Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Dynamic Entity-Masked Graph Diffusion Model for histopathological image Representation Learning

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper presents H-MGDM, a self-supervised pretraining method that masks complementary subgraphs of a tissue-entity graph and denoises them with a conditioned latent diffusion decoder, reporting an average 5.18% improvement across six…

desk verdict A useful new combination of entity graphs, VAE compression, and latent diffusion for pathology SSL, but the diffusion-specific claim needs a matched plain-reconstruction control. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.10482 v1 pith:55V2H6GO submitted 2024-12-13 cs.CV cs.AI

Zhenfeng Zhuang , Min Cen , Yanfeng Li , Fangyu Zhou , Lequan Yu , Baptiste Magnier , Liansheng Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords histopathologyrepresentationlearningself-supervisedpretraininggraphdiffusionmodelentitymaskinglatentSLICsuperpixelswholeslideimageanalysissurvival
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that a self-supervised pretraining scheme built on tissue entities and graph diffusion produces better histopathology image representations than previous mask-reconstruction and diffusion baselines. The method, H-MGDM, converts a pathology patch into a graph whose nodes are tissue superpixels and edges connect neighboring superpixels, then randomly masks one complementary subgraph and trains a latent diffusion decoder to reconstruct it while conditioning on the visible subgraph. Across three pretraining corpora and six downstream classification and survival datasets, the authors report average gains of about 5.18% over prior methods. If this holds, unlabeled histopathology slides could be used more effectively to pretrain models for cancer diagnosis, grading, and prognosis.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a two-stage latent entity graph with a conditional diffusion decoder. Stage 1 uses SLIC superpixels as tissue entities, crops a fixed window around each superpixel, fills outside pixels with the background color, and compresses each window with a variational autoencoder into a latent node; edges connect boundary-adjacent superpixels, so the pathology image becomes a latent graph G. Stage 2 randomly splits G into a visible subgraph Ge and a masked subgraph Gd, with mask ratios around 50-70%. A graph neural network encoder performs vertex and edge message passing on Ge; a diffusion forward process adds Gaussian noise to the masked subgraph; and a transformer-style decoder denoises the noisy masked latent using cross-attention conditioned on encoded visible features plus time embeddings, with U-shaped skip connections. The training objective is the x0-mode reconstruction loss ||Vd(0) − V̂d(0)(t)|| + ||Ed(0) − Êd(0)(t)||, so the model must predict the clean masked vertex and edge latents from noisy inputs and visible context.

