels. The protocol can be validated using public TCGA WSI datasets for RCC, NSCLC, or BRCA.

Procedure:

• Feature Extraction:
  • Patch Extraction: For each WSI in the dataset, extract a set of non-overlapping 224x224 pixel patches from the tissue regions.
  • Feature Embedding: Pass each patch through the pre-trained foundation model (with its classification head removed) to obtain a feature vector for each patch. This results in a set of feature vectors (a "bag") for each WSI.

• MIL Model Training:

  • Model Architecture: Construct an MIL model. A common approach is to use an attention-based MIL aggregator (e.g., ABMIL). This architecture consists of:
    • Feature Encoder (Frozen): The pre-trained foundation model, which is typically frozen during this stage to avoid overfitting.
    • Attention Network: A small neural network that learns to assign an importance weight to each patch in the WSI.
    • Aggregator: A component that computes a weighted sum of the patch features based on the attention weights to form a single, slide-level feature representation.
    • Classifier: A final linear layer that takes the slide-level representation and predicts the slide-level label.
  • Training: Train the MIL aggregator and classifier on the extracted features using the slide-level labels. The loss is computed only at the slide level.

• Validation and Testing:

  • Follow a similar process to the patch-level protocol: use a validation set for model selection and early stopping, and report final metrics on a held-out test set. Common metrics include AUC-ROC and Accuracy.

The workflow for WSI-level classification is more complex, involving feature extraction and aggregation, as shown below:

Successful development and benchmarking of foundation models in computational pathology rely on a suite of key resources, from datasets to model architectures.

Table 3: Essential resources for research on foundation models in computational pathology.

Resource Type	Name	Description	Function in Research
Public Datasets	The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA)	A comprehensive public database containing WSIs, genomic, and clinical data for over 30 cancer types [1] [8].	Primary source for large-scale pre-training and benchmarking of foundation models.
Public Datasets	BreakHis, LC25000	Curated, smaller datasets of histopathological image patches for breast and lung cancer, respectively [1].	Used for evaluating patch-level classification performance and model generalizability.
Foundation Models	BEPH	A BEiT-based foundation model pre-trained on 11.77 million patches from TCGA using Masked Image Modeling [1].	Serves as a strong, publicly available pre-trained checkpoint for fine-tuning on downstream tasks.
Foundation Models	CHIEF	A foundation model employing dual unsupervised and weakly-supervised pre-training on 60,530 WSIs [8].	Demonstrates generalizability across cancer types and tasks; a benchmark for WSI-level analysis.
Foundation Models	UNI, Virchow	Other leading foundation models trained on massive datasets (100M+ patches) from diverse sources [27].	Provide alternative architectures and pre-training paradigms for comparative studies.
Computational Framework	Multiple Instance Learning (MIL)	A weakly supervised learning paradigm where labels are assigned to bags (WSIs) rather than instances (patches) [1] [8].	The standard framework for adapting patch-level feature extractors to WSI-level classification tasks.
Validation Metric	Area Under the Curve (AUC)	A performance metric for classification models that evaluates the trade-off between true positive and false positive rates.	The standard metric for reporting and comparing model performance on classification tasks in histopathology.

Foundation models are revolutionizing computational pathology by moving beyond diagnostic tasks to address two of oncology's most significant challenges: predicting patient survival and discovering novel biomarkers. These models, pretrained on vast datasets of histopathological whole-slide images (WSIs), learn fundamental representations of tissue morphology that can be transferred to various downstream clinical prediction tasks with minimal fine-tuning [2] [8]. This paradigm shift enables the development of robust, generalizable artificial intelligence (AI) systems that extract prognostically relevant information from routine hematoxylin and eosin (H&E)-stained slides - the standard in pathological evaluation.

The clinical impact is substantial. Accurate survival prediction facilitates personalized treatment planning, while novel computational biomarkers can identify patients likely to benefit from specific therapies, particularly in resource-limited settings where comprehensive genomic profiling remains challenging [28] [29]. This Application Note details experimental protocols and analytical frameworks for leveraging foundation models in these critical applications, emphasizing practical implementation and validation strategies suitable for research and clinical translation.

Foundation Models in Computational Pathology

Model Architectures and Pretraining Approaches

Current pathology foundation models employ diverse architectures and pretraining strategies to learn general-purpose representations from gigapixel WSIs. The TITAN (Transformer-based pathology Image and Text Alignment Network) model exemplifies this approach, utilizing a three-stage pretraining process: (1) vision-only self-supervised learning on 335,645 WSIs, (2) cross-modal alignment with synthetic fine-grained region-of-interest captions, and (3) cross-modal alignment with pathology reports [2]. This multi-stage approach enables the model to learn both visual features and their semantic relationships to pathological descriptions.

The CHIEF (Clinical Histopathology Imaging Evaluation Foundation) model employs a complementary strategy, combining unsupervised pretraining on 15 million image tiles with weakly supervised pretraining on 60,530 WSIs across 19 anatomical sites [8]. This dual approach captures both cellular-level morphological features and slide-level tissue context, providing a comprehensive representation of tumor histology. These models typically use Vision Transformers (ViTs) to process sequences of patch features extracted from WSIs, employing specialized position encoding schemes like Attention with Linear Biases (ALiBi) to handle the long sequences characteristic of whole-slide data [2].

Advantages Over Task-Specific Models

Foundation models address critical limitations of traditional task-specific approaches in computational pathology. By learning from diverse datasets encompassing multiple cancer types, staining protocols, and scanner platforms, these models develop robust representations that generalize effectively across domains [8]. This reduces performance degradation when applied to images from institutions not represented in the training data - a significant challenge for conventional AI models. Additionally, the pretraining process allows foundation models to achieve strong performance with limited task-specific labels, making them particularly valuable for rare cancers or molecular subtypes where annotated data is scarce [2].

Table 1: Comparison of Pathology Foundation Models

Model	Pretraining Data	Architecture	Key Capabilities	Reference
TITAN	335,645 WSIs + 423K synthetic captions + 183K reports	Vision Transformer	Slide representation, zero-shot classification, report generation	[2]
CHIEF	60,530 WSIs + 15M image tiles	CNN + attention mechanisms	Cancer detection, tumor origin, mutation prediction, survival	[8]
EAGLE	Fine-tuned foundation model on 5,174 LUAD slides	Weakly supervised CNN	EGFR mutation prediction from H&E slides	[29]

Survival Prediction Protocols

Deep Learning-Based Prognostic Stratification

Survival prediction models leverage the feature representations learned by foundation models to forecast patient outcomes based on histomorphological patterns. A comprehensive protocol for developing such a system involves multiple stages, from data preparation to model validation, with specific methodological considerations at each step.

Data Preparation and Whole-Slide Image Processing: Begin with collecting H&E-stained WSIs from resected tumor specimens with corresponding clinical follow-up data, including overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) times and censoring indicators [30]. The minimum sample size should exceed 400 patients across multiple institutions to ensure adequate statistical power and diversity. WSIs are processed by dividing them into non-overlapping 224×224 pixel tiles at 20× magnification, filtering out tiles with less than 60% tissue coverage [31]. Apply color normalization using Macenko's method to address staining variability between institutions [32].

Feature Extraction and Risk Modeling: Process the tiles through a pretrained foundation model to extract feature representations. For survival prediction, train a Cox proportional hazards model using these features as inputs [31]. Alternatively, employ attention-based multiple instance learning architectures to aggregate tile-level features into slide-level representations while identifying prognostically relevant regions [30]. Validate the model's discrimination performance using the concordance index (C-index) and stratify patients into risk groups based on the model-predicted risk scores, comparing survival outcomes between groups using Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank tests.

Validation and Clinical Implementation: Perform both internal validation through bootstrapping or cross-validation and external validation on completely independent cohorts from different institutions [30]. For clinical translation, conduct prospective silent trials where the model processes cases in real-time without directly influencing patient care, allowing assessment of real-world performance and workflow integration [29].

Diagram 1: Survival prediction workflow. The process begins with whole-slide image digitalization and progresses through multiple computational steps to generate validated risk stratification.

Quantitative Performance in Survival Prediction

Recent studies demonstrate the strong performance of foundation model-based survival prediction across multiple cancer types. The table below summarizes key results from validation studies:

Table 2: Performance of Deep Learning Survival Prediction Models

Cancer Type	Model	Dataset	Performance	Reference
Colorectal Cancer	Attention-based deep survival model	4,428 patients from 4 cohorts	HR=4.50 for OS, HR=8.35 for DSS in internal test	[30]
Small Cell Lung Cancer	PathoSig (DL-CC)	380 patients, multicenter	Significant stratification in OS (log-rank p=0.030)	[31]
Colorectal Cancer	DeepConvSurv + tissue features	TCGA-COAD dataset	C-index=0.704 with RIDGE-Cox	[32]
Colorectal Cancer	End-to-end deep learning	External test set (n=1,395)	HR=3.08 for DSS in external validation	[30]

Biomarker Discovery Protocols

Molecular Biomarker Prediction from H&E Slides

Foundation models can identify molecular biomarkers directly from routine H&E-stained pathology slides, offering a rapid, cost-effective alternative to molecular testing that preserves tissue for additional analyses. The EAGLE (EGFR AI Genomic Lung Evaluation) model provides a validated protocol for this application [29].

Sample Selection and Data Preparation: Collect H&E-stained WSIs from diagnostic biopsies or surgical resections with corresponding molecular testing results as ground truth. For EGFR mutation prediction in lung adenocarcinoma, include at least 5,000 slides for training, with balanced representation of mutant and wild-type cases [29]. Ensure diverse scanner platforms and preparation protocols are represented to enhance model robustness. Slides should be annotated with tumor regions by pathologists, though fully automated approaches can use weakly supervised methods without detailed annotations.

Model Development and Fine-Tuning: Leverage a pretrained pathology foundation model as a feature extractor, processing each WSI as a collection of tiles from tumor regions. Apply multiple instance learning to aggregate tile-level features into slide-level representations. Fine-tune the foundation model on the target biomarker prediction task using slide-level labels. For EGFR prediction in lung cancer, the EAGLE model fine-tuned a foundation model on 5,174 slides, achieving an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.847 on internal validation [29].

Performance Validation and Clinical Integration: Validate model performance on external cohorts from different institutions to assess generalizability. For clinical implementation, integrate the model into the pathology workflow to provide rapid screening results, with positive predictions triggering confirmatory molecular testing. In a prospective silent trial, the EAGLE model achieved an AUC of 0.890 and reduced the need for rapid molecular tests by up to 43% while maintaining clinical standard performance [29].

Diagram 2: Biomarker discovery workflow. The process uses foundation models to predict molecular status directly from H&E images, with genomic testing providing ground truth for model development.

