Towards Robust Foundation Models for Digital Pathology

Biomedical Foundation Models (FMs) are rapidly transforming AI-enabled healthcare research and entering clinical validation. However, their susceptibility to learning non-biological technical features -- including variations in surgical/endoscopic techniques, laboratory procedures, and scanner hardware -- poses risks for clinical deployment. We present the first systematic investigation of pathology FM robustness to non-biological features. Our work (i) introduces measures to quantify FM robustness, (ii) demonstrates the consequences of limited robustness, and (iii) proposes a framework for FM robustification to mitigate these issues. Specifically, we developed PathoROB, a robustness benchmark with three novel metrics, including the robustness index, and four datasets covering 28 biological classes from 34 medical centers. Our experiments reveal robustness deficits across all 20 evaluated FMs, and substantial robustness differences between them. We found that non-robust FM representations can cause major diagnostic downstream errors and clinical blunders that prevent safe clinical adoption. Using more robust FMs and post-hoc robustification considerably reduced (but did not yet eliminate) the risk of such errors. This work establishes that robustness evaluation is essential for validating pathology FMs before clinical adoption and demonstrates that future FM development must integrate robustness as a core design principle. PathoROB provides a blueprint for assessing robustness across biomedical domains, guiding FM improvement efforts towards more robust, representative, and clinically deployable AI systems that prioritize biological information over technical artifacts.

Do Histopathological Foundation Models Eliminate Batch Effects? A Comparative Study

Deep learning has led to remarkable advancements in computational histopathology, e.g., in diagnostics, biomarker prediction, and outcome prognosis. Yet, the lack of annotated data and the impact of batch effects, e.g., systematic technical data differences across hospitals, hamper model robustness and generalization. Recent histopathological foundation models -- pretrained on millions to billions of images -- have been reported to improve generalization performances on various downstream tasks. However, it has not been systematically assessed whether they fully eliminate batch effects. In this study, we empirically show that the feature embeddings of the foundation models still contain distinct hospital signatures that can lead to biased predictions and misclassifications. We further find that the signatures are not removed by stain normalization methods, dominate distances in feature space, and are evident across various principal components. Our work provides a novel perspective on the evaluation of medical foundation models, paving the way for more robust pretraining strategies and downstream predictors.