What would settle it

Train H-MGDM identically but replace the SLIC entity windows with randomly placed fixed-size windows, or shuffle the graph edges while keeping nodes fixed; if downstream classification accuracy and survival C-index do not drop materially, the claim that entity topology and superpixel structure drive the gains is falsified, and the improvement would instead come from the diffusion decoder or masking schedule.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the central discovery is that masking and reconstructing complementary subgraphs of a latent pathological-entity graph, rather than grid tiles, makes self-supervised histopathology representation learning stronger. The authors argue that tissue entities and their spatial adjacencies carry diagnostic meaning, so a pretraining task that forces the model to restore masked tissue subgraphs from partially visible neighbors learns representations aligned with pathological structure. Dynamic random subgraph splits and time-varying noise intensities make the condition-target relationship harder at each iteration, which they find improves fine-grained reconstruction. The reported evidence is consistent performance gains across cancer-subtype classification and survival analysis, with an average improvement of 5.18% over baselines.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that SLIC superpixels cropped into fixed windows with excess background pixels are faithful pathological entities whose VAE-compressed latent codes still carry meaningful tissue information, an assumption the paper itself flags in Appendix D.1 as causing 'information redundancy and interference'.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, pretraining on large unlabeled histopathology archives can be done without manual annotation and yield features that transfer to cancer classification and survival tasks.
  • Entity-graph masking gives an interpretable pretext task: the mask corresponds to tissue regions, so readout attention can highlight diagnostically relevant entities.
  • Combining graph structure with diffusion reconstruction offers a template for other dense medical imaging domains where entity interactions matter, such as cytology and retinal imaging.
  • Dynamic masking and noise schedules may reduce the gap between pretraining and fine-tuning by encouraging robustness across reconstruction difficulty levels.
  • Even a modest average gain of about 5.18% at the patch-representation level can translate into improved concordance indices in survival models, which matters for clinical risk stratification.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The authors do not isolate whether the gain comes from the entity graph's topology or simply from masking latent subgraphs; a control with shuffled edges or grid-tile graph vertices would settle which mechanism matters.
  • Because the visible subgraph is encoded at multiple GNN layers and used as cross-attention conditions, the method effectively builds a hierarchical tissue-context memory; layer-wise ablations could show which abstraction level contributes most to reconstruction.
  • The learned attention heatmaps highlight tissue regions consistent with Gleason grades, suggesting the same pretrained model could be repurposed for weakly supervised lesion localization, though the paper does not quantify localization accuracy.
  • The best mask ratios around 50-70% suggest the pretext task benefits from a difficulty curriculum; an adaptive masking schedule driven by reconstruction error could push the gains further.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes H-MGDM, a self-supervised pretraining method for histopathology patch images. In stage 1, SLIC superpixels are cropped into fixed windows and compressed by a VAE into a latent entity graph with vertex and edge latents. In stage 2, a GNN encoder processes a randomly chosen visible subgraph, and a diffusion decoder with cross-attention and skip connections reconstructs the complementary masked subgraph from noise. The downstream representation is obtained from the two encoders (EP and EL) via a readout, discarding the decoder. Experiments on three classification datasets and three survival cohorts compare H-MGDM with SimCLR, DINO, MAE, GraphMAE/GraphMAE2, DiffAE, and DiffMAE, reporting a mean improvement of 5.18%. Ablations remove edge latents, skip connections, and fixed noise. The paper claims that dynamic entity masking and diffusion conditioning improve histopathological representation learning.

Significance. If the reported results hold, the method is a plausible way to inject tissue-level structure into self-supervised pretraining for histopathology, with evidence spanning multiple classification datasets, three survival cohorts, and three downstream survival backbones. The paper's strengths are its breadth of evaluation (mean and standard deviation over runs, three pretraining datasets), the explicit mask-ratio sweep in Table 3, and ablations for edge latents, skip connections, and noise intensity. However, the central attribution is not yet established: no non-diffusion control is run on the same latent entity graphs, and the baselines are not pipeline-matched. The method also relies on SLIC superpixels with background padding, a limitation the authors acknowledge in Appendix D.1. With a clean control experiment and a matched baseline set, the contribution would be significant for the applied self-supervised learning community.