Pan-Cancer Biomarker Discovery

The CHIEF model demonstrates the potential for foundation models to enable systematic biomarker discovery across multiple cancer types. The protocol for pan-cancer biomarker identification involves:

Multi-Center Data Assembly: Curate a large-scale dataset comprising WSIs from multiple cancer types with accompanying molecular profiling data. The CHIEF model was trained on 13,432 WSIs across 30 cancer types, assessing 53 genes with the highest mutation rates in each cancer [8]. Include common clinically actionable biomarkers such as microsatellite instability (MSI) in colorectal cancer and IDH mutations in glioma.

Model Training and Interpretation: Train the foundation model to predict molecular alterations from WSIs using slide-level labels. Employ attention mechanisms to identify morphological regions most predictive of molecular status, providing interpretability. CHIEF successfully predicted the mutation status of 9 genes with AUCs greater than 0.8, with particularly strong performance for TP53 mutations [8].

Clinical Correlation and Validation: Correlate model predictions with clinical outcomes to establish prognostic significance. Validate the model on independent cohorts from different healthcare systems to assess real-world generalizability. Foundation models have demonstrated the ability to predict biomarkers with consistent performance across diverse populations and slide preparation methods, addressing a key limitation of earlier task-specific models [8].

Table 3: Performance of Biomarker Prediction from H&E Slides

Biomarker	Cancer Type	Model	Performance	Reference
EGFR mutation	Lung adenocarcinoma	EAGLE	AUC: 0.847 (internal), 0.870 (external)	[29]
Multiple genes (9)	Pan-cancer (30 types)	CHIEF	AUC >0.8 for 9 genes	[8]
TP53 mutation	Pan-cancer	CHIEF	High predictive accuracy	[8]
Microsatellite instability	Colorectal cancer	CHIEF	Clinically significant prediction	[8]

The Scientist's Toolkit

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Implementing foundation models for survival prediction and biomarker discovery requires specific computational tools and data resources. The following table details essential components of the research pipeline:

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Resource Category	Specific Tools/Platforms	Function	Application Examples
Foundation Models	TITAN, CHIEF, CONCH	General-purpose feature extraction from WSIs	Survival prediction, biomarker discovery	[2] [8]
Digital Pathology Platforms	QuPath, DCS_PathIMS	WSI visualization, storage, and annotation	Region of interest annotation, model deployment	[33]
Whole-Slide Image Databases	TCGA, CPTAC, Diagset-B	Source of diverse histopathology images	Model pretraining and validation	[8] [32]
Deep Learning Frameworks	PyTorch, TensorFlow	Model development and training	Implementing custom architectures	[31] [30]
Survival Analysis Packages	Survival, scikit-survival	Statistical analysis of time-to-event data	Cox model implementation, C-index calculation	[31] [32]

Foundation models represent a paradigm shift in computational pathology, enabling robust survival prediction and biomarker discovery from routine H&E-stained slides. The protocols outlined in this Application Note provide a framework for implementing these approaches in research settings, with emphasis on methodological rigor, validation, and clinical translation. As these models continue to evolve, they hold significant promise for enhancing personalized cancer care through improved prognostication and accessible molecular characterization. Future directions include multimodal integration of histopathological, genomic, and clinical data, as well as prospective validation in clinical trials to establish definitive evidence of utility in patient management.

Navigating the Challenges: Limitations and Optimization of Pathology FMs

The development of foundation models for generalizable cancer diagnosis from histopathological images represents a paradigm shift in computational pathology. These models, trained on massive datasets via self-supervised learning (SSL), promise to unlock unprecedented capabilities in detecting and characterizing cancers from whole slide images (WSIs) [34] [35]. However, their path to clinical adoption is fraught with two fundamental robustness challenges: site-scanner bias and geometric fragility.

Site-scanner bias refers to the phenomenon where AI models learn to recognize non-biological technical artifacts specific to medical institutions rather than biologically relevant features. These "site-specific digital histology signatures" arise from variations in specimen acquisition, staining protocols, scanner hardware, and digitization processes [36] [37]. Geometric fragility describes the susceptibility of model interpretations to dramatic changes from minor, often imperceptible, perturbations to input images, raising concerns about the reliability of explanations for model predictions [38] [39].

This Application Note provides a comprehensive technical framework for quantifying, analyzing, and mitigating these robustness issues in pathology foundation models. We present standardized experimental protocols, quantitative benchmarking approaches, and mitigation strategies to enable the development of more reliable and clinically deployable AI systems for cancer diagnosis.

Site-Scanner Bias in Pathology Foundation Models

Quantitative Assessment of Site-Scanner Bias

Recent systematic evaluations have revealed that site-scanner bias is pervasive across pathology foundation models. A comprehensive study of 20 publicly available foundation models demonstrated that all 20 encoded medical center information in their feature representations [40] [37]. The quantitative extent of this bias was measured using the PathoROB benchmark, which introduced three novel metrics for assessing model robustness (Table 1).

Table 1: Robustness Metrics for Pathology Foundation Models

Metric	Definition	Measurement Approach	Ideal Value
Robustness Index	Quantifies whether biological features dominate over confounding technical features in embedding space	Measures proportion of nearest neighbors sharing biological class vs. technical center	1.0
Average Performance Drop	Measures decrease in performance when models are applied to data from unseen medical centers	Compares performance on internal vs. external validation sets	0%
Clustering Score	Assesses whether embedding space organizes by biological class rather than medical center	Quantifies separation and purity of biological class clusters	1.0

In the PathoROB evaluation, robustness scores ranged from 0.463 to 0.877 across 20 foundation models, with no model achieving perfect robustness (score of 1.0) [37]. Alarmingly, for more than half of the models, medical center origin was more predictable than biological class, with center prediction accuracy reaching 88-98% across datasets [37].

Experimental Protocol for Assessing Site-Scanner Bias

Protocol 1: Embedding Space Analysis for Site-Scanner Bias Detection

Objective: Quantify the extent to which a foundation model's embedding space encodes site-scanner information versus biological class information.

Materials:

• Balanced multi-center dataset (recommended: PathoROB benchmark datasets)
• Foundation model for evaluation
• Computational resources for embedding generation and analysis

Procedure:

• Dataset Preparation: Utilize a balanced dataset comprising samples from multiple medical centers with consistent representation across biological classes. The PathoROB benchmark incorporates four datasets from three public sources covering 28 biological classes from 34 medical centers [37].
• Embedding Generation: Process all images through the foundation model without fine-tuning to generate embedding vectors.
• Dimensionality Reduction: Apply t-SNE or UMAP to project high-dimensional embeddings to 2D for visualization.
• Quantitative Analysis: a. Calculate the Robustness Index by examining nearest neighbors for each reference sample b. Train and evaluate classifiers to predict medical center versus biological class from embeddings c. Compute cluster purity metrics for biological classes across medical centers
• Visualization: Generate t-SNE/UMAP plots color-coded by medical center and biological class.

Interpretation: Models exhibiting strong clustering by medical center rather than biological class indicate significant site-scanner bias. The Robustness Index provides a quantitative measure, with values below 0.7 indicating substantial bias requiring mitigation [37].

Geometric Fragility of Model Interpretations

Quantitative Characterization of Interpretation Fragility

Geometric fragility affects the explanations generated by deep learning models, particularly feature-importance interpretation methods such as saliency maps, relevance propagation, and DeepLIFT [38]. Studies have demonstrated that even small random perturbations can significantly alter feature importance maps, while systematic perturbations can lead to dramatically different interpretations without changing the model's predicted label [38] [39].

This fragility stems from the high-dimensional, non-linear nature of deep neural networks and the geometry of their loss landscapes. Analysis of the Hessian matrix of the loss function with respect to inputs has shown that small perturbations along certain directions can disproportionately affect interpretation methods while leaving predictions unchanged [38].

Experimental Protocol for Assessing Interpretation Robustness

Protocol 2: Interpretation Consistency Testing Under Perturbation

Objective: Evaluate the robustness of model interpretation methods to minor input perturbations.

Materials:

• Trained foundation model with interpretation capability
• Test set of histopathology images
• Perturbation methods (additive noise, spatial transformations, stain variations)

Procedure:

• Baseline Interpretation: Generate baseline interpretations (saliency maps) for clean test images using chosen interpretation method.
• Perturbation Application: Apply a series of controlled perturbations: a. Additive Gaussian noise (σ = 0.001-0.01 of pixel intensity range) b. Spatial transformations (rotation: 1-5°, translation: 1-5 pixels) c. Stain variations simulating different laboratory protocols
• Interpretation Comparison: Generate interpretations for perturbed images using identical interpretation parameters.
• Quantitative Metrics: a. Calculate structural similarity index (SSIM) between baseline and perturbed interpretations b. Compute correlation coefficients between interpretation maps c. Measure spatial consistency of top-k important regions
• Statistical Analysis: Assess significance of interpretation differences across perturbations.

Interpretation: Models with SSIM < 0.7 or correlation < 0.8 between baseline and perturbed interpretations exhibit significant geometric fragility. Such models may produce unreliable explanations in clinical settings where stain and preparation variations are common [38].

Integrated Experimental Framework

Comprehensive Robustness Evaluation Protocol

Protocol 3: Holistic Robustness Assessment for Pathology Foundation Models

Objective: Simultaneously evaluate site-scanner bias and geometric fragility in a unified framework.

Materials:

• Multi-center dataset with clinical annotations
• Foundation model with interpretation capabilities
• Robustness evaluation toolkit (PathoROB implementation)

Procedure:

• Multi-Center Performance Assessment: a. Partition data by medical center, ensuring balanced representation b. Evaluate model performance separately for each center c. Calculate performance variance across centers
• Cross-Center Generalization Testing: a. Train model on subset of centers, validate on excluded centers b. Measure performance drop on unseen-center data
• Interpretation Consistency Across Centers: a. Generate interpretations for same biological class across different centers b. Quantify interpretation variability using spatial consistency metrics
• Adversarial Robustness Testing: a. Apply minimal perturbations designed to maximize interpretation change b. Measure perturbation magnitude required to significantly alter interpretations

Table 2: Example Robustness Assessment Results for Selected Foundation Models

Model	Training Data Size	Robustness Index	Avg. Performance Drop on External Data	Interpretation Consistency (SSIM)
Virchow [35]	~1.5M WSIs	0.83	4.2%	0.79
BEPH [34]	11.77M patches	0.76	7.8%	0.72
UNI [35]	100K+ WSIs	0.79	5.1%	0.75
Atlas [37]	Not specified	0.85	3.8%	0.81

Visualization of Robustness Assessment Workflow

Mitigation Strategies and Solutions

Technical Approaches for Robustness Enhancement

Multiple technical strategies have demonstrated effectiveness in mitigating site-scanner bias and geometric fragility:

For Site-Scanner Bias Mitigation:

• Data Robustification: Implementation of stain normalization techniques (Reinhard, Macenko) to reduce color variations across institutions [36] [37].
• Representation Robustification: Application of batch correction methods (ComBat) to remove technical artifacts from embeddings [37].
• Domain-Adversarial Training: Training models to simultaneously perform well on primary tasks while becoming invariant to medical center differences [37].
• Expanded Training Diversity: Curating larger, more diverse datasets spanning multiple institutions and protocols [40].

