ArticleNature communications2026
A benchmark study of vision and pathology foundation models for computational pathology.
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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ensemble learning of pathology foundation models for precision oncology.Cancer cell · 2026Article
- Foundation model-powered deep learning of endometrial histology for predicting the cumulative live birth of an in vitro fertilization cycle.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- A benchmark study of vision and pathology foundation models for computational pathology.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Benchmarking Vision Encoders for Image Classification in Ophthalmology.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2026Article
- Comparing Computational Pathology Foundation Models using Representational Similarity Analysis.Proceedings of machine learning research · 2026Article
- AI-Powered Histology for Molecular Profiling in Brain Tumors: Toward Smart Diagnostics from Tissue.Cancers · 2025Review
- Fully Automated Stain Quantification Framework for IHC Whole Slide Images in Breast Cancer.Technology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
Corrections and comments
- Update of
- Update of
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.