The Importance of Downstream Networks in Digital Pathology Foundation Models
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Digital pathology has significantly advanced disease detection and pathologist efficiency through the analysis of gigapixel whole-slide images (WSI). In this process, WSIs are first divided into patches, for which a feature extractor model is applied to obtain feature vectors, which are subsequently processed by an aggregation model to predict the respective WSI label. With the rapid evolution of representation learning, numerous new feature extractor models, often termed foundational models, have emerged. Traditional evaluation methods rely on a static downstream aggregation model setup, encompassing a fixed architecture and hyperparameters, a practice we identify as potentially biasing the results. Our study uncovers a sensitivity of feature extractor models towards aggregation model configurations, indicating that performance comparability can be skewed based on the chosen configurations. By accounting for this sensitivity, we find that the performance of many current feature extractor models is notably similar. We support this insight by evaluating seven feature extractor models across three different datasets with 162 different aggregation model configurations. This comprehensive approach provides a more nuanced understanding of the feature extractors' sensitivity to various aggregation model configurations, leading to a fairer and more accurate assessment of new foundation models in digital pathology.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 22 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Nov 2023.
Builds on
16 of 22 references.
References · 16
- 2020A Simple Framework for Contrastive Learning of Visual Representationscited by 11,979
- 2023DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervisioncited by 7,764
- 2021Masked Autoencoders Are Scalable Vision Learnerscited by 7,339
- 2021Emerging Properties in Self-Supervised Vision Transformerscited by 6,893
- 2020Bootstrap your own latent: A new approach to self-supervised Learningcited by 4,712
- 2021On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Modelscited by 3,961
- 2017Accurate, Large Minibatch SGD: Training ImageNet in 1 Hourcited by 1,479
- 2020Big Self-Supervised Models are Strong Semi-Supervised Learnerscited by 1,375
- 2018Attention-based Deep Multiple Instance Learningcited by 1,077
- 2021iBOT: Image BERT Pre-Training with Online Tokenizercited by 891
- 2021Nystr"omformer: A Nystr"om-Based Algorithm for Approximating Self-Attentioncited by 468
- 2022Benchmarking Self-Supervised Learning on Diverse Pathology Datasetscited by 148
4 more
- 2023Virchow: A Million-Slide Digital Pathology Foundation Modelcited by 86
- 2022Multiple Instance Learning for Digital Pathology: A Review on the State-of-the-Art, Limitations & Future Potentialcited by 54
- 2023A General-Purpose Self-Supervised Model for Computational Pathologycited by 42
- 2021HEROHE Challenge: assessing HER2 status in breast cancer without immunohistochemistry or in situ hybridizationcited by 8
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 3.
3 papers.
- 2024PRISM: A Multi-Modal Generative Foundation Model for Slide-Level Histopathologycited by 80
- 2024Rethinking Attention-Based Multiple Instance Learning for Whole-Slide Pathological Image Classification: An Instance Attribute Viewpointcited by 2
- 2024Characterizing the Interpretability of Attention Maps in Digital Pathologycited by 2
- 2024Characterizing the Interpretability of Attention Maps in Digital Pathology2 Jul 2024
- 2024PRISM: A Multi-Modal Generative Foundation Model for Slide-Level Histopathology16 May 2024
- 2024Rethinking Attention-Based Multiple Instance Learning for Whole-Slide Pathological Image Classification: An Instance Attribute Viewpoint30 Mar 2024