Foundation Models for Quantitative Biomarker Discovery in Cancer Imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Foundation models represent a recent paradigm shift in deep learning, where a single large-scale model trained on vast amounts of data can serve as the foundation for various downstream tasks. Foundation models are generally trained using self-supervised learning and excel in reducing the demand for training samples in downstream applications. This is especially important in medicine, where large labeled datasets are often scarce. Here, we developed a foundation model for imaging biomarker discovery by training a convolutional encoder through self-supervised learning using a comprehensive dataset of 11,467 radiographic lesions. The foundation model was evaluated in distinct and clinically relevant applications of imaging-based biomarkers. We found that they facilitated better and more efficient learning of imaging biomarkers and yielded task-specific models that significantly outperformed their conventional supervised counterparts on downstream tasks. The performance gain was most prominent when training dataset sizes were very limited. Furthermore, foundation models were more stable to input and inter-reader variations and showed stronger associations with underlying biology. Our results demonstrate the tremendous potential of foundation models in discovering novel imaging biomarkers that may extend to other clinical use cases and can accelerate the widespread translation of imaging biomarkers into clinical settings.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".