major comments (4)
  1. [Methodology, 'Dynamic Diffusion on Masked Graph Model' and Eq. (6); Tables 1-2] The central claim is that the diffusion-based complementary-subgraph reconstruction, rather than the entity-graph representation or VAE compression, drives the reported 5.18% average improvement. The paper does not include the decisive control: replacing the diffusion objective in Eq. (6) with a plain masked reconstruction loss (directly regressing Vd(0) and Ed(0) from the visible subgraph, without the noise schedule and time embedding) on the same latent entity graph and the same encoder/decoder. Since inference (Eq. (7)) uses only EP and EL, any benefit from the decoder must act through the encoder; a non-diffusion masked-reconstruction control would separate the effect of the graph/masking task from the effect of diffusion conditioning. The ablations in Tables 1-2 vary components inside the diffusion model but never remove the diffusion objective itself, so they do not answer this attribution question.
  2. [Experiments, 'Comparison with Baseline Methods', Table 1] The compared baselines are not pipeline-matched. GraphMAE and GraphMAE2 are graph methods, but the paper does not state that they are trained on the same stage-1 VAE latent entity graph (with the same vertices, edges, and adjacency) as H-MGDM; MAE and DiffMAE operate on grid patches. Consequently, the reported gains could arise from the SLIC-window VAE representation or from graph-based message passing rather than from dynamic entity-masked graph diffusion. A matched control that applies GraphMAE/GraphMAE2 or a masked autoencoder to the identical latent entity graph would be required to support the attribution.
  3. [Experiments, 'Masking ratio Investigation', Table 3] Table 3 reports a per-dataset sweep of the masking ratio, and the H-MGDM results in Tables 1-2 appear to use the best ratio for each dataset (0.6 for Komura et al., 0.8 for PANDA, and 0.5 for IBD). The baselines are not shown to receive the same degree of hyperparameter tuning. To avoid selection bias, the authors should fix the ratio across datasets and report sensitivity, or tune all baselines on a validation split and evaluate on a fully held-out split.
  4. [Appendix D.1, 'Non-tile-level Entity Extraction'] The method's premise is that SLIC superpixels represent pathological entities, but Appendix D.1 explicitly states that background pixels assigned within each vertex window cause 'information redundancy and interference,' and that the window size can exclude part of a superpixel or include too much background. Since the entity graph is the input to both the VAE and the GNN encoder, the paper should quantify the sensitivity of downstream performance to the window size a and to background handling (for example, masking out non-superpixel pixels or using a superpixel-aware feature extractor), and should demonstrate that the learned attention regions correspond to tissue rather than to window artifacts.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Methodology, Eqs. (1) and (2)] The notation in Eq. (1) uses the same symbol α(t) for both the per-step noise coefficient and the cumulative product, which is confusing; a bar or subscript is needed. Eq. (2) writes a normal distribution without showing the mean or the network parameters, making the reverse process specification incomplete.
  2. [Methodology, Eq. (6)] Eq. (6) is called an MSE objective but uses an unsquared L2 norm; either square the norm or state that this is an L1-style variant of the diffusion loss.
  3. [Experimental Results, Tables 1-2] Several survival C-index differences between H-MGDM and baselines in Table 2 are within one standard deviation of the baseline estimates; paired significance tests or confidence intervals across the five runs would strengthen the claim of improvement.
  4. [Abstract and Experiments] The aggregate '5.18% average improvement' is not defined precisely; the authors should specify which metrics and datasets are included in the average, and how the three reported per-metric averages (5.99%, 5.43%, 4.146%) are combined.
  5. [Reproducibility] The abstract states that code will be publicly available, but no code is provided in the submission and two of the six downstream datasets are private; at minimum, the entity-graph construction scripts and a data preprocessing description would facilitate reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the self-supervised target is a masked subgraph withheld from the encoder, and downstream gains are measured on external labels independent of the reconstruction loss.

full rationale

H-MGDM's pretraining objective (Eq. 6) reconstructs the latent codes of a randomly masked complementary subgraph Gd(t) from the visible subgraph Ge, so the target is part of the input that is explicitly withheld rather than a fitted quantity renamed as a prediction. Downstream classification (Table 1) uses external patch labels, and survival analysis (Table 2) uses external TCGA and private cohort outcomes; neither is defined in terms of the diffusion reconstruction loss or the encoder readout. The only tuned quantity, the masking ratio reported in Table 3, is standard validation-based hyperparameter selection and does not force the downstream comparison. The paper cites prior work by co-authors (e.g., Hou et al. 2022a, SHGNN) but only as related work; it is not load-bearing for the proposed framework, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from that citation. The absence of a same-graph non-diffusion masked-reconstruction control weakens attribution of the 5.18% average gain to the diffusion mechanism specifically, but that is an experimental-design limitation, not a circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central method rests on several hand-chosen parameters and domain assumptions: superpixels as entities, window size, VAE latent quality, noise schedule, and per-dataset mask ratios. No new physical entities are invented. The main unverified ingredient is the entity construction pipeline; Appendix D.1 admits that background substitution causes redundancy and interference.

