Generalization of vision pre-trained models for histopathology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Out-of-distribution (OOD) generalization, especially for medical setups, is a key challenge in modern machine learning which has only recently received much attention. We investigate how different convolutional pre-trained models perform on OOD test data-that is data from domains that have not been seen during training-on histopathology repositories attributed to different trial sites. Different trial site repositories, pre-trained models, and image transformations are examined as specific aspects of pre-trained models. A comparison is also performed among models trained entirely from scratch (i.e., without pre-training) and models already pre-trained. The OOD performance of pre-trained models on natural images, i.e., (1) vanilla pre-trained ImageNet, (2) semi-supervised learning (SSL), and (3) semi-weakly-supervised learning (SWSL) models pre-trained on IG-1B-Targeted are examined in this study. In addition, the performance of a histopathology model (i.e., KimiaNet) trained on the most comprehensive histopathology dataset, i.e., TCGA, has also been studied. Although the performance of SSL and SWSL pre-trained models are conducive to better OOD performance in comparison to the vanilla ImageNet pre-trained model, the histopathology pre-trained model is still the best in overall. In terms of top-1 accuracy, we demonstrate that diversifying the images in the training using reasonable image transformations is effective to avoid learning shortcuts when the distribution shift is significant. In addition, XAI techniques-which aim to achieve high-quality human-understandable explanations of AI decisions-are leveraged for further investigations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".