Experimental results show that combining data robustification and representation robustification can improve robustness by 27.4% on average, though complete elimination of bias remains challenging [37].

For Geometric Fragility Mitigation:

• Interpretation Consistency Regularization: Adding loss terms that penalize interpretation differences under small perturbations [38].
• Smoothness Constraints: Encouraging Lipschitz continuity in network gradients to stabilize interpretations [38].
• Ensemble Interpretation Methods: Combining multiple interpretation approaches to increase stability [39].

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Robustness Research

Reagent/Solution	Type	Primary Function	Example Implementation
PathoROB Benchmark [40] [37]	Benchmark Suite	Standardized evaluation of model robustness across medical centers	Four balanced datasets covering 28 biological classes from 34 medical centers
Stain Normalization Tools [36] [37]	Preprocessing	Reduce color and staining variations across institutions	Reinhard, Macenko, Vahadane normalization methods
Domain-Adversarial Framework [37]	Training Methodology	Learn center-invariant representations	DANN (Domain-Adversarial Neural Networks)
Interpretation Robustness Metrics [38]	Evaluation Metrics	Quantify stability of model explanations	SSIM, correlation coefficients for saliency maps
Multi-Center Aggregation [36]	Validation Protocol	Prevent overoptimistic performance estimates	Quadratic programming for site-stratified validation

The systematic confrontation of site-scanner bias and geometric fragility is essential for developing clinically reliable foundation models for cancer diagnosis. This Application Note has presented standardized protocols, quantitative metrics, and mitigation strategies to address these critical robustness challenges.

The experimental frameworks outlined enable researchers to rigorously assess and enhance model robustness, while the visualization approaches facilitate interpretation of complex model behaviors. Implementation of these protocols will accelerate the development of pathology AI systems that prioritize biological relevance over technical artifacts, ultimately supporting safer clinical adoption and more equitable healthcare outcomes.

As the field progresses, continued emphasis on robustness evaluation—not just performance metrics—will be crucial for realizing the full potential of foundation models in transforming cancer diagnosis and treatment.

The deployment of foundation models for generalizable cancer diagnosis from histopathological images represents a paradigm shift in computational pathology. These models, capable of analyzing whole-slide images (WSIs) to detect malignancies, classify cancer subtypes, and predict biomarkers, offer unprecedented opportunities for precision oncology [41] [42]. However, this transformative potential is constrained by a critical computational cost dilemma encompassing two interrelated challenges: substantial energy consumption during model training and fine-tuning, and instability during the adaptation of these models to specific diagnostic tasks [43] [44].

The development of artificial intelligence (AI) models in oncology increasingly relies on sophisticated deep learning architectures, including Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs), Vision Transformers (ViTs), and hybrid approaches [45] [46]. These models require extensive computational resources for training, leading to significant energy demands that raise practical, economic, and environmental concerns [44]. Concurrently, the process of fine-tuning these foundation models for specific cancer diagnostics applications—such as gastric cancer classification or glioma grading—is often plagued by instability issues, most notably catastrophic forgetting, where models lose previously acquired knowledge when adapting to new tasks [43].

This document presents application notes and experimental protocols to address these challenges within the context of histopathology-based cancer diagnosis. By providing structured methodologies, quantitative assessments, and standardized workflows, we aim to equip researchers and drug development professionals with practical tools to navigate the computational cost dilemma while advancing the field of AI-powered cancer diagnostics.

Quantitative Analysis of Computational Costs

Energy Consumption Metrics Across Model Architectures

Table 1: Computational Resource Requirements for Deep Learning Models in Medical Image Analysis

Model Architecture	Training Time (GPU Hours)	Energy Consumption (kWh)	Memory Requirements (GB)	Primary Applications in Histopathology
Standard CNN (e.g., ResNet-50)	24-48	18-36	8-12	Basic tissue classification, nuclei detection [44]
U-Net	48-72	36-54	12-16	Semantic segmentation, gland delineation [45]
Vision Transformer (ViT)	72-120	54-90	16-24	WSI classification, global context analysis [45]
Hybrid CNN-Transformer	96-144	72-108	20-32	Gastric cancer subtyping, biomarker prediction [45]
Multimodal LLM (e.g., Qwen2.5-VL)	120-200	90-150	24-40	Integrated diagnostics, report generation [43]

Fine-Tuning Instability Assessment

Table 2: Performance Comparison of Fine-Tuning Paradigms in Continual Learning Scenarios

Fine-Tuning Method	Retention on Prior Tasks (%)	General Knowledge Preservation (MMMU Score)	Computational Overhead	Stability Metrics
Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT)	38.5	40.1	Low	High forgetting, base model degradation [43]
SFT + Data Replay	65.2	45.3	Medium	Moderate forgetting, some degradation [43]
SFT + Regularization	72.8	47.6	Low-Medium	Reduced forgetting, stabilized training [43]
Reinforcement Fine-Tuning (RFT)	94.7	54.2	Medium-High	Minimal forgetting, knowledge enhancement [43]
RFT + Instance Filtering	96.3	55.1	Medium	Optimal stability, efficient adaptation [43]

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Energy-Efficient Training of Diagnostic Models

Objective: To train deep learning models for cancer diagnosis with optimized computational resource utilization.

Materials:

• Histopathological image datasets (e.g., GasHisSDB, TCGA-STAD, NCT-CRC-HE-100K) [45]
• High-performance computing infrastructure with GPU acceleration
• Energy monitoring software (e.g., NVIDIA System Management Interface)
• Deep learning frameworks (PyTorch, TensorFlow)

Methodology:

• Data Preprocessing:

  • Apply stain normalization to reduce domain shift using Macenko or Vahadane methods [45]
  • Implement patch-based extraction from WSIs with overlapping regions
  • Apply data augmentation techniques (rotation, flipping, color jittering) to increase effective dataset size [44]

• Model Selection and Configuration:

  • Select architecture based on diagnostic task complexity (refer to Table 1)
  • Implement mixed-precision training to reduce memory footprint
  • Configure gradient accumulation for effective batch size management

• Training Optimization:

  • Utilize learning rate scheduling with warm-up phases
  • Implement early stopping based on validation performance
  • Apply distributed training strategies for large-scale models

• Energy Monitoring:

  • Record power consumption at regular intervals during training
  • Calculate total energy usage and carbon footprint
  • Optimize training schedules to utilize off-peak energy periods

Validation Metrics:

• Diagnostic accuracy (precision, recall, F1-score) on hold-out test sets
• Energy consumption per percentage point of accuracy gained
• Computational efficiency (frames processed per second per watt)

Protocol 2: Stable Fine-Tuning for Sequential Task Adaptation

Objective: To adapt foundation models to new cancer diagnostic tasks while minimizing catastrophic forgetting.

Materials:

• Pre-trained foundation model (e.g., CNN-Transformer hybrid) [45]
• Source and target domain histopathology datasets
• Regularization techniques (L2, dropout, knowledge distillation)
• Reinforcement learning frameworks (for RFT implementation)

Methodology:

• Baseline Assessment:

  • Evaluate pre-trained model on source task performance
  • Establish performance benchmarks on general knowledge benchmarks (e.g., MMMU) [43]

• Fine-Tuning Paradigm Selection:

  • For maximum stability: Implement Reinforcement Fine-Tuning (RFT)
  • For resource-constrained environments: Implement SFT with regularization + data replay

• RFT Implementation:

  • Configure reward function based on diagnostic accuracy and confidence
  • Implement Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) framework [43]
  • Apply KL penalty to prevent excessive deviation from base model
  • Utilize rollout-based instance filtering to enhance training stability

• Stability Preservation Techniques:

  • Implement elastic weight consolidation for important parameter preservation
  • Use experience replay with balanced sampling from previous tasks
  • Apply multi-task learning objectives where feasible

• Validation Framework:

  • Assess performance on both new and previous diagnostic tasks
  • Evaluate general capabilities on standard benchmarks
  • Measure stability metrics (retention rate, forgetting index)

Validation Metrics:

• Task retention rate (percentage of original performance maintained)
• Forward transfer (performance on new tasks)
• General knowledge preservation (score on standardized benchmarks)

Visualization of Workflows and Relationships

Diagnostic Model Training Architecture

Fine-Tuning Stability Management

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Computational Resources for Foundation Model Development in Cancer Diagnostics

Resource Category	Specific Solution	Function in Research	Implementation Example
Base Models	Pre-trained CNN-Transformer hybrids	Feature extraction from histopathological images	Gastric cancer classification [45]
Training Frameworks	PyTorch, TensorFlow with GPU acceleration	Model development and optimization	Custom training loops for histopathology [44]
Data Augmentation	Stain normalization algorithms	Domain adaptation across institutions	Macenko method for WSI standardization [45]
Regularization	Dropout, L2 regularization, knowledge distillation	Preventing overfitting on small medical datasets	Catastrophic forgetting mitigation [43] [47]
Optimization Algorithms	AdamW, SGD with momentum	Efficient convergence during training	Training vision transformers on WSIs [46]
Evaluation Suites	Multiple cancer benchmark datasets	Standardized performance assessment	GasHisSDB, TCGA-STAD validation [45]
Energy Monitoring	Power usage effectiveness tracking	Computational efficiency optimization	GPU energy consumption profiling [44]
Continual Learning	Reinforcement Fine-Tuning frameworks	Sequential adaptation without forgetting	GRPO for multimodal LLMs [43]

The computational cost dilemma presents significant but surmountable challenges in the development of foundation models for cancer diagnosis. Through the systematic application of the protocols and methodologies outlined in this document, researchers can navigate the trade-offs between diagnostic accuracy, computational efficiency, and model stability. The integration of energy-aware training practices with advanced fine-tuning approaches like Reinforcement Fine-Tuning creates a pathway toward sustainable and robust AI systems for histopathological analysis.

As the field advances, future work should focus on the development of more specialized architectures inherently designed for efficient medical image analysis, standardized benchmarking of computational costs alongside diagnostic performance, and the creation of collaborative frameworks for sharing computational resources across institutions. By addressing these foundational challenges, we can accelerate the translation of AI technologies from research environments to clinical practice, ultimately enhancing cancer diagnosis and patient care worldwide.

Within the burgeoning field of computational pathology, foundation models (FMs) promise a revolution in generalizable cancer diagnosis and prognosis prediction directly from histopathological images [16] [48]. However, the safety and security of these high-stakes artificial intelligence (AI) systems are paramount. A critical vulnerability lies in their susceptibility to adversarial attacks—subtle, deliberately crafted perturbations to input images that are often imperceptible to the human eye but can cause models to make catastrophic errors [49]. For clinical AI, this vulnerability represents more than a technical curiosity; it is a profound safety risk where misclassifications could directly impact patient care [50] [49]. This document assesses the vulnerability of pathology foundation models to these attacks, summarizes quantitative evidence of their effects, outlines protocols for robustness evaluation, and provides visual guides to key defense mechanisms.

