ArticleProceedings of machine learning research2026
Comparing Computational Pathology Foundation Models using Representational Similarity Analysis.
Article in Proceedings of machine learning research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Foundation model-powered deep learning of endometrial histology for predicting the cumulative live birth of an in vitro fertilization cycle.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Machine Learning for Radiomics in Oncology: Challenges, Limitations, and Future Directions.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Foundation models in computational pathology: methods, applications and clinical implications.BMJ oncology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Foundation models are increasingly developed in computational pathology (CPath) given their promise in facilitating many downstream tasks. While recent studies have evaluated task performance across models, less is known about the structure and variability of their learned representations. Here, we systematically analyze the representational spaces of six CPath foundation models using techniques popularized in computational neuroscience. The models analyzed span vision-language contrastive learning (CONCH, PLIP, KEEP) and self-distillation (UNI (v2), Virchow (v2), Prov-GigaPath) approaches. Through representational similarity analysis using H&E image patches from TCGA, we find that UNI2 and Virchow2 have the most distinct representational structures, whereas Prov-Gigapath has the highest average similarity across models. Having the same training paradigm (vision-only vs. vision-language) did not guarantee higher representational similarity. The representations of all models showed a high slide-dependence, but relatively low disease-dependence. Stain normalization decreased slide-dependence for all models by a range of 5.5% (CONCH) to 20.5% (PLIP). In terms of intrinsic dimensionality, vision-language models demonstrated relatively compact representations, compared to the more distributed representations of vision-only models. These findings highlight opportunities to improve robustness to slide-specific features, inform model ensembling strategies, and provide insights into how training paradigms shape model representations. Our framework is extendable across medical imaging domains, where probing the internal representations of foundation models can support their effective development and deployment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42421885PMC13345687What 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.