ArticleJournal of imaging2026
Assessing CNNs and LoRA-Fine-Tuned Vision-Language Models for Breast Cancer Histopathology Image Classification.
Article in Journal of imaging, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Breast cancer histopathology classification remains a fundamental challenge in computational pathology due to variations in tissue morphology across magnification levels. Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have long been the standard for image-based diagnosis, yet recent advances in vision-language models (VLMs) suggest they may provide strong and transferable representations for complex medical images. In this study, we present a systematic comparison between CNN baselines and large VLMs-Qwen2 and SmolVLM-fine-tuned with Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA; r=16, α=32, dropout = 0.05) on the BreakHis dataset. Models were evaluated at 40×, 100×, 200×, and 400× magnifications using accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score, and area under the ROC curve (AUC). While Qwen2 achieved moderate performance across magnifications (e.g., 0.8736 accuracy and 0.9552 AUC at 200×), SmolVLM consistently outperformed Qwen2 and substantially reduced the gap with CNN baselines, reaching up to 0.9453 accuracy and 0.9572 F1-score at 200×-approaching the performance of AlexNet (0.9543 accuracy) at the same magnification. CNN baselines, particularly ResNet34, remained the strongest models overall, achieving the highest performance across all magnifications (e.g., 0.9879 accuracy and 0.9984 AUC at 40×). These findings demonstrate that LoRA fine-tuned VLMs, despite requiring gradient accumulation and memory-efficient optimizers and operating with a significantly smaller number of trainable parameters, can achieve competitive performance relative to traditional CNNs. However, CNN-based architectures still provide the highest accuracy and robustness for histopathology classification. Our results highlight the potential of VLMs as parameter-efficient alternatives for digital pathology tasks, particularly in resource-constrained settings.
Indexed as
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.