ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
How well do frozen foundation models transfer? A calibration-focused benchmark for diabetic retinopathy grading.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Classification of Foot-and-Mouth and Lumpy Skin Disease in Cattle Using Frozen Pretrained Encoders: A Comparison of Convolutional and Transformer Architectures.Veterinary sciences · 2026Article
- ORDER-DR: external validation of severity grading and referable-risk stratification from fundus images.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pretrained foundation models are increasingly adopted for diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening, yet it remains unclear how much of their performance derives from the learned representations versus the adaptation procedure. Most benchmarks report discrimination metrics alone, neglecting probability calibration. Methods: We compared the frozen representations of three pretrained encoders: MedSigLIP (medical vision-language; ViT-B/16, 448 × 448), RETFound (retinal self-supervised; ViT-L/16, 224 × 224), and EfficientNet-B0 (ImageNet-supervised; 224 × 224). All encoder weights were frozen; only an identical lightweight multilayer perceptron head was trained. Models were developed on APTOS 2019 (3,662 fundus images; five-fold cross-validation) and externally validated on MESSIDOR-2 (1,744 images). Binary referable DR detection and five-class severity grading were evaluated. AUC, expected calibration error (ECE), and Brier score served as co-primary endpoints. External-set tests used patient-level cluster-robust bootstrap to account for bilateral correlation. Results: On the development set, all three encoders achieved near-identical binary AUC (0.980-0.985). MedSigLIP showed superior calibration, with a lower Brier score than RETFound (0.044 vs. 0.049; Conclusion: Under frozen transfer, the MedSigLIP encoder package produced more generalisable and better calibrated representations than both retinal self-supervised (RETFound) and ImageNet-supervised (EfficientNet-B0) encoders. Domain-specific pretraining did not guarantee domain-general frozen representations. These findings demonstrate that development-set discrimination alone is insufficient for encoder evaluation and that calibration metrics-particularly the Brier score-should be reported as standard practice.
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.