Quantitative Assessment of Attack Efficacy

The vulnerability of AI models in pathology is not uniform; it varies significantly by model architecture, attack type, and task. The following tables synthesize empirical data on this susceptibility.

Table 1: Impact of White-Box PGD Attacks on Model Performance (AUROC)

This table compares the robustness of a standard Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) with a Vision Transformer (ViT) on a renal cell carcinoma (RCC) subtyping task under Projected Gradient Descent (PGD) attacks of increasing strength (ε) [49].

Model Architecture	Baseline (ε=0)	Low ε (0.25e-3)	Medium ε (0.75e-3)	High ε (1.50e-3)
CNN (ResNet)	0.960	0.919	0.749	0.429
Vision Transformer (ViT)	0.958	0.957	0.955	0.952

Table 2: Comparative Robustness Against Diverse Attack Methods

This table summarizes the performance of different model architectures and training strategies when subjected to various white-box and black-box adversarial attacks [49].

Model & Defense Strategy	PGD	FGSM	AutoAttack (AA)	Square Attack	Black-Box Attack
Standard CNN	Highly Susceptible	Highly Susceptible	Highly Susceptible	Susceptible	Susceptible
CNN + Adversarial Training	Robust	Partially Robust	Susceptible	-	-
Vision Transformer (ViT)	Highly Robust	Highly Robust	Robust	Robust	Robust

Experimental Protocols for Vulnerability Assessment

To ensure the security of pathology FMs, rigorous and standardized evaluation against adversarial attacks is essential. The following protocols detail key experiments.

Protocol: White-Box Attack Vulnerability using PGD

Objective: To evaluate the inherent robustness of a pathology foundation model when an attacker has full knowledge of the model's parameters (white-box scenario).

Materials:

• Test Dataset: A curated set of Whole-Slide Images (WSIs) with confirmed cancer diagnoses (e.g., from TCGA-RCC, AACHEN-RCC cohorts) [49].
• Model: The pathology FM to be evaluated (e.g., a CNN or ViT-based encoder).
• Attack Library: Access to a library such as ART (Adversarial Robustness Toolbox) or Foolbox.

Methodology:

• Baseline Performance: Establish the model's baseline performance (e.g., AUROC, Accuracy) on the clean, unperturbed test set.
• Attack Configuration: Configure the PGD attack with the following parameters [49]:
  • Epsilon (ε): The attack strength, defining the maximum perturbation allowed per pixel (e.g., 0.25e-3, 0.75e-3, 1.50e-3).
  • Step Size (α): The step size for each iteration, typically a fraction of ε (e.g., ε/10).
  • Number of Steps (N): The number of iterative steps (e.g., 40).
• Attack Execution: For each image in the test set, generate an adversarial example: ( x_{adv} = x + \delta ), where ( \delta ) is the perturbation found by PGD to maximize the loss.
• Evaluation: Run inference on the adversarial examples (( x_{adv} )) and calculate the performance metrics.
• Analysis: Compare the performance on adversarial examples against the baseline to quantify the performance drop.

Protocol: Universal and Transferable Adversarial Perturbations (UTAP)

Objective: To test for the existence of universal perturbations that can fool a model across many inputs and to assess if these attacks can transfer to different model architectures.

Materials:

• As in Protocol 3.1.
• Multiple FMs with different architectures (e.g., UNI, Virchow, Phikon) [51].

Methodology:

• Perturbation Generation: Following Wang et al. [51], learn a single universal perturbation pattern (UTAP) for a source model using a small set of patches (e.g., ~900).
• Universal Attack: Apply this single UTAP to all images in the test set and evaluate the source model's performance.
• Transferability Test: Apply the same UTAP, generated for the source model, to the test set and evaluate the performance on a different, target model (black-box setting).
• Analysis: Quantify the collapse in performance for both the source and target models. A significant drop indicates high vulnerability to universal and transferable attacks [51].

Protocol: Assessing Natural Noise Robustness

Objective: To evaluate model robustness against naturally occurring perturbations that mimic adversarial noise (e.g., staining variations, scanner artifacts).

Materials:

• Test dataset and model, as above.
• Image processing tools for simulating artifacts.

Methodology:

• Perturbation Simulation: Artificially introduce realistic noise and variations to the test set [51]:
  • Staining Variance: Apply color deconvolution and introduce shifts in H&E stain intensity.
  • Scanner Noise: Add Gaussian or impulse noise to simulate sensor variability.
  • Compression Artifacts: Apply JPEG compression at various quality levels.
  • Blur: Apply Gaussian blur to simulate optical imperfections.
• Evaluation: Run inference on the perturbed images and calculate performance metrics.
• Analysis: Correlate the performance drop with the type and severity of the perturbation. Models that are highly sensitive to adversarial attacks often show correlated sensitivity to these natural variations [51].

Defense Strategy Workflows

Implementing effective defenses is critical for deploying secure pathology FMs. The diagrams below illustrate two primary defense strategies.

Adversarial Training with Dual Batch Normalization

Adversarial training hardens a model by exposing it to adversarial examples during the training process. The Dual Batch Normalization (DBN) variant enhances this by using separate batch normalization layers to process clean and adversarial examples, preventing the degradation of performance on clean data [49].

Feature Transformation and Denoising Defense

This defense involves preprocessing input images to remove adversarial noise before they are fed into the model. An advanced approach uses a feature transformation network, such as a denoising autoencoder, trained to map adversarial inputs back to the clean data manifold [50] [52].

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 3: Essential Reagents and Computational Tools for Adversarial Robustness Research

Item	Function & Application	Example/Notes
ART (Adversarial Robustness Toolbox)	A Python library for generating attacks (PGD, FGSM, etc.) and implementing defenses (adversarial training, detection).	Standardized framework for reproducibility [49].
Vision Transformer (ViT) Architecture	A model architecture based on self-attention mechanisms. Demonstrated to be inherently more robust to adversarial attacks than CNNs in pathology tasks [49].	Consider as a more secure backbone for foundation models [49].
Pre-trained Denoising Autoencoder	A model trained to remove noise. Can be used as a preprocessing defense to filter out adversarial perturbations [50].	Can be trained with impulse noise for defense against sparse attacks [50].
Dual Batch Normalization (DBN)	A training technique that uses separate batch normalization statistics for clean and adversarial examples. Preserves clean data performance during adversarial training [49].	Mitigates the trade-off between accuracy and robustness [49].
TCGA & CPTAC Datasets	Large-scale, publicly available repositories of histopathology whole-slide images. Essential for training and benchmarking models and their robustness.	Provides a common ground for evaluation.
UTAP Attack Code	Code for generating Universal and Transferable Adversarial Perturbations. Critical for stress-testing model security against potent, practical attacks [51].	Highlights vulnerability to single, reusable perturbation patterns [51].

Application Notes

The deployment of foundation models for generalizable cancer diagnosis from histopathological images is a cornerstone of modern computational pathology. These models show immense potential for improving diagnostic accuracy, efficiency, and consistency [53]. However, their real-world clinical application is hindered by the pervasive challenge of domain shift—changes in data distribution caused by variations in tissue processing, staining protocols, and scanner characteristics across different medical centers [54] [55] [19]. This paper outlines proven optimization strategies, namely domain-specific augmentation and efficient adaptation techniques, to overcome these barriers and enhance model robustness and generalizability.

A primary strategy involves moving beyond manually-tuned augmentation towards automated data augmentation. A recent study investigating four state-of-the-art automatic augmentation methods from computer vision demonstrated their capacity to improve domain generalization in histopathology. On the task of breast cancer tissue type classification, the leading automatic augmentation method significantly outperformed state-of-the-art manual data augmentation. For tumor metastasis detection in lymph nodes, most automatic methods achieved performance comparable to sophisticated manual approaches [54] [56]. This automation reduces experimental optimization time and leads to superior generalization performance.

For model adaptation, parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) has been identified as a superior strategy for adapting pathology-specific foundation models to diverse datasets within the same downstream task [57]. Furthermore, adversarial training frameworks that incorporate frequency-domain information, such as the Adversarial fourIer-based Domain Adaptation (AIDA), have shown remarkable success. AIDA significantly improved subtype classification performance across ovarian, pleural, bladder, and breast cancers from multiple hospitals, outperforming conventional adversarial domain adaptation and color normalization techniques [19]. This approach makes the network less sensitive to amplitude variations (color shifts) and more attentive to phase information (shape-based features), which are more critical for accurate diagnosis.

Finally, the fusion of features from multiple foundation models presents a powerful pathway to state-of-the-art performance. Research has revealed that foundation models trained on distinct cohorts learn complementary features. Ensembling predictions from top-performing models, such as the vision-language model CONCH and the vision-only model Virchow2, leveraged these complementary strengths and outperformed individual models in 55% of tasks related to morphology, biomarkers, and prognosis [58].

Table 1: Performance of Automatic Augmentation vs. Manual Augmentation on Histopathology Tasks

Diagnostic Task	Number of Data Centers	Performance of Leading Automatic Augmentation
Breast Cancer Tissue Type Classification	25	Significantly outperformed state-of-the-art manual augmentation [54]
Tumor Metastasis Detection in Lymph Nodes	25	Comparable to state-of-the-art manual augmentation [54] [56]

Table 2: Benchmarking of Select Pathology Foundation Models on Clinically Relevant Tasks (Mean AUROC)*

Foundation Model	Model Type	Morphology Tasks (n=5)	Biomarker Tasks (n=19)	Prognosis Tasks (n=7)	Overall Average (n=31)
CONCH	Vision-Language	0.77	0.73	0.63	0.71
Virchow2	Vision-Only	0.76	0.73	0.61	0.71
Prov-GigaPath	Vision-Only	-	0.72	-	0.69
DinoSSLPath	Vision-Only	0.76	-	-	0.69

*Data synthesized from benchmark study [58]

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Implementing Automatic Data Augmentation for Improved Generalization

This protocol describes how to implement an automatic data augmentation search to enhance the domain generalization of a deep learning model trained on H&E-stained histopathology images.

Materials

• Hardware: GPU-enabled workstation (e.g., NVIDIA A100 or comparable).
• Software: Python 3.8+, PyTorch or TensorFlow, and AutoML/augmentation libraries (e.g., AutoAlbument, RandAugment).
• Data: Whole Slide Images (WSIs) from multiple centers for the target task (e.g., breast cancer classification).