free parameters (6)
  • mask ratio r_m = 0.5, 0.6, or 0.7 per dataset (Komura 0.6, PANDA 0.7, IBD 0.5)
    Chosen by maximizing classification accuracy in Table 3; directly controls how much of the graph is masked and reconstructed.
  • noise schedule beta(t) = sigmoid schedule from 1e-7 to 2e-3 with T=1000
    Chosen by hand in Implementation Details; defines the diffusion difficulty and affects the learned representation.
  • SLIC parameters = 500 initial regions, compactness 10, blur kernel 1, threshold 0.02
    Chosen by hand in Appendix B.6; determines what counts as a tissue entity and how the graph is built.
  • window size a = 64 pixels
    Chosen in Implementation Details; each superpixel is cropped to a 64 by 64 window with background color, which the paper's own limitation section says causes redundancy and interference.
  • latent downsampling factor f = 2
    Chosen in Implementation Details; sets the latent patch size for the VAE-based entity compression.
  • VAE loss weight lambda = not reported
    Appears in Eq. 5 but its value is not given; it affects stage-1 latent quality, which the second stage depends on.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption SLIC superpixels correspond to meaningful pathological tissue entities.
    Invoked in Pathological Entity Graph Construction when converting images into entity graphs; no validation that superpixels match pathologist-defined structures.
  • domain assumption Adjacent superpixel boundaries encode diagnostically relevant interactions.
    Edges are placed between neighboring superpixels in Section 3.1; the paper relies on this topology to provide the 'spatial interactions among entities' motivation.
  • domain assumption VAE-compressed latent codes preserve information needed for downstream tasks.
    Stage 1 trains only a reconstruction and KL objective in Eq. 5; the transfer of these latents to classification and survival is assumed rather than proven.
  • standard math DDPM Gaussian forward and reverse diffusion is valid on graph node and edge latents.
    Eq. 1 and the reparameterization follow Ho et al. (2020); standard but requires the latent space to be approximately Gaussian and continuous.
  • ad hoc to paper Random complementary subgraph masking creates a useful self-supervised task with no label leakage.
    This is the design of the paper's pretraining objective, justified only by downstream results rather than by an analysis of what semantic content is preserved.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamic Entity-Masked Graph Diffusion Model for histopathological image Representation Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/55V2H6GO

@misc{pith2026241210482,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamic Entity-Masked Graph Diffusion Model for histopathological image Representation Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/55V2H6GO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.10482}
}
read the original abstract

Significant disparities between the features of natural images and those inherent to histopathological images make it challenging to directly apply and transfer pre-trained models from natural images to histopathology tasks. Moreover, the frequent lack of annotations in histopathology patch images has driven researchers to explore self-supervised learning methods like mask reconstruction for learning representations from large amounts of unlabeled data. Crucially, previous mask-based efforts in self-supervised learning have often overlooked the spatial interactions among entities, which are essential for constructing accurate representations of pathological entities. To address these challenges, constructing graphs of entities is a promising approach. In addition, the diffusion reconstruction strategy has recently shown superior performance through its random intensity noise addition technique to enhance the robust learned representation. Therefore, we introduce H-MGDM, a novel self-supervised Histopathology image representation learning method through the Dynamic Entity-Masked Graph Diffusion Model. Specifically, we propose to use complementary subgraphs as latent diffusion conditions and self-supervised targets respectively during pre-training. We note that the graph can embed entities' topological relationships and enhance representation. Dynamic conditions and targets can improve pathological fine reconstruction. Our model has conducted pretraining experiments on three large histopathological datasets. The advanced predictive performance and interpretability of H-MGDM are clearly evaluated on comprehensive downstream tasks such as classification and survival analysis on six datasets. Our code will be publicly available at https://github.com/centurion-crawler/H-MGDM.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.10482 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Pathological slide inspection process from the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the H-MGDM pretraining stages. Conditional diffusion reverse process in the decoder. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Original images and their attention heatmaps of five different categories of the PANDA dataset, showing the inter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Kaplan-Meier Analysis of comparison methods and our framework. All patients from the five tests were pooled and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: T-SNE plots of pan-cancer samples’ readout rep [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visualization of diffusion process over time t. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Kaplan-Meier Analysis of Comparison methods and our framework for three datasets on different backbones. Each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: More Histocartographical Image Interpretability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Achanta, R.; Shaji, A.; Smith, K.; Lucchi, A.; Fua, P.; and S \"u sstrunk, S. 2012. SLIC superpixels compared to state-of-the-art superpixel methods. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 34(11): 2274--2282

    work page 2012

  2. [2]

    H.; Ong, C

    Brodersen, K. H.; Ong, C. S.; Stephan, K. E.; and Buhmann, J. M. 2010. The balanced accuracy and its posterior distribution. In 2010 20th international conference on pattern recognition, 3121--3124. IEEE

    work page 2010

  3. [3]

