mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Revisiting the Role of Foundation Models in Cell-Level Histopathological Image Analysis under Small-Patch Constraints -- Effects of Training Data Scale and Blur Perturbations on CNNs and Vision Transformers

arXiv 2603.04081 ↗First posted 4 Mar 2026cs.CV q-bio.QMcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Background and objective: Cell-level pathological image analysis requires working with extremely small image patches (40x40 pixels), far below standard ImageNet resolutions. It remains unclear whether modern deep learning architectures and foundation models can learn robust and scalable representations under this constraint. We systematically evaluated architectural suitability and data-scale effects for small-patch cell classification. Methods: We analyzed 303 colorectal cancer specimens with CD103/CD8 immunostaining, generating 185,432 annotated cell images. Eight task-specific architectures were trained from scratch at multiple data scales (FlagLimit: 256--16,384 samples per class), and three foundation models were evaluated via linear probing and fine-tuning after resizing inputs to 224x224 pixels. Robustness to blur was assessed using pre- and post-resize Gaussian perturbations. Results: Task-specific models improved consistently with increasing data scale, whereas foundation models saturated at moderate sample sizes. A Vision Transformer optimized for small patches (CustomViT) achieved the highest accuracy, outperforming all foundation models with substantially lower inference cost. Blur robustness was comparable across architectures, with no qualitative advantage observed for foundation models. Conclusion: For cell-level classification under extreme spatial constraints, task-specific architectures are more effective and efficient than foundation models once sufficient training data are available. Higher clean accuracy does not imply superior robustness, and large pre-trained models offer limited benefit in the small-patch regime.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 17 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 4 Mar 2026.

Builds on

12 of 17 references.

References · 12

  1. 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 51,809
  2. 2020An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scalecited by 29,915
  3. 2014Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognitioncited by 15,267
  4. 2019EfficientNet: Rethinking Model Scaling for Convolutional Neural Networkscited by 6,415
  5. 2015Rethinking the Inception Architecture for Computer Visioncited by 5,451
  6. 2018MobileNetV2: Inverted Residuals and Linear Bottleneckscited by 4,773
  7. 2022A ConvNet for the 2020scited by 3,545
  8. 2019Deep neural network models for computational histopathology: A surveycited by 165
  9. 2021Revisiting ResNets: Improved Training and Scaling Strategiescited by 158
  10. 2020Self-Path: Self-supervision for Classification of Pathology Images with Limited Annotationscited by 89
  11. 2023Domain-Specific Pre-training Improves Confidence in Whole Slide Image Classificationcited by 2
  12. 2025Reliability Assessment Framework Based on Feature Separability for Pathological Cell Image Classification under Prior Biascited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.