Procedure

• Data Preparation:
  • Collect and partition WSIs from multiple centers into training, validation, and test sets. Ensure the test set contains data from centers completely unseen during training to properly assess generalization.
  • Extract patches from the WSIs at an appropriate magnification level (e.g., 20x). Ensure the dataset is balanced across classes.
• Baseline Model Training:
  • Train a baseline Convolutional Neural Network (e.g., ResNet) or a pre-trained pathology foundation model using a standard set of manual augmentations (e.g., random flips, minor color jitter). This establishes a performance benchmark.
• Automatic Augmentation Search:
  • Integrate one or more state-of-the-art automatic augmentation methods (e.g., Population-Based Augmentation, Adversarial AutoAugment) into the training pipeline.
  • Configure the search space to include histopathology-relevant transformations, such as:
    • Geometric: Rotation, scaling, elastic deformations.
    • Color & Stain: H&E stain vector perturbations, Gaussian blur, noise injection.
  • Allow the meta-learning framework to search for the optimal augmentation policy by minimizing loss on a held-out validation set from the source domain.
• Model Training with Optimal Policy:
  • Train the model from scratch using the discovered optimal augmentation policy.
• Validation and Testing:
  • Evaluate the final model's performance on the held-out test set from the source domain and, most critically, on the external test sets from unseen centers.
  • Compare the results against the baseline model to quantify improvement in domain generalization [54] [56].

Protocol 2: Adversarial Fourier-Based Domain Adaptation (AIDA)

This protocol outlines the steps for implementing the AIDA framework to adapt a model to a new target domain without requiring labeled data in that domain.

Materials

• Hardware: GPU with sufficient memory for adversarial training.
• Software: PyTorch, libraries for Fourier Transform (e.g., torch.fft).
• Data: Labeled source domain WSIs and unlabeled target domain WSIs.

Procedure

• Patch Extraction and Preprocessing:
  • Extract a large number of patches from both the labeled source and unlabeled target domain WSIs.
• Integrate FFT-Enhancer Module:
  • Incorporate the FFT-Enhancer module into the feature extractor of a standard adversarial domain adaptation network. This module uses a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) to decompose the image and enhance phase information while dampening amplitude variations.
• Adversarial Training:
  • The network consists of a feature extractor (G), a task-specific classifier (C), and a domain discriminator (D).
  • Feature Extractor (G) Training: Train G to generate features that are both discriminative for the main task (e.g., cancer classification) and invariant to the domain shift. It does this by fooling the domain discriminator D.
  • Domain Discriminator (D) Training: Train D to accurately distinguish whether features originate from the source or target domain.
  • Task Classifier (C) Training: Train C on the labeled source features to correctly predict the class label.
  • The FFT-Enhancer module assists the feature extractor in focusing on biologically relevant, shape-based features (phase) rather than center-specific color artifacts (amplitude) [19].
• Evaluation:
  • After training, evaluate the task classifier C on the held-out target domain test set to assess adaptation performance.

Diagram 1: AIDA framework workflow for adversarial domain adaptation.

Protocol 3: Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning (PEFT) of Foundation Models

This protocol describes how to efficiently adapt a large pathology foundation model to a specific downstream task with limited labeled data.

Materials

• Pre-trained pathology foundation model (e.g., UNI, CTransPath, CONCH).
• Small, labeled dataset for the target task.

Procedure

• Model Selection:
  • Select a suitable pre-trained foundation model. Vision-language models like CONCH or large vision-only models like Virchow2 are strong starting points [58].
• Feature Extraction vs. Fine-Tuning:
  • For a quick baseline, use the foundation model as a frozen feature extractor. Train a simple classifier (e.g., a linear layer or MLP) on top of the extracted features.
• Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning:
  • Instead of full fine-tuning, which updates all model parameters, employ a PEFT method. This can include:
    • Linear Probing: Fine-tune only the final classification head.
    • Partial Fine-Tuning: Fine-tune only the last few layers of the foundation model.
    • Advanced PEFT: Use methods like LoRA (Low-Rank Adaptation) or adapters that introduce a small number of trainable parameters into the model architecture while keeping the original weights frozen [57].
• Evaluation:
  • Benchmark the performance of the PEFT approach against both the feature extraction baseline and a full fine-tuning baseline. PEFT has been shown to be both efficient and effective, often matching or exceeding the performance of full fine-tuning while being far more computationally economical [57].

Diagram 2: Efficient adaptation strategies for foundation models.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Resources for Optimizing Foundation Models in Computational Pathology

Resource Name	Type	Primary Function in Research	Example/Note
TCGA (The Cancer Genome Atlas)	Dataset	Large-scale public repository of WSIs across cancer types for pre-training and benchmarking [57].	Contains ~29,000 WSIs from 25 anatomic sites and 32 cancer subtypes.
CONCH	Foundation Model	Vision-language foundation model for multimodal learning; excels in morphology, biomarker, and prognosis tasks [58].	Trained on 1.17M image-caption pairs; top performer in benchmarking.
Virchow2	Foundation Model	Vision-only foundation model; strong all-around performer, particularly on biomarker tasks [58].	Trained on 3.1 million WSIs.
AIDA Framework	Algorithm	Adversarial domain adaptation using Fourier transforms to improve multi-center generalization [19].	Improves focus on shape (phase) over color (amplitude).
Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning (PEFT)	Technique	Adapts large foundation models to new tasks with minimal computational overhead and data [57].	Includes methods like LoRA and partial fine-tuning.
AutoAlbument / RandAugment	Software Library	Provides automated search of optimal data augmentation policies for histopathology images [54].	Used to find superior augmentation strategies vs. manual tuning.

Evidence and Efficacy: Validating Foundation Models in Clinical Contexts

This application note addresses the critical challenge of validating artificial intelligence (AI) foundation models for cancer diagnosis across multiple healthcare institutions. Multi-institutional validation is essential for assessing model generalizability, robustness, and clinical readiness by testing performance across diverse patient populations, imaging protocols, and healthcare systems [59] [8]. Recent evidence indicates that while histopathology foundation models show promising diagnostic capabilities, their performance can vary significantly across different healthcare environments due to biological complexity, technical variations in slide preparation, and scanner differences [51]. This document provides a structured framework for conducting rigorous multi-institutional validation studies, including standardized performance metrics, experimental protocols, and analytical approaches to quantify model robustness and site-specific bias.

Performance Metrics for Multi-Institutional Validation

Comprehensive validation requires multiple quantitative metrics to assess diagnostic performance, robustness, and technical stability across sites.

Table 1: Key Performance Metrics for Multi-Institutional Validation

Metric Category	Specific Metrics	Interpretation	Optimal Range
Diagnostic Accuracy	Balanced Accuracy, AUC, Sensitivity, Specificity	Measures classification performance across classes and institutions	>80% (varies by task)
Robustness	Robustness Index (RI)	Quantifies whether embeddings cluster by biology (>1) versus site (<1)	RI > 1.2 indicates biological robustness [51]
Geometric Stability	Mean k-Nearest Neighbors (m-kNN), Cosine Distance	Measures embedding invariance to image rotations and transformations	m-kNN >0.8, Cosine Distance <0.02 [51]
Site Consistency	Performance variance across institutions	Standard deviation of metrics across validation sites	Lower values indicate better generalizability

Quantitative Performance Benchmarks

Recent large-scale studies demonstrate the capabilities and limitations of foundation models across multiple institutions and cancer types.

Table 2: Multi-Institutional Performance of Select Foundation Models

Foundation Model	Validation Scope	Key Results	Limitations
CHIEF [8]	32 independent datasets, 24 hospitals, 19,491 WSIs	Average AUROC of 0.94 across 11 cancer types; consistent performance on biopsy and resection specimens	Performance degradation in some external validation sets
BEPH [1]	Multi-cancer validation on TCGA data	WSI-level classification AUC: 0.994 (RCC), 0.946 (BRCA), 0.970 (NSCLC)	Limited validation on non-TCGA data sources
H-optimus-0 [59]	Ovarian cancer subtyping across 3 validation sets	Balanced accuracy: 89%, 97%, 74% on independent test sets	Computational resource intensive
UNI [59]	Ovarian cancer subtyping	Similar performance to H-optimus-0 at quarter of computational cost	Slightly reduced performance on external validation
Virchow [51]	Robustness evaluation across multiple institutions	Robustness Index of ~1.2 (superior to other models)	Lower geometric stability (m-kNN: 0.53)

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Cross-Institutional Performance Validation

This protocol evaluates foundation model performance across multiple independent healthcare institutions.

Materials and Reagents:

• Whole Slide Images (WSIs) from at least 3-5 independent institutions
• Clinical annotations with ground truth diagnoses
• Computational resources for large-scale inference

Procedure:

• Dataset Curation: Collect WSIs from multiple institutions with varying scanners, staining protocols, and patient populations
• Data Partitioning: Implement institution-wise splitting to ensure rigorous testing
• Feature Extraction: Use frozen foundation model embeddings without fine-tuning
• Task-Specific Evaluation: Train institution-specific classifiers on foundation model features
• Performance Analysis: Calculate metrics per institution and overall

Analysis:

• Compute performance metrics stratified by institution
• Perform statistical tests for performance differences across sites
• Analyze failure cases for site-specific patterns

Protocol 2: Robustness and Generalizability Assessment

This protocol quantifies model sensitivity to technical variations versus biological signals.

Materials:

• Multi-institutional WSI datasets with site annotations
• Computational framework for embedding analysis

Procedure:

• Embedding Generation: Extract feature embeddings for all WSIs
• Similarity Calculation: Compute within-class and within-site similarity matrices
• Robustness Index Calculation: Apply formula: RI = (within-class similarity) / (within-site similarity)
• Statistical Testing: Assess significance of site-based clustering

Analysis:

• RI > 1.2 indicates biologically robust representations [51]
• RI ≈ 1 suggests significant site-specific bias
• Visualize embedding clusters using UMAP or t-SNE

Protocol 3: Computational Resource Assessment

This protocol evaluates the practical feasibility of deploying foundation models across institutions with varying computational resources.

Materials:

• Multiple foundation models for comparison
• Hardware with varying specifications (from consumer to professional GPUs)

Procedure:

• Inference Speed: Measure processing time per WSI across hardware configurations
• Memory Requirements: Record GPU memory consumption during feature extraction
• Energy Consumption: Quantify power usage using hardware monitoring tools
• Performance-Efficiency Tradeoff: Compare accuracy versus resource requirements

Analysis:

• Calculate throughput (WSIs processed per hour)
• Determine minimum hardware requirements for clinical workflows
• Assess scalability for large-scale deployment

Visualization of Multi-Institutional Validation Framework

Diagram 1: Multi-institutional validation workflow showing the pipeline from data collection through clinical deployment with key validation checkpoints.

Diagram 2: Robustness assessment framework evaluating whether models learn biological features versus site-specific artifacts.

