Designing UNICORN: a Unified Benchmark for Imaging in Computational Pathology, Radiology, and Natural Language

Medical foundation models show promise to learn broadly generalizable features from large, diverse datasets. This could be the base for reliable cross-modality generalization and rapid adaptation to new, task-specific goals, with only a few task-specific examples. Yet, evidence for this is limited by the lack of public, standardized, and reproducible evaluation frameworks, as existing public benchmarks are often fragmented across task-, organ-, or modality-specific settings, limiting assessment of cross-task generalization. We introduce UNICORN, a public benchmark designed to systematically evaluate medical foundation models under a unified protocol. To isolate representation quality, we built the benchmark on a novel two-step framework that decouples model inference from task-specific evaluation based on standardized few-shot adaptation. As a central design choice, we constructed indirectly accessible sequestered test sets derived from clinically relevant cohorts, along with standardized evaluation code and a submission interface on an open benchmarking platform. Performance is aggregated into a single UNICORN Score, a new metric that we introduce to support direct comparison of foundation models across diverse medical domains, modalities, and task types. The UNICORN test dataset includes data from more than 2,400 patients, including over 3,700 vision cases and over 2,400 clinical reports collected from 17 institutions across eight countries. The benchmark spans eight anatomical regions and four imaging modalities. Both task-specific and aggregated leaderboards enable accessible, standardized, and reproducible evaluation. By standardizing multi-task, multi-modality assessment, UNICORN establishes a foundation for reproducible benchmarking of medical foundation models. Data, baseline methods, and the evaluation platform are publicly available via unicorn.grand-challenge.org.

EvalBlocks: A Modular Pipeline for Rapidly Evaluating Foundation Models in Medical Imaging

Developing foundation models in medical imaging requires continuous monitoring of downstream performance. Researchers are burdened with tracking numerous experiments, design choices, and their effects on performance, often relying on ad-hoc, manual workflows that are inherently slow and error-prone. We introduce EvalBlocks, a modular, plug-and-play framework for efficient evaluation of foundation models during development. Built on Snakemake, EvalBlocks supports seamless integration of new datasets, foundation models, aggregation methods, and evaluation strategies. All experiments and results are tracked centrally and are reproducible with a single command, while efficient caching and parallel execution enable scalable use on shared compute infrastructure. Demonstrated on five state-of-the-art foundation models and three medical imaging classification tasks, EvalBlocks streamlines model evaluation, enabling researchers to iterate faster and focus on model innovation rather than evaluation logistics. The framework is released as open source software at https://github.com/DIAGNijmegen/eval-blocks.

Fairness Evaluation of Risk Estimation Models for Lung Cancer Screening

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality in adults worldwide. Screening high-risk individuals with annual low-dose CT (LDCT) can support earlier detection and reduce deaths, but widespread implementation may strain the already limited radiology workforce. AI models have shown potential in estimating lung cancer risk from LDCT scans. However, high-risk populations for lung cancer are diverse, and these models' performance across demographic groups remains an open question. In this study, we drew on the considerations on confounding factors and ethically significant biases outlined in the JustEFAB framework to evaluate potential performance disparities and fairness in two deep learning risk estimation models for lung cancer screening: the Sybil lung cancer risk model and the Venkadesh21 nodule risk estimator. We also examined disparities in the PanCan2b logistic regression model recommended in the British Thoracic Society nodule management guideline. Both deep learning models were trained on data from the US-based National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), and assessed on a held-out NLST validation set. We evaluated AUROC, sensitivity, and specificity across demographic subgroups, and explored potential confounding from clinical risk factors. We observed a statistically significant AUROC difference in Sybil's performance between women (0.88, 95% CI: 0.86, 0.90) and men (0.81, 95% CI: 0.78, 0.84, p < .001). At 90% specificity, Venkadesh21 showed lower sensitivity for Black (0.39, 95% CI: 0.23, 0.59) than White participants (0.69, 95% CI: 0.65, 0.73). These differences were not explained by available clinical confounders and thus may be classified as unfair biases according to JustEFAB. Our findings highlight the importance of improving and monitoring model performance across underrepresented subgroups, and further research on algorithmic fairness, in lung cancer screening.

Biomedical image analysis competitions: The state of current participation practice

The number of international benchmarking competitions is steadily increasing in various fields of machine learning (ML) research and practice. So far, however, little is known about the common practice as well as bottlenecks faced by the community in tackling the research questions posed. To shed light on the status quo of algorithm development in the specific field of biomedical imaging analysis, we designed an international survey that was issued to all participants of challenges conducted in conjunction with the IEEE ISBI 2021 and MICCAI 2021 conferences (80 competitions in total). The survey covered participants' expertise and working environments, their chosen strategies, as well as algorithm characteristics. A median of 72% challenge participants took part in the survey. According to our results, knowledge exchange was the primary incentive (70%) for participation, while the reception of prize money played only a minor role (16%). While a median of 80 working hours was spent on method development, a large portion of participants stated that they did not have enough time for method development (32%). 25% perceived the infrastructure to be a bottleneck. Overall, 94% of all solutions were deep learning-based. Of these, 84% were based on standard architectures. 43% of the respondents reported that the data samples (e.g., images) were too large to be processed at once. This was most commonly addressed by patch-based training (69%), downsampling (37%), and solving 3D analysis tasks as a series of 2D tasks. K-fold cross-validation on the training set was performed by only 37% of the participants and only 50% of the participants performed ensembling based on multiple identical models (61%) or heterogeneous models (39%). 48% of the respondents applied postprocessing steps.