A protocol for evaluating robustness to H&E staining variation in computational pathology models
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Sensitivity to staining variation remains a major barrier to deploying computational pathology (CPath) models as hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining varies across laboratories, requiring systematic assessment of how this variability affects model prediction. In this work, we developed a three-step protocol for evaluating robustness to H&E staining variation in CPath models. Step 1: Select reference staining conditions, Step 2: Characterize test set staining properties, Step 3: Apply CPath model(s) under simulated reference staining conditions. Here, we first created a new reference staining library based on the PLISM dataset. As an exemplary use case, we applied the protocol to assess the robustness properties of 306 microsatellite instability (MSI) classification models on the unseen SurGen colorectal cancer dataset (n=738), including 300 attention-based multiple instance learning models trained on the TCGA-COAD/READ datasets across three feature extractors (UNI2-h, H-Optimus-1, Virchow2), alongside six public MSI classification models. Classification performance was measured as AUC, and robustness as the min-max AUC range across four simulated staining conditions (low/high H&E intensity, low/high H&E color similarity). Across models and staining conditions, classification performance ranged from AUC 0.769-0.911 (Delta = 0.142). Robustness ranged from 0.007-0.079 (Delta = 0.072), and showed a weak inverse correlation with classification performance (Pearson r=-0.22, 95% CI [-0.34, -0.11]). Thus, we show that the proposed evaluation protocol enables robustness-informed CPath model selection and provides insight into performance shifts across H&E staining conditions, supporting the identification of operational ranges for reliable model deployment. Code is available at https://github.com/CTPLab/staining-robustness-evaluation .
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 14 of its 46 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Mar 2026.
Builds on
14 of 46 references.
References · 14
- 2020Data Efficient and Weakly Supervised Computational Pathology on Whole Slide Imagescited by 745
- 2019Quantifying the effects of data augmentation and stain color normalization in convolutional neural networks for computational pathologycited by 173
- 2024Virchow2: Scaling Self-Supervised Mixed Magnification Models in Pathologycited by 161
- 2025Current Pathology Foundation Models are unrobust to Medical Center Differencescited by 39
- 2022RandStainNA: Learning Stain-Agnostic Features from Histology Slides by Bridging Stain Augmentation and Normalizationcited by 32
- 2024Do Histopathological Foundation Models Eliminate Batch Effects? A Comparative Studycited by 18
- 2025A Survey of Pathology Foundation Model: Progress and Future Directionscited by 16
- 2022From Modern CNNs to Vision Transformers: Assessing the Performance, Robustness, and Classification Strategies of Deep Learning Models in Histopathologycited by 9
- 2025SurGen: 1020 H&E-stained Whole Slide Images With Survival and Genetic Markerscited by 8
- 2020Histopathological Stain Transfer using Style Transfer Network with Adversarial Losscited by 7
- 2024Impact of Stain Variation and Color Normalization for Prognostic Predictions in Pathologycited by 6
- 2022REET: Robustness Evaluation and Enhancement Toolbox for Computational Pathologycited by 5
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
- 2026Robustifying pathology foundation models via fine-tuningcited by 0
- 2026Robustifying pathology foundation models via fine-tuning24 Jul 2026