    C.; Str \"o m, P.; Pinckaers, H.; Nagpal, K.; Cai, Y.; Steiner, D

    Bulten, W.; Kartasalo, K.; Chen, P.-H. C.; Str \"o m, P.; Pinckaers, H.; Nagpal, K.; Cai, Y.; Steiner, D. F.; van Boven, H.; Vink, R.; et al. 2022. Artificial intelligence for diagnosis and Gleason grading of prostate cancer: the PANDA challenge. Nature medicine, 28(1): 154--163

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Caron, M.; Touvron, H.; Misra, I.; J \'e gou, H.; Mairal, J.; Bojanowski, P.; and Joulin, A. 2021. Emerging properties in self-supervised vision transformers. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 9650--9660

    2021

  5. [5]

    J.; Lu, M

    Chen, R. J.; Lu, M. Y.; Shaban, M.; Chen, C.; Chen, T. Y.; Williamson, D. F.; and Mahmood, F. 2021. Whole slide images are 2d point clouds: Context-aware survival prediction using patch-based graph convolutional networks. In Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention--MICCAI 2021: 24th International Conference, Strasbourg, France, Septembe...

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Chen, T.; Kornblith, S.; Norouzi, M.; and Hinton, G. 2020. A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations. In International conference on machine learning, 1597--1607. PMLR

    2020

  7. [7]

    Cui, M.; and Zhang, D. Y. 2021. Artificial intelligence and computational pathology. Laboratory Investigation, 101(4): 412--422

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Devlin, J.; Chang, M.-W.; Lee, K.; and Toutanova, K. 2018. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805

    arXiv 2018

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Dosovitskiy, A.; Beyer, L.; Kolesnikov, A.; Weissenborn, D.; Zhai, X.; Unterthiner, T.; Dehghani, M.; Minderer, M.; Heigold, G.; Gelly, S.; et al. 2020. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929

    2020 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Esser, P.; Rombach, R.; and Ommer, B. 2021. Taming transformers for high-resolution image synthesis. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 12873--12883

    2021

  3. [11]

    Fey, M.; and Lenssen, J. E. 2019. Fast Graph Representation Learning with PyTorch Geometric . In ICLR Workshop on Representation Learning on Graphs and Manifolds

    2019

  4. [12]

    Guan, H.; and Liu, M. 2021. Domain adaptation for medical image analysis: a survey. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 69(3): 1173--1185

    2021

  5. [13]

    He, K.; Chen, X.; Xie, S.; Li, Y.; Doll \'a r, P.; and Girshick, R. 2022. Masked autoencoders are scalable vision learners. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 16000--16009

    2022

  6. [14]

    E.; and Roweis, S

    Hinton, G. E.; and Roweis, S. 2002. Stochastic neighbor embedding. Advances in neural information processing systems, 15

    2002

  7. [15]

    Ho, J.; Jain, A.; and Abbeel, P. 2020. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33: 6840--6851

    2020

  8. [16]

    Hou, W.; Huang, H.; Peng, Q.; Yu, R.; Yu, L.; and Wang, L. 2022 a . Spatial-hierarchical graph neural network with dynamic structure learning for histological image classification. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, 181--...

    2022

  9. [17]

    Hou, Z.; He, Y.; Cen, Y.; Liu, X.; Dong, Y.; Kharlamov, E.; and Tang, J. 2023. GraphMAE2: A Decoding-Enhanced Masked Self-Supervised Graph Learner. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023, 737--746

    2023

  10. [18]

    Hou, Z.; Liu, X.; Cen, Y.; Dong, Y.; Yang, H.; Wang, C.; and Tang, J. 2022 b . GraphMAE: Self-Supervised Masked Graph Autoencoders. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 594--604

    2022

  11. [19]

    Huang, H.; Sun, L.; Du, B.; and Lv, W. 2023. Conditional diffusion based on discrete graph structures for molecular graph generation. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 37, 4302--4311

    2023

  12. [20]

    Humphrey, P. A. 2004. Gleason grading and prognostic factors in carcinoma of the prostate. Modern pathology, 17(3): 292--306

