Back

Assessing Foundation Models for Computational Pathology in Endometrial Cancer

Volinsky-Fremond, S.; van den Berg, N.; Barkey Wolf, J.; Schoenpflug, L. A.; Andani, S.; Ortoft, G.; Jobsen, J. J.; Lutgens, L. C.; Powell, M. E.; Mileshkin, L. R.; Mackay, H.; Leary, A.; Razack, R. R.; de Bruyn, M.; de Boer, S. M.; Nout, R. A.; Smit, V. T.; Creutzberg, C. L.; Koelzer, V. H.; Bosse, T.; Horeweg, N.

2026-05-25 pathology
10.64898/2026.05.22.26353897 medRxiv
Show abstract

Computational pathology leverages deep learning to extract clinically relevant information from digitized tumor slides, predicting histopathological subtypes, molecular alterations, and patient outcomes. Recent pipelines increasingly rely on foundation models trained on large pan-cancer datasets to generate generalizable features. In endometrial cancer (EC), their comparative performance for clinical diagnostic tasks remains unexplored. For the first time, this study evaluates the performance of seven state-of-the-art foundation models across morphological, molecular, and prognostic tasks using a large EC dataset of 3,293 patients from randomized trials and clinical cohorts. In addition, their performance was compared to one model (EsVIT) exclusively trained on EC. The foundation models H-OPTIMUS-0, CONCH, and VIRCHOW2, achieved the highest mean performance, but the best-performing foundation model varied by task. The top-performing foundation model outperformed the EC-specific feature extractor EsVIT across all tasks. This study highlights the superiority of foundation models over a domain-specific feature extractor in EC. Selecting the optimal foundation model for novel tasks remains challenging due to performance plateaus and limited information on the training datasets, requiring rigorous benchmarking and domain insight to reach maximum potential.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Modern Pathology
22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.6%
2
npj Digital Medicine
118 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
17.2%
3
Communications Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
7.3%
4
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 27%
5.5%
50% of probability mass above
5
Journal of Pathology Informatics
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.2%
6
npj Precision Oncology
53 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.9%
7
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.3%
8
Medical Image Analysis
35 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.3%
9
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 33%
3.3%
10
Nature Medicine
125 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
11
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 49%
1.7%
12
Cancers
213 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
13
eBioMedicine
183 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
14
BMC Cancer
67 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
15
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 17%
1.1%
16
Cell Reports Medicine
153 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
17
The American Journal of Pathology
32 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.0%
18
Cancer Research
130 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
19
JNCI Cancer Spectrum
10 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.0%
20
Breast Cancer Research
36 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
21
Translational Oncology
21 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.6%
22
Journal of Medical Imaging
11 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.6%
23
Biology Methods and Protocols
61 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%
24
Briefings in Bioinformatics
354 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.6%
25
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
242 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.6%