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Multi-Institutional Validation

Resource Category	Specific Solution	Function in Validation	Implementation Notes
Foundation Models	UNI, Virchow, CHIEF, BEPH, Phikon	Provide base feature extraction capabilities	UNI offers favorable performance-cost tradeoff [59]
Validation Frameworks	Robustness Index (RI) calculation	Quantifies site-specific bias in embeddings	RI > 1.2 indicates biological robustness [51]
Performance Metrics	Balanced Accuracy, AUC, F1 Score	Standardized performance assessment	Particularly important for class-imbalanced datasets
Computational Tools	Multiple Instance Learning (MIL)	WSI-level classification from patch features	ABMIL, CLAM, TransMIL common choices [60]
Visualization Tools	UMAP/t-SNE	Visual assessment of embedding clusters	Identify site-based clustering patterns

Multi-institutional validation remains the gold standard for assessing the real-world readiness of histopathology foundation models. Current evidence demonstrates that while several models show promising generalizability across healthcare systems, significant challenges remain in achieving consistent performance across diverse clinical environments. The protocols and metrics outlined in this document provide researchers with standardized approaches to quantify model robustness, identify site-specific biases, and establish clinically relevant performance benchmarks. Future work should focus on developing more efficient validation frameworks, improving model invariance to technical variations, and establishing regulatory-grade evaluation standards for clinical implementation.

The field of computational pathology is undergoing a significant transformation, driven by the emergence of foundation models (FMs). These models, pre-trained on massive datasets using self-supervised learning (SSL), are poised to overcome the limitations of traditional deep learning models, which often require large, annotated datasets and struggle to generalize across diverse clinical settings. This document provides application notes and detailed experimental protocols for benchmarking these two classes of models within the context of generalizable cancer diagnosis from histopathological images.

Performance Benchmarking: Quantitative Comparison

Independent, large-scale benchmarking studies provide critical insights into the comparative performance of FMs versus traditional approaches across clinically relevant tasks.

Table 1: Benchmarking Performance Across Model Types and Clinical Tasks

Model Category	Specific Model	Mean AUROC (Morphology)	Mean AUROC (Biomarkers)	Mean AUROC (Prognosis)	Overall Mean AUROC
Vision-Language FM	CONCH	0.77	0.73	0.63	0.71
Vision-Only FM	Virchow2	0.76	0.73	0.61	0.71
Vision-Only FM	Prov-GigaPath	-	0.72	-	0.69
Vision-Only FM	DinoSSLPath	0.76	-	-	0.69
Traditional DL	Single-Center cSCC Model [5]	-	-	0.92 (Internal) / 0.46 (External)	-
Traditional DL	Federated cSCC Model [5]	-	-	0.82 (External)	-

A comprehensive evaluation of 19 foundation models on 31 clinical tasks across 6,818 patients showed that top-performing FMs like CONCH and Virchow2 set a new state-of-the-art, achieving an overall mean AUROC of 0.71 [58]. In contrast, traditional deep learning models, while potentially achieving high accuracy on their internal test sets (e.g., AUROC=0.92 for a cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) model), often face significant challenges with generalizability, with performance dropping as low as AUROC=0.46 on external cohorts [5]. This highlights a key strength of FMs: their robustness and superior generalization across diverse datasets and clinical centers.

Experimental Protocols for Benchmarking

Protocol 1: Whole-Slide Image Classification Using Foundation Models

This protocol details the process of leveraging a pre-trained FM for a downstream classification task, such as cancer subtyping or biomarker prediction, using a weakly supervised multiple instance learning (MIL) approach [58].

1. Data Preparation:

• Input: Collect Whole-Slide Images (WSIs) in standard formats (e.g., .svs, .ndpi). Ensure appropriate ethical approvals and data use agreements are in place.
• Preprocessing: Use a scripting tool like HistoPrep to tessellate each WSI into small, non-overlapping image patches (e.g., 256x256 pixels at 20x magnification). This step converts a gigapixel WSI into thousands of manageable patches.
• Feature Extraction: Pass all patches from a WSI through a pre-trained FM encoder (e.g., CONCH, Virchow2). This generates a feature vector (e.g., 768-dimensional) for each patch, creating a "bag of features" that represents the entire slide.

2. Model Training and Evaluation:

• Aggregation Architecture: Employ a Multiple Instance Learning Transformer (MIL-Transformer) to process the bag of features. This architecture aggregates the patch-level features into a single slide-level representation for classification.
• Training: Train the MIL-Transformer on slide-level labels. The model learns to attend to diagnostically relevant patches while ignoring irrelevant tissue.
• Evaluation: Evaluate model performance on a held-out test set using metrics including Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUROC), Area Under the Precision-Recall Curve (AUPRC), and F1-score. Crucially, perform external validation on a cohort from a different institution to assess true generalizability.

Diagram 1: FM-based WSI classification workflow.

Protocol 2: Developing a Traditional Deep Learning Model with Federated Learning

This protocol outlines the development of a deep learning model from scratch, using federated learning to improve generalizability across multiple clinical centers without sharing patient data [5].

1. Centralized Model Setup:

• Architecture Selection: Design a multiple instance learning model. A common approach uses a pre-trained convolutional neural network (CNN) like EfficientNet or CTransPath as a feature extractor for each patch, followed by an attention-based pooling mechanism to generate the slide-level prediction.
• Initialization: Initialize the model architecture and hyperparameters on a central server.

2. Federated Training Loop:

• Server Task: The central server distributes the current global model to all participating clinical centers (clients).
• Client Task: Each client trains the model locally on its own private WSI dataset for a set number of epochs.
• Aggregation: The clients send their updated model weights back to the server. The server aggregates these weights (e.g., using Federated Averaging) to update the global model.
• Iteration: Repeat this process for multiple rounds until the global model converges.

3. Evaluation:

• Evaluate the final federated model on a held-out test set from each participating center and on external cohorts to validate its improved robustness compared to a single-center model.

Diagram 2: Federated learning workflow for traditional DL.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 2: Key Reagents and Computational Tools for Pathology AI Research

Item Name	Function/Application	Specification Notes
H&E-Stained Whole-Slide Images	The primary data source for model development and validation.	Ensure diversity in organ types, scanners, and staining protocols to improve model robustness [61].
Pre-trained Foundation Models	Provides powerful, transferable feature representations for histopathology images.	CONCH (vision-language) and Virchow2 (vision-only) are top-performing models [58]. UNI and CTransPath are also widely used [62].
Multiple Instance Learning (MIL) Framework	Enables slide-level prediction from patch-level features using weak supervision.	Architectures like MIL-Transformers or Attention-Based MIL (ABMIL) are standard [58] [5].
Computational Pathology Platform	Software and hardware for handling large-scale WSI data.	Requires high-performance GPUs and libraries like PyTorch or TensorFlow. Tools for WSI patching (e.g., HistoPrep) are essential.
Federated Learning Framework	Enables multi-institutional collaboration without sharing raw data.	Frameworks like NVIDIA FLARE or Flower can be used to implement the federated learning protocol [5].
Feature Disentanglement Framework (FM²)	Advanced method for fusing knowledge from multiple FMs.	Used to disentangle consensus and divergence features from different FMs to create a more robust unified model [63].

Foundation models represent a paradigm shift in computational pathology, consistently outperforming traditional deep learning models in terms of generalization and accuracy across a wide range of diagnostic and prognostic tasks. The experimental protocols and benchmarking data provided here offer researchers a roadmap for rigorously evaluating and implementing these powerful tools. The continued development and validation of FMs are critical steps toward achieving robust, generalizable AI-powered cancer diagnosis.

Gleason grading of prostate cancer histopathology remains a cornerstone for prognostic assessment and treatment planning. Its subjective nature, however, leads to substantial interobserver variability among pathologists [64]. Artificial intelligence (AI) systems, particularly deep learning models, have emerged as promising tools to augment pathological diagnosis by improving consistency and accuracy [65] [66]. Within the broader context of developing foundation models for generalizable cancer diagnosis, benchmarking AI performance against human experts in specialized tasks like Gleason grading provides critical validation for clinical translation. This Application Note systematically compares AI and human performance in Gleason grading through quantitative metrics, delineates experimental protocols for robust validation, and identifies essential research reagents for implementation.

Performance Benchmarking: AI vs. Human Pathologists

Agreement Metrics and Diagnostic Accuracy

Table 1: Interobserver Agreement in Gleason Grading

Group	Metric	Performance Range	Context
Human Pathologists	Quadratic Weighted Kappa	0.777 - 0.916	Pairwise agreement between 10 pathologists on a diverse dataset [65]
Public AI Algorithms	Quadratic Weighted Kappa	0.617 - 0.900	Top-ranked algorithms from the PANDA challenge [65]
Commercial AI Algorithms	Quadratic Weighted Kappa	On par or superior to top public algorithms	Evaluation on real-world data [65]
Explainable AI (GleasonXAI)	Dice Score	0.713 ± 0.003	Segmentation of Gleason patterns using concept-bottleneck architecture [64]
Standard AI (for comparison)	Dice Score	0.691 ± 0.010	Direct Gleason pattern segmentation without explainable framework [64]

Diagnostic Efficiency and Workflow Impact

Table 2: Impact of AI Assistance on Diagnostic Workflow

Parameter	Baseline (Without AI)	With AI Integration	Change	Source
Gleason Scoring Time	Baseline	-	43% reduction	[66]
Annotation Efficiency	Baseline	-	2.5x improvement	[66]
HER2-low Diagnostic Agreement	73.5%	86.4%	12.9% increase	[67]
HER2-ultralow Diagnostic Agreement	65.6%	80.6%	15.0% increase	[67]

Experimental Protocols for Benchmarking Studies

Protocol 1: Retrospective Evaluation with Real-World Datasets

Objective: To compare the performance of public and commercial AI algorithms against pathologists using real-world data.

Materials:

• Curated dataset of whole-slide prostate biopsy images with diverse Gleason scores and sources [65].
• Predictions from 5 top-ranked public algorithms (e.g., from PANDA challenge).
• Predictions from 2 commercial Gleason grading algorithms.
• Annotations from 10 pathologists participating in a reader study.

Procedure:

• Data Curation: Assemble a diverse dataset through crowdsourcing, ensuring a range of Gleason scores and variability in sample preparation and scanning protocols.
• AI Inference: Obtain predictions from all public and commercial AI systems on the entire dataset using standardized processing pipelines.
• Pathologist Review: Conduct a reader study where 10 pathologists independently evaluate the same dataset. Implement measures to minimize recall bias.
• Statistical Analysis: Calculate quadratic weighted kappa for all pairwise comparisons between pathologists and between pathologists and AI systems.
• Performance Benchmarking: Compare the agreement metrics between human-AI and human-human pairs to establish AI performance relative to human experts.

Protocol 2: Validation of Explainable AI Systems

Objective: To validate an inherently explainable AI system against traditional black-box models and pathologist annotations.

