Validation of Whole-Slide Foundation Models for Image Retrieval in TCGA Data
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Foundation models are reshaping computational histopathology, yet their value for whole-slide image retrieval relative to strong patch-based and supervised aggregation baselines remains unclear. We benchmarked ten pipelines on 9,387 diagnostic slides spanning 17 organs and 60 diagnoses from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) using patient-level leave-one-patient-out evaluation. Methods included four pre-trained slide foundation models, a supervised attention-based multiple instance learning (ABMIL) aggregator on patch embeddings, and patch-level retrieval across five sampling densities. Performance varied more across organs and diagnoses than across architectures. Although the slide foundation model TITAN achieved the strongest overall results, its advantage was modest; ABMIL and patch-based methods reached comparable Top-1 and Top-3 accuracy, with no model consistently dominant. Morphologically distinctive entities approached ceiling performance, while rare, heterogeneous, and closely related subtypes remained challenging. Misclassifications aligned with organs exhibiting known inter-observer variability, suggesting an intrinsic ceiling for morphology-only retrieval. Performance was driven primarily by patch-level feature representations, with limited benefit from slide-level aggregation, indicating aggregation may be unnecessary in many settings. These findings argue against a universally optimal architecture and instead support organ-resolved benchmarking, diagnosis-aware or ensemble strategies, stronger feature representations, and multimodal retrieval frameworks. Notably, even the best model achieved only ≈ 68% ± 21% retrieval accuracy on TCGA, and some subtypes showed 0% accuracy across all methods, highlighting fundamental limitations of morphology-based representations and the need for substantial progress before reliable clinical deployment.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 33 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Apr 2026.
Builds on
17 of 33 references.
References · 17
- 2017A Survey on Deep Learning in Medical Image Analysiscited by 1,182
- 2018Attention-based Deep Multiple Instance Learningcited by 1,077
- 2020Data Efficient and Weakly Supervised Computational Pathology on Whole Slide Imagescited by 738
- 2024Multimodal Whole Slide Foundation Model for Pathologycited by 156
- 2024PRISM: A Multi-Modal Generative Foundation Model for Slide-Level Histopathologycited by 80
- 2024A Clinical Benchmark of Public Self-Supervised Pathology Foundation Modelscited by 64
- 2024A Multimodal Knowledge-enhanced Whole-slide Pathology Foundation Modelcited by 59
- 2025Accelerating Data Processing and Benchmarking of AI Models for Pathologycited by 58
- 2024Benchmarking foundation models as feature extractors for weakly-supervised computational pathologycited by 47
- 2019Yottixel -- An Image Search Engine for Large Archives of Histopathology Whole Slide Imagescited by 41
- 2024Multistain Pretraining for Slide Representation Learning in Pathologycited by 27
- 2019Pan-Cancer Diagnostic Consensus Through Searching Archival Histopathology Images Using Artificial Intelligencecited by 26
5 more
- 2025A Survey of Pathology Foundation Model: Progress and Future Directionscited by 14
- 2024On Image Search in Histopathologycited by 12
- 2016MinMax Radon Barcodes for Medical Image Retrievalcited by 9
- 2024Analysis and Validation of Image Search Engines in Histopathologycited by 7
- 2025Beyond the Failures: Rethinking Foundation Models in Pathologycited by 6
Built on by
Not cited yet.