ArticleComputational and structural biotechnology journal2026
Benchmarking Vision Encoders for Image Classification in Ophthalmology.
Article in Computational and structural biotechnology journal, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Foundation vision encoders are rapidly emerging as the standard for retinal artificial intelligence. Yet, ophthalmology still lacks a comprehensive benchmark, leaving model selection for basic science and clinical translation as guesswork. Here, we present a large-scale comparison of 34 pretrained encoders on 39 classification tasks covering color fundus photography, optical coherence tomography, scanning laser ophthalmoscopy, and ultrawidefield imaging. Using a unified pipeline, we compare frozen-feature evaluation, linear probing, and end-to-end fine-tuning to determine which models translate into strong downstream performance. We show that ophthalmic transfer is highly task dependent: no single encoder dominates, and model rankings vary across datasets. Contrary to common expectations, retina-specific pretraining does not confer an advantage. Instead, several natural-image and cross-domain medical encoders match or surpass ophthalmology-specialized models, with the histopathology-pretrained Virchow achieving the strongest overall performance. In addition, pathology-pretrained encoders consistently place near the top, revealing the value of cross-domain pretraining for ophthalmic applications. We further show that inexpensive proxy evaluations are unreliable substitutes for full fine-tuning. Across fairness analyses, all encoders exhibit similar age- and sex-associated performance gaps, and larger models appear more sensitive to suboptimal learning rates, whereas smaller encoders are robust. Together, these findings provide an objective reference for encoder selection in ophthalmology and show that reliable retinal artificial intelligence depends not only on model scale or domain-specific pretraining but also on careful, protocol-aware evaluation. By releasing our code, splits, and benchmarking pipeline, we aim to establish a transparent foundation for future ophthalmic foundation-model research.
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.