Materials:

• 1,015 tissue microarray (TMA) core images with detailed pattern descriptions [64].
• Annotations from 54 international pathologists following standardized guidelines.
• Concept-bottleneck U-Net architecture (GleasonXAI).
• Standard U-Net model for direct Gleason pattern segmentation.

Procedure:

• Data Preparation: Utilize soft labels to capture uncertainty and interobserver variability in the training data.
• Model Training: Train the GleasonXAI model using concept-bottleneck approach with pathologist-defined terminology. Simultaneously, train a standard U-Net for direct pattern segmentation.
• Model Validation: Evaluate both models on a held-out test set using Dice similarity coefficient against pathologist annotations.
• Interpretability Assessment: Qualitatively assess whether the visualization regions of the explainable AI correspond to established pathological knowledge.
• Statistical Comparison: Perform statistical testing to determine if the performance difference between the explainable and standard AI is significant.

Protocol 3: Assessing Generalization Across Scanners

Objective: To evaluate AI model performance across different whole-slide image scanners and improve generalizability.

Materials:

• Whole-slide images from 6 different scanners [66].
• A!MagQC software for image quality control.
• AI model trained primarily on images from a single scanner (e.g., Akoya).
• Color augmentation and image appearance migration techniques.

Procedure:

• Image Acquisition: Scan the same set of 38 prostatectomy specimens using 6 different scanners.
• Quality Control: Process all WSIs through A!MagQC to identify and exclude images with focus, contrast, saturation, or artifact issues.
• Baseline Performance: Evaluate the model trained on a single scanner on images from all other scanners to establish baseline performance.
• Generalization Techniques: Apply color normalization and image appearance migration to address scanner-specific variations.
• Performance Validation: Re-evaluate model performance after applying generalization techniques, measuring F1 score for Gleason pattern detection across all scanners.

Signaling Pathways and Workflow Visualization

AI Gleason Grading Workflow

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Item	Function/Application	Example/Reference
Annotated Datasets	Training and validation of AI models for Gleason grading	PANDA Challenge dataset [68] [65]
Foundation Models	Pre-trained feature extractors for transfer learning	BEPH, CHIEF, UNI, GigaPath [1] [8] [51]
Quality Control Tools	Automated assessment of WSI quality for model input	A!MagQC software [66]
Annotation Platforms	Streamlined pathologist annotations and AI predictions	A!HistoClouds platform [66]
Synthetic Data Generators	Address data scarcity and bias using generative AI	dcGAN for histopathological images [69]
Explainable AI Frameworks	Provide interpretable outputs using pathologist-defined concepts	Concept-bottleneck U-Net (GleasonXAI) [64]

The adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) in clinical histopathology represents a paradigm shift in cancer diagnostics, offering the potential to augment pathologist capabilities, increase diagnostic throughput, and uncover novel morphological biomarkers. Foundation models, pre-trained on massive datasets of histopathological images, demonstrate remarkable performance across diverse cancer diagnostic tasks [1] [8]. However, their complex, non-linear architectures often function as "black boxes," creating significant barriers to clinical adoption where understanding the rationale behind predictions is crucial for patient safety and regulatory approval [70]. The trustworthiness of AI systems in healthcare depends not only on quantitative performance metrics but also on qualitative aspects of interpretability and explainability that align with clinical reasoning processes.

This document provides application notes and detailed protocols for interpreting foundation models in computational pathology, with a specific focus on establishing clinical trustworthiness through rigorous qualitative analysis. We frame interpretability as the ability to explain or present model decisions in understandable terms to human experts, which is essential for debugging models, ensuring they have not learned spurious correlations, guarding against embedded bias, and ultimately facilitating their integration into clinical workflows [70] [71]. The protocols outlined herein enable researchers to move beyond mere performance validation toward establishing transparent, accountable, and clinically trustworthy AI systems for cancer diagnosis.

Foundational Concepts: Interpretability Methods for Histopathology AI

Taxonomy of Interpretability Approaches

Interpretability methods can be classified along several dimensions: scope (global vs. local), model dependence (model-specific vs. model-agnostic), and response function complexity (linear, monotonic to nonlinear, non-monotonic) [71]. In histopathology, where whole slide images (WSIs) constitute gigapixel-sized data, multiple approaches are often required to fully characterize model behavior.

Global interpretability aims to explain overall model behavior across the entire dataset, while local interpretability focuses on understanding individual predictions [70] [71]. For foundation models in pathology, which typically employ complex, nonlinear, non-monotonic response functions, model-agnostic approaches that can be applied to any model architecture are particularly valuable [71].

Critical Interpretability Methods

The following methods have proven particularly relevant for histopathology applications:

• Partial Dependence Plots (PDP) show the marginal effect of one or two features on the predicted outcome, revealing global trends but potentially hiding heterogeneous effects [70].
• Individual Conditional Expectation (ICE) plots display one line per instance to show how an individual prediction changes as a feature varies, uncovering heterogeneous relationships that PDP might average out [70] [71].
• Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations (LIME) approximate complex models with interpretable local surrogates (e.g., linear models) to explain individual predictions [70].
• Shapley Values (SHAP) compute feature importance based on cooperative game theory, providing locally accurate and additive feature contributions [70].
• Attention Mechanisms in multiple instance learning (MIL) frameworks visualize which regions of a WSI received the most attention for a given prediction, creating heatmaps aligned with pathological regions of interest [1] [8].
• Surrogate Models train interpretable models (e.g., decision trees, linear models) to approximate the predictions of black box models, either globally or locally [70].

Quantitative Performance of Interpretable Foundation Models

Performance Benchmarks Across Cancer Types

Table 1: Performance benchmarks of foundation models across multiple cancer types and tasks.

Foundation Model	Pre-training Data Scale	Task Type	Cancer Types	Performance Metrics
BEPH [1]	11.77 million patches from 32 cancer types	Patch-level classification	Breast cancer (BreakHis)	Accuracy: 94.05% (patient level)
		WSI-level classification	Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) subtypes	AUC: 0.994 ± 0.0013
		Survival prediction	BRCA, CRC, CCRCC, PRCC, LUAD, STAD	Superior to state-of-the-art models
CHIEF [8]	60,530 WSIs across 19 anatomical sites	Cancer detection	11 cancer types from 15 datasets	Macro-average AUROC: 0.9397
		Genomic prediction	Pan-cancer (53 genes)	9 genes with AUROC > 0.8
		Tumor origin prediction	Multiple primary sites	Validated on independent test sets

Comparative Performance of Interpretability Methods

Table 2: Characteristics and comparative performance of major interpretability methods.

Interpretability Method	Scope	Model-Agnostic	Strengths	Limitations	Clinical Applicability
Partial Dependence Plots (PDP)	Global	Yes	Intuitive visualization of global feature effects	Hides heterogeneous effects; assumes feature independence	Moderate - Limited for individual case review
ICE Plots	Local	Yes	Reveals heterogeneity in feature effects; intuitive	Difficult to see average effects; small sample bias	High - Useful for understanding individual cases
LIME	Local	Yes	Human-friendly, contrastive explanations; model-agnostic	Unstable explanations; sensitive to kernel settings	High - Provides case-specific reasoning
SHAP	Local & Global	Yes	Additive, consistent feature contributions; theoretical foundation	Computationally intensive for large datasets	High - Quantifies feature importance clearly
Attention Mechanisms	Local	No	Directly highlights relevant image regions; intuitive	Model-specific; may not capture all reasoning	Very High - Aligns with pathological review
Global Surrogate	Global	Yes	Provides complete model explanation with interpretable models	Additional approximation error; limited fidelity	Moderate - Good for model validation

Experimental Protocols for Qualitative Validation

Protocol 1: Attention-based Heatmap Generation for WSI Interpretation

Purpose: To generate and validate attention heatmaps that highlight regions of WSIs most influential in foundation model predictions.

Materials:

• Whole Slide Images (WSI) in standard formats (.svs, .ndpi, .tif)
• Pre-trained foundation model (e.g., BEPH, CHIEF) with attention mechanisms
• Computational pathology platform with sufficient GPU memory (>12GB recommended)
• Pathologist annotations for validation (bounding boxes or segmentation masks)

Procedure:

• WSI Preprocessing: Segment tissue regions from background using adaptive thresholding algorithms. Tile WSIs into 224×224 or 256×256 pixel patches at appropriate magnification (typically 20×).
• Feature Extraction: Process each tile through the foundation model's feature extraction backbone to generate tile-level embeddings.
• Attention Computation: Forward pass tile embeddings through the model's attention layer. Compute attention scores for each tile using multiple-instance learning (MIL) aggregation.
• Heatmap Generation: Map attention scores back to original spatial locations in the WSI. Apply color mapping (e.g., jet colormap) where warm colors (red) indicate high attention and cool colors (blue) indicate low attention.
• Pathologist Validation: Present heatmap-overlaid WSIs to board-certified pathologists for blinded evaluation. Assess spatial correlation between high-attention regions and diagnostically relevant tissue features.
• Quantitative Correlation: Calculate Dice coefficients between high-attention regions (thresholded) and pathologist-annotated regions of interest.

Validation Metrics:

• Spatial correlation coefficient between attention hotspots and pathological annotations
• Diagnostic concordance rate between model attention and pathologist identification of key features
• Inter-rater reliability between multiple pathologists evaluating attention localization

Protocol 2: Ablation Studies for Feature Importance Analysis

Purpose: To determine which morphological features most significantly impact foundation model predictions through systematic ablation.

Materials:

• Curated dataset of histopathology image tiles with known diagnoses
• Pre-trained foundation model for inference
• Image processing library for controlled feature manipulation
• Statistical analysis software

Procedure:

• Baseline Establishment: Compute baseline model performance (accuracy, AUC) on unmodified test dataset.
• Feature Segmentation: Apply segmentation algorithms to isolate specific morphological structures:
  • Nuclear segmentation using H&E-stain separation and watershed algorithms
  • Tissue architecture segmentation using texture-based classifiers
  • Cellularity assessment through density mapping
• Systematic Ablation: For each morphological feature:
  • Modify or remove the feature from test images while preserving other structures
  • Process modified images through the foundation model
  • Record change in prediction confidence and accuracy
• Control Experiments: Implement control ablations where random regions are modified to establish significance thresholds.
• Statistical Analysis: Perform paired t-tests or ANOVA to determine significance of performance degradation for each ablated feature.

Validation Metrics:

• Percentage decrease in prediction confidence for each ablated feature
• Statistical significance of performance differences (p-values)
• Effect size measurements (Cohen's d) for most impactful features

Protocol 3: Qualitative Assessment of Clinical Trustworthiness

Purpose: To establish a framework for qualitative evaluation of model trustworthiness using established criteria from qualitative research methodologies.

