ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2026
Systematic evaluation of foundation models for organ-level classification on CT scans.
Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeFoundation models are increasingly used as frozen feature extractors for CT classification tasks, yet the determinants of their downstream performance remain unclear. We assess how foundation model choice, feature aggregation strategy, and abnormality type are associated with performance in organ-level abnormality classification. We further evaluate whether more expressive aggregation strategies outperform simple pooling, and whether performance varies by abnormality type.
methodsWe evaluate five state-of-the-art medical imaging foundation models on binary organ-level abnormality classification (normal vs. abnormal) across six abdominal organs. Local patch-level embeddings are aggregated using six strategies, including simple pooling methods (e.g., mean pooling) and attention-based multiple instance learning. A linear classifier is trained on feature embeddings, and performance is evaluated on an annotated test set of 200 CT scans.
resultsAmong the evaluated models, 3D CT-native models generally outperformed 2D multi-modal models. None of the tested aggregation strategies significantly outperformed mean pooling, including attention-based multiple instance learning (best-performing aggregation vs. mean:
conclusionIn our experiments, downstream performance varied more across foundation models than across aggregation strategies. The choice of aggregation strategy, including attention-based multiple instance learning, did not significantly impact performance in this setting. The persistent gap for focal abnormalities suggests that current representations may insufficiently encode localized disease patterns, motivating the development of localization-aware pre-training approaches.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42658401What 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.