ArticleResearch square2025
Foundation model embeddings for quantitative tumor imaging biomarkers.
Article in Research square, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Foundation models are increasingly used in medical imaging, yet their ability to extract reliable quantitative radiographic phenotypes of cancer across diverse clinical contexts lacks systematic evaluation. Here, we introduce TumorImagingBench, a curated benchmark comprising six public datasets (3,244 scans) with varied oncological endpoints. We evaluate ten medical imaging foundation models, representing diverse architectures and pre-training strategies developed between 2020 and 2025, assessing their performance in deriving deep learning-based radiographic phenotypes. Our analysis extends beyond endpoint prediction performance and compares robustness to common sources of variability and saliency-based interpretability. We additionally compare the mutual similarity of learned embedding representations across each of the models. This comparative benchmarking reveals performance disparities among models and provides critical insights to guide the selection of optimal foundation models for specific quantitative imaging tasks. We publicly release all code, curated datasets, and benchmark results to foster reproducible research and future developments in quantitative cancer imaging.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.