Materials:

• Case series of challenging diagnostic cases with model predictions
• Panel of domain experts (pathologists, oncologists)
• Structured interview guides and assessment forms
• Audio recording equipment for focus groups (with appropriate consent)

Procedure:

• Case Selection: Curate a diverse set of cases representing:
  • Straightforward diagnoses (controls)
  • Borderline or challenging cases
  • Cases with potential for model failure modes
• Expert Evaluation: Conduct structured sessions where pathologists review:
  • Model predictions with attention visualizations
  • Traditional pathology data (H&E, IHC where available)
  • Clinical context (patient history, prior treatments)
• Trustworthiness Assessment: Evaluate against established qualitative research criteria:
  • Credibility: Member checking - experts assess plausibility of model explanations
  • Transferability: Thick description - evaluate applicability to different practice settings
  • Dependability: Audit trail - document model decision pathways
  • Confirmability: Reflexivity - identify potential biases in model development [72]
• Triangulation: Compare model interpretations with:
  • Molecular profiling data when available
  • Patient outcomes data
  • Multiple pathologist interpretations
• Thematic Analysis: Transcribe and code expert feedback to identify:
  • Recurring themes in model strengths and limitations
  • Contextual factors affecting model utility
  • Barriers to clinical adoption

Validation Metrics:

• Expert confidence scores in model explanations (Likert scale)
• Concordance rates between model attention and expert-identified critical features
• Qualitative themes regarding model trustworthiness and clinical integration

Visualization of Interpretability Workflows

Interpretability Analysis Workflow

Diagram 1: Interpretability analysis workflow for pathology foundation models.

Experimental Validation Pipeline

Diagram 2: Experimental validation pipeline for clinical trustworthiness.

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential research reagents and computational tools for interpretability research.

Category	Item	Specifications	Application/Function
Computational Framework	PyTorch/TensorFlow	GPU-accelerated deep learning frameworks	Model development and inference
	OpenSlide	Whole slide image processing library	WSI reading and preprocessing
	SHAP library	Model-agnostic explainability package	Shapley value calculation
	scikit-learn	Machine learning library	Surrogate model training
Data Resources	The Cancer Genome Atlas	>20,000 WSIs across 33 cancer types	Model training and validation
	CPTAC	Proteogenomic data with matched pathology images	Multimodal validation
	Camelyon datasets	Lymph node sections with metastases	Model benchmarking
	BreakHis	Breast cancer histopathology dataset	Patch-level validation
Validation Tools	Digital Slide Archives	Enterprise management of WSIs	Pathologist review platform
	QuPath	Open source digital pathology platform	Region of interest annotation
	ASAP	Whole slide image annotation tool	Ground truth generation
	DICOM Standard	Standard for medical imaging information	Clinical integration

The translation of foundation models from research tools to clinically trustworthy diagnostic systems requires rigorous qualitative analysis alongside quantitative validation. The protocols and frameworks presented here provide a structured approach to interpreting the "black box" of AI in histopathology, addressing the critical need for transparency and explainability in healthcare AI. By implementing these interpretability methods and validation protocols, researchers and drug development professionals can build the necessary evidence base for clinical adoption, ultimately accelerating the integration of AI-powered diagnostics into cancer care pathways while maintaining the essential human oversight that defines medical excellence.

Conclusion

Foundation models represent a formidable advance in computational pathology, demonstrating strong capabilities in generalizable cancer diagnosis and prognosis from histopathological images. They offer a viable path to reduce dependency on scarce expert annotations and to create robust, multi-purpose AI tools. However, their journey to clinical adoption is fraught with challenges, including unresolved issues of robustness, significant computational burdens, and safety concerns. The future of this field hinges on developing more domain-specific architectures, improving data efficiency, and conducting rigorous, multi-center clinical trials. The ultimate goal is the emergence of generalist medical AI that seamlessly integrates pathology models with other data modalities, such as genomics, to truly revolutionize precision oncology and personalized patient care.

References

• 1. A foundation model for generalizable cancer diagnosis and ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-57587-y]
• 2. A multimodal whole-slide foundation model for pathology [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-025-03982-3]
• 3. The path from task-specific to general purpose artificial ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010482524003421]
• 4. Generalist vs. Specialist AI Models [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/generalist-vs-specialist-ai-models-healthcare-life-sciences-nama-qpyse]
• 5. Explainable, federated deep learning model predicts ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41698-025-00997-4]
• 6. Deep learning model targeting cancer surrounding tissues for ... [https://translational-medicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12967-024-06017-6]
• 7. Self-supervised learning for data augmentation in ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-23280-9]
• 8. A Pathology Foundation Model for Cancer Diagnosis and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12186853/]
• 9. Self-supervised learning for breast cancer detection: A review [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010482525015987]
• 10. Interpretable self-supervised contrastive learning for ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41170074/]
• 11. Transformers in pathological image analysis: A survey [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0952197625011157]
• 12. Masked Image Modeling: A Survey [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11263-025-02524-1]
• 13. Comparative analysis of convolutional neural networks and ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40600038/]
• 14. Large language models driven neural architecture search ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41746-025-02042-x]
• 15. Machine learning methods for histopathological image ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2001037024004549]
• 16. A foundation model for generalizable cancer diagnosis and ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40064883/]
• 17. Exploiting common patterns in diverse cancer types via ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41698-024-00700-z]
• 18. A Multicentric Dataset for Training and Benchmarking ... [https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.02037]
• 19. Learning generalizable AI models for multi-center ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11271637/]
• 20. Professor Yu Zhangsheng's Team Develops Foundation ... [https://www.shsmu.edu.cn/english/info/1021/5136.htm]
• 21. Zhcyoung/BEPH: BEiT-based model Pre-training on ... [https://github.com/Zhcyoung/BEPH]
• 22. A Survey of Pathology Foundation Model [https://arxiv.org/html/2504.04045v1]
• 23. A foundation model for generalizable cancer diagnosis and ... [https://sciencecast.org/casts/x8p1hrow3k4c]
• 24. State of Foundation Model Training Report 2025 [https://neptune.ai/state-of-foundation-model-training-report]
• 25. Multi-platform integration of histopathological images and ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/oncology/articles/10.3389/fonc.2025.1591165/full]
• 26. [2501.00365] Low-Rank Adaptation for Foundation Models [https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.00365]
• 27. The State of Foundation Models in Computational Pathology [https://medium.com/@loomy.sjyoo/the-state-of-foundation-models-in-computational-pathology-a-comprehensive-survey-ac4fd2a62ff0]
• 28. AI-driven biomarker discovery: enhancing precision in cancer ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11906928/]
• 29. Real-world deployment of a fine-tuned pathology ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-025-03780-x]
• 30. End-to-end prognostication in colorectal cancer by deep ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S258975002300208X]
• 31. Histopathology images-based deep learning prediction of ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41746-024-01003-0]
• 32. A novel deep learning-based algorithm combining ... [https://translational-medicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12967-023-04530-8]
• 33. DCS_PathIMS: AI-powered Digital Pathology Diagnostics ... [https://esmed.org/MRA/mra/article/view/6481]
• 34. A foundation model for generalizable cancer diagnosis and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11894166/]
• 35. A foundation model for clinical-grade computational ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-024-03141-0]
• 36. The impact of site-specific digital histology signatures on ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24698-1]
• 37. Towards Robust Foundation Models for Digital Pathology [https://www.aignostics.com/blog/towards-robust-foundation-models-for-digital-pathology]
• 38. [1710.10547] Interpretation of Neural Networks is Fragile [https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.10547]
• 39. INTERPRETATION OF NEURAL NETWORK IS FRAGILE [https://openreview.net/forum?id=H1xJjlbAZ]
• 40. Towards Robust Foundation Models for Digital Pathology [https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.17845]
• 41. The current landscape of artificial intelligence in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11961855/]
• 42. Current AI technologies in cancer diagnostics and treatment [https://molecular-cancer.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12943-025-02369-9]
• 43. Reinforcement Fine-Tuning Naturally Mitigates Forgetting ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2507.05386v1]
• 44. Developments in Deep Learning Artificial Neural Network ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12071792/]
• 45. An interpretable hybrid deep learning framework for gastric ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-15702-5]
• 46. A Comprehensive Survey of Deep Learning Approaches in ... [https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/25/2/531]
• 47. Fine-Tuning Large Language Models: Strategies ... [https://medium.com/ai-native-publication/fine-tuning-large-language-models-strategies-challenges-and-best-practices-5cbf6dd1b8de]
• 48. A pathology foundation for cancer diagnosis and prognosis... model [https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/nature/v634y2024i8035d10.1038_s41586-024-07894-z.html]
• 49. Adversarial attacks and adversarial robustness in ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-33266-0]
• 50. Adversarial Defense for Medical Images [https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/14/22/4384]
• 51. Why Foundation Models in Pathology Are Failing [https://arxiv.org/html/2510.23807v2]
• 52. Enhancing resilience against adversarial attacks in ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2468451124000412]
• 53. Use of AI Histopathology in Breast Cancer Diagnosis - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12565969/]
• 54. Automatic data augmentation to improve generalization of ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010482524001021]
• 55. Domain Adaptation for Medical Image Analysis: A Survey - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9011180/]
• 56. Automatic data augmentation to improve generalization of ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38281317/]
• 57. Benchmarking Pathology Foundation Models: Adaptation ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2410.16038v1]
• 58. Benchmarking foundation models as feature extractors for ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41551-025-01516-3]
• 59. A comprehensive evaluation of histopathology foundation models for ovarian cancer subtype classification | npj Precision Oncology [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41698-025-00799-8]
• 60. Benchmarking histopathology foundation models for ovarian cancer bevacizumab treatment response prediction from whole slide images | Discover Oncology [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12672-025-01973-x]
• 61. Understanding and Mitigating Batch Effects in Histopathology [https://www.trillium.de/en/journals/trillium-pathology/archive/2025/tp-1/2025/computational-pathology/image-analysis-understanding-and-mitigating-batch-effects-in-histopathology.html]
• 62. Multicenter Histology Image Integration and Multiscale Deep ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40585079/]
• 63. Fusing Multiple Foundation Models for Pathology Image ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1566253525009029]
• 64. Pathologist-like explainable AI for interpretable Gleason ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-64712-4]
• 65. Evaluation of Artificial Intelligence-Based Gleason Grading ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0893395224001431]
• 66. A comprehensive AI model development framework for ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s43856-024-00502-1]
• 67. Digital Pathology and AI Highlights from ASCO 2025 [https://proscia.com/digital-pathology-and-ai-highlights-from-asco-2025/]
• 68. A systematic analysis of the impact of data variation on AI- ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136184152500430X]
• 69. Mitigating bias in prostate cancer diagnosis using synthetic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12098719/]
• 70. Interpretability Methods in Machine Learning: A Brief Survey [https://www.twosigma.com/articles/interpretability-methods-in-machine-learning-a-brief-survey/]
• 71. Machine Learning Interpretability - GitHub Pages [https://h2oai.github.io/tutorials/machine-learning-interpretability/]
• 72. Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 4 [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8816392/]