Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42642435›Full record

ArticleNature communications2026

A benchmark study of vision and pathology foundation models for computational pathology.

Rohan Bareja, Francisco Carrillo-Perez, Yuanning Zheng, Marija Pizurica, Tarak Nath Nandi, Lu Tian, Jeanne Shen, Ravi Madduri, Olivier Gevaert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Benchmarking Vision Encoders for Image Classification in Ophthalmology.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Rohan BarejaDivision of Computational Medicine, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Francisco Carrillo-PerezDivision of Computational Medicine, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Yuanning ZhengDivision of Computational Medicine, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0018-3252
Marija PizuricaDivision of Computational Medicine, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Tarak Nath NandiData Science and Learning Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, IL, USA.
Lu TianDepartment of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford University, School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Jeanne ShenDepartment of Pathology, Stanford University, School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1519-0308
Ravi MadduriData Science and Learning Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, IL, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2130-2887
Olivier GevaertDivision of Computational Medicine, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. ogevaert@stanford.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9965-5466

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To advance precision medicine in pathology, artificial intelligence (AI)-driven foundation models must generalize across diverse datasets, tissues, and clinical tasks. However, their comparative performance and generalizability in computational pathology remain incompletely characterized. Here, we benchmark 32 AI foundation models across four categories, including general vision models (VM), general vision-language models (VLM), pathology-specific vision models (Path-VM), and pathology-specific vision-language models (Path-VLM), using slide- and patch-level tasks from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), Clinical Proteomic Tumor Analysis Consortium (CPTAC), external benchmarking datasets, and out-of-domain datasets. Across TCGA tasks, Path-VMs consistently rank among the strongest performers. Evaluation across CPTAC and out-of-domain datasets reveals more nuanced generalization behavior, with model rankings showing modest but consistent shifts across datasets and task categories. Pairwise statistical comparisons indicate that differences among top-performing models are often small and task dependent. Path-VMs outperform Path-VLMs and remain competitive with VMs. Model size and pretraining dataset scale do not consistently predict downstream performance. Finally, late decision-level ensembling improves aggregate performance across external datasets and tissue types, highlighting complementary strengths across foundation models. PathBench: https://pathbench.stanford.edu/.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceComputational BiologyNeoplasmsBenchmarkingHumansPrecision MedicineProteomics

Identifiers

PMID42642435
PMCPMC13507134

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.