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 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Modern Pathology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.2%
2
Journal of Pathology Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.3%
3
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 19%
9.9%
50% of probability mass above
4
Medical Image Analysis
33 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
8.3%
5
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.9%
6
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.5%
7
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 42%
2.8%
8
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.3%
9
Cell Reports Medicine
140 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.9%
10
Cancer Research
116 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
11
Computers in Biology and Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
12
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
13
npj Precision Oncology
48 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.5%
14
Clinical Cancer Research
58 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
15
Communications Medicine
85 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
16
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.9%
17
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 64%
0.9%
18
Journal of Medical Imaging
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
19
British Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
20
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 33%
0.7%
21
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 45%
0.7%
22
Nature Medicine
117 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
23
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 28%
0.6%
24
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%