Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42635893›Full record

ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2026

Comparative Study of CNN, Hybrid, and Transformer Architectures in Medical Image Classification.

Dina A Elkholy, Mohamed S Shehata, John W Braun

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Dina A ElkholyDepartment of Computer Science, University of British Columbia, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada. delkholy@student.ubc.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-3036-7888
Mohamed S ShehataDepartment of Computer Science, University of British Columbia, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada.
John W BraunDepartment of Computer Science, University of British Columbia, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Deep learning has significantly advanced medical image analysis, yet the relative strengths of convolutional neural networks (CNNs), vision transformers (ViTs), and hybrid CNN-Transformer models remain unclear. We present a systematic comparison of these model families across six 2D MedMNIST classification tasks under a controlled parameter budget of 20 to 30 million parameters, using both full fine-tuning and linear-probing. Among all evaluated models, the self-supervised CNN DINO-S achieves the highest average accuracy and AUC, while hybrid models such as MedViT-S perform comparably by combining local feature extraction with global context modeling. In contrast, compact ViTs generally underperform CNNs and hybrids under full fine-tuning when model size is controlled, and their performance depends strongly on pretraining strategy. Supervised medical pretraining on NIH ChestX-ray14 and CheXpert yields modest, task-dependent gains but does not alter the overall ranking of model families. Large-scale foundation models, including MedMAE, Rad-DINO, and CheXFound, also underperform smaller fully fine-tuned models under linear-probing, underscoring the importance of domain and task alignment. Overall, our results show that larger models and larger pretraining datasets do not automatically lead to better downstream performance. Instead, transfer effectiveness in medical imaging is driven primarily by architectural inductive biases, pretraining strategy, and domain relevance.

Indexed as

CNNDeep learningFoundation modelsHybrid modelMedical image classificationMedical imagingVision transformer

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.