    2004

  13. [21]

    Ilse, M.; Tomczak, J.; and Welling, M. 2018. Attention-based deep multiple instance learning. In International conference on machine learning, 2127--2136. PMLR

    2018

  14. [22]

    Jaume, G.; Pati, P.; Anklin, V.; Foncubierta, A.; and Gabrani, M. 2021 a . Histocartography: A toolkit for graph analytics in digital pathology. In MICCAI Workshop on Computational Pathology, 117--128. PMLR

    2021

  15. [23]

    M.; Feroce, F.; Rau, T.; Thiran, J.-P.; Gabrani, M.; and Goksel, O

    Jaume, G.; Pati, P.; Bozorgtabar, B.; Foncubierta, A.; Anniciello, A. M.; Feroce, F.; Rau, T.; Thiran, J.-P.; Gabrani, M.; and Goksel, O. 2021 b . Quantifying explainers of graph neural networks in computational pathology. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer ...

    2021

  16. [24]

    Kang, M.; Song, H.; Park, S.; Yoo, D.; and Pereira, S. 2023. Benchmarking Self-Supervised Learning on Diverse Pathology Datasets. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 3344--3354

    2023

  17. [25]

    L.; Shaham, U.; Cloninger, A.; Bates, J.; Jiang, T.; and Kluger, Y

    Katzman, J. L.; Shaham, U.; Cloninger, A.; Bates, J.; Jiang, T.; and Kluger, Y. 2018. DeepSurv: personalized treatment recommender system using a Cox proportional hazards deep neural network. BMC medical research methodology, 18: 1--12

    2018

  18. [26]

    P.; and Ba, J

    Kingma, D. P.; and Ba, J. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980

    2014 arXiv

  19. [27]

    P.; and Welling, M

    Kingma, D. P.; and Welling, M. 2013. Auto-encoding variational bayes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114

    2013 arXiv

  20. [28]

    N.; and Welling, M

    Kipf, T. N.; and Welling, M. 2016. Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.02907

    2016 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Komura, D.; Kawabe, A.; Fukuta, K.; Sano, K.; Umezaki, T.; Koda, H.; Suzuki, R.; Tominaga, K.; Ochi, M.; Konishi, H.; et al. 2022. Universal encoding of pan-cancer histology by deep texture representations. Cell Reports, 38(9)

    2022

  22. [30]

    Li, X.; Cen, M.; Xu, J.; Zhang, H.; and Xu, X. S. 2022. Improving feature extraction from histopathological images through a fine-tuning ImageNet model. Journal of Pathology Informatics, 13: 100115

    2022

  23. [31]

    Liu, C.; Fan, W.; Liu, Y.; Li, J.; Li, H.; Liu, H.; Tang, J.; and Li, Q. 2023. Generative diffusion models on graphs: Methods and applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.02591

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Liu, J.; Huang, X.; Liu, Y.; and Li, H. 2022. Mixmim: Mixed and masked image modeling for efficient visual representation learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.13137

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    A.; Poisson, L

    Liu, J.; Lichtenberg, T.; Hoadley, K. A.; Poisson, L. M.; Lazar, A. J.; Cherniack, A. D.; Kovatich, A. J.; Benz, C. C.; Levine, D. A.; Lee, A. V.; et al. 2018. An integrated TCGA pan-cancer clinical data resource to drive high-quality survival outcome analytics. Cell, 173(2): 400--416

    2018

  26. [34]

    Y.; Williamson, D

    Lu, M. Y.; Williamson, D. F.; Chen, T. Y.; Chen, R. J.; Barbieri, M.; and Mahmood, F. 2021. Data-efficient and weakly supervised computational pathology on whole-slide images. Nature Biomedical Engineering, 5(6): 555--570

    2021

  27. [35]

    S.; Amini, A.; Filipovic, N

    Panayides, A. S.; Amini, A.; Filipovic, N. D.; Sharma, A.; Tsaftaris, S. A.; Young, A.; Foran, D.; Do, N.; Golemati, S.; Kurc, T.; et al. 2020. AI in medical imaging informatics: current challenges and future directions. IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics, 24(7)...

    2020

  28. [36]

    M.; Scognamiglio, G.; Brancati, N.; Fiche, M.; Dubruc, E.; Riccio, D.; et al

    Pati, P.; Jaume, G.; Foncubierta-Rodriguez, A.; Feroce, F.; Anniciello, A. M.; Scognamiglio, G.; Brancati, N.; Fiche, M.; Dubruc, E.; Riccio, D.; et al. 2022. Hierarchical graph representations in digital pathology. Medical image analysis, 75: 102264

    2022

  29. [37]

    Preechakul, K.; Chatthee, N.; Wizadwongsa, S.; and Suwajanakorn, S. 2022. Diffusion Autoencoders: Toward a Meaningful and Decodable Representation. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    2022

  30. [38]

    Purma, V.; Srinath, S.; Srirangarajan, S.; Kakkar, A.; et al. 2023. GenSelfDiff-HIS: Generative Self-Supervision Using Diffusion for Histopathological Image Segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.01487

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    J.; Diamandis, P.; Pantanowitz, L.; Kashani, H.; Ghodsi, A.; and Tizhoosh, H

    Riasatian, A.; Babaie, M.; Maleki, D.; Kalra, S.; Valipour, M.; Hemati, S.; Zaveri, M.; Safarpoor, A.; Shafiei, S.; Afshari, M.; Rasoolijaberi, M.; Sikaroudi, M.; Adnan, M.; Shah, S.; Choi, C.; Damaskinos, S.; Campbell, C. J.; Diamandis, P.; Pantanowitz, L.; Kashani, H.; Ghods...

    2021

  32. [40]

    Rombach, R.; Blattmann, A.; Lorenz, D.; Esser, P.; and Ommer, B. 2022. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 10684--10695

    2022

  33. [41]

    R.; Cogswell, M.; Das, A.; Vedantam, R.; Parikh, D.; and Batra, D

    Selvaraju, R. R.; Cogswell, M.; Das, A.; Vedantam, R.; Parikh, D.; and Batra, D. 2017. Grad-cam: Visual explanations from deep networks via gradient-based localization. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, 618--626

    2017

  34. [42]

    Sharmay, Y.; Ehsany, L.; Syed, S.; and Brown, D. E. 2021. HistoTransfer: Understanding Transfer Learning for Histopathology. In 2021 IEEE EMBS International Conference on Biomedical and Health Informatics (BHI), 1--4

    2021

  35. [43]

    H.; Jaume, G.; Williamson, D

    Song, A. H.; Jaume, G.; Williamson, D. F.; Lu, M. Y.; Vaidya, A.; Miller, T. R.; and Mahmood, F. 2023. Artificial intelligence for digital and computational pathology. Nature Reviews Bioengineering, 1(12): 930--949

    2023

  36. [44]

    S trumbelj, E.; and Kononenko, I. 2014. Explaining prediction models and individual predictions with feature contributions. Knowledge and information systems, 41: 647--665

    2014

  37. [45]

    N.; Kaiser, .; and Polosukhin, I

    Vaswani, A.; Shazeer, N.; Parmar, N.; Uszkoreit, J.; Jones, L.; Gomez, A. N.; Kaiser, .; and Polosukhin, I. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30

    2017

  38. [46]

    Wei, C.; Mangalam, K.; Huang, P.-Y.; Li, Y.; Fan, H.; Xu, H.; Wang, H.; Xie, C.; Yuille, A.; and Feichtenhofer, C. 2023. Diffusion Models as Masked Autoencoder. In ICCV

    2023

  39. [47]

    Yang, X.; and Wang, X. 2023. Diffusion model as representation learner. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 18938--18949

    2023

  40. [48]

    A.; Shaban, M.; Heng, P.-A.; and Rajpoot, N

    Zhou, Y.; Graham, S.; Koohbanani, N. A.; Shaban, M.; Heng, P.-A.; and Rajpoot, N. 2019. CGC-Net: Cell Graph Convolutional Network for Grading of Colorectal Cancer Histology Images. In The IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) Workshops

    2019

  41. [49]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all...

  42. [50]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.