One Model to Magnify Them All: Efficient Scale-Invariant Histopathology via Conditional Normalization and Continuous Magnification Training

Agnieszka Florkowska; Henning M\"uller; Marek Wodzinski

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 16 references

One Model to Magnify Them All: Efficient Scale-Invariant Histopathology via Conditional Normalization and Continuous Magnification Training

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 A single network conditioned on input pixel size and trained continuously over a magnification range matches or exceeds per-magnification models on average, and stays among the top three at every tested scale from 4x to 20x on prostate…

desk verdict Useful conditioning method with a real efficiency win, but the 'unseen magnification' claim is overstated: those scales are inside the training range, not true extrapolation. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09403 v1 pith:KPHRABHW submitted 2026-08-10 cs.CV

Agnieszka Florkowska , Henning Müller , Marek Wodzinski This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CV

keywords magnification-invariantscale-invarianthistopathologyefficientAIdigitalpathologyconditionalnormalizationcontinuousmagnificationtrainingpixel-sizeconditioning

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

Whole slide images in histopathology are captured at discrete scanner magnifications, yet clinical slides arrive at continuously varying scales that rarely match a model's training resolution. The paper proposes Conditional Layer Normalization (CLN), which feeds the acquisition pixel size into standard CNNs by generating per-layer affine normalization parameters with a small MLP, and combines it with training that samples patch pixel sizes uniformly from a continuous range. The authors seek to show that a single CLN-conditioned ResNet and a single CLN-conditioned U-Net each match or exceed five independently trained single-magnification baselines on average, while staying among the top three performers at every magnification tested on the PANDA prostate dataset, including scales never seen in training. If the claim holds, a five-model ensemble collapses into one network with roughly 4-5x lower training and inference cost and no increase in multiply-accumulate operations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is Conditional Layer Normalization (CLN), a drop-in substitute for layer normalization that computes scale $\gamma(p_x)$ and shift $\beta(p_x)$ from the two-element pixel-size vector $p_x$ through a small three-layer MLP placed at each network stage, initialized so that $\gamma=1$, $\beta=0$ and the layer starts as ordinary layer normalization. The second component is continuous magnification training: the data loader samples a patch pixel size uniformly from the training range at every iteration, so the backbone continuously experiences a dense interval of resolutions instead of five discrete levels. Jointly, the two mechanisms let one forward pass accept any acquisition pixel size at inference and interpolate to intermediate magnifications never seen during training, with the conditioning MLP adding parameters but no per-input multiply-accumulate operations.

What would settle it

Evaluate the trained CLN ResNet and U-Net on whole-slide images from a different scanner or a different stain protocol at the same nominal magnifications and pixel sizes used in the paper, and compare against a single-magnification model trained on that scanner; a large performance drop at matched pixel sizes would show the conditioning signal is missing scanner- or stain-specific information.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that magnification domain shift in histopathology can be neutralized by conditioning a standard CNN on the physical pixel size rather than on discrete magnification labels, provided the network is trained over a continuum of pixel sizes. Trained this way, the CLN-ResNet's F1 scores and the CLN-U-Net's Dice scores remain stable and statistically significantly above or comparable to the per-magnification baselines across all ten evaluated magnifications from 4x to 20x, including the five intermediate scales that no single-magnification model had seen. The model's trade-off is therefore not accuracy for efficiency: it replaces five networks while remaining within the top three at every scale, and does so with an unchanged multiply-accumulate count.

Load-bearing premise

The whole result rests on the assumption that pixel size in micrometers per pixel is a complete enough description of acquisition scale that conditioning normalization on it, together with continuous sampling over pixel sizes during training, wipes out magnification domain shift; if scanner-specific blur, staining, or tissue processing changes visual statistics at the same pixel size, the model will not generalize to other real-world settings.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

One CLN-conditioned ResNet covers the entire 4x-20x magnification range with F1 scores that place it among the top three models at every evaluated magnification, replacing the five independently trained ResNets.
Unseen intermediate magnifications (16.7x, 11.1x, 8x, 5.7x, 4x) are handled without retraining, because continuous magnification training lets the model interpolate in pixel size rather than snap to discrete scales.
Compared with the five-model ensemble, training and inference cost drop by 74.8-79.9% in the reported timings while the multiply-accumulate count stays at 1.81 GMAC for classification and 10.48 GMAC for segmentation.
Because CLN is a drop-in replacement for layer normalization, the same recipe transfers to other architectures without multi-scale branches or fusion modules.
The method gives a concrete route to foundation models that are resolution-continuous instead of locked to the discrete magnifications seen during pretraining.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper, the same conditional-normalization design suggests a general metadata-aware architecture: conditioning on stain-vector statistics, scanner-identity embeddings, or tissue-preparation descriptors could attack other pathology domain shifts with the same zero-MAC overhead.
Beyond the paper, a decisive test of the physical pixel size hypothesis is cross-scanner evaluation: if slides from a different scanner with a matched pixel size still shift in performance, then pixel size alone is not the full acquisition scale and the claimed generalization to arbitrary deployment settings would need conditioning on additional metadata.
Beyond the paper, because the conditioning MLP consumes no extra per-input FLOPs, CLN could be attached as a lightweight adapter to a frozen pretrained encoder, swapping only the conditioning parameters while keeping the backbone weights fixed, which would make multi-magnification serving nearly free.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Let me give you the short version. This paper proposes a simple, sensible idea: replace the layer-normalization affine parameters with ones generated by a small MLP conditioned on pixel size (µm/px), and train on patches sampled continuously across a magnification range. On PANDA, one such model matches or beats five per-magnification baselines at their own training scales and does fine at intermediate scales in between. That part is credible. The efficiency claim holds—one network instead of five, roughly 75–80% less inference time, no extra MACs.

What is actually new is the combination: pixel-size-conditioned normalization plus continuous scale sampling applied to histopathology. Feature-wise affine conditioning (FiLM) is not new, and the authors don't cite it, but applying it to this problem with this training scheme is a reasonable contribution. The code is available and the paper is clearly written. The evaluation covers both classification and segmentation, which is more than many method papers do.

Now the soft spots, in order of importance.

First, the 'unseen intermediate magnifications' claim is overstated. Section 2.3 says the CLN model is trained continuously across the same range as the baselines, with pixel sizes sampled uniformly from that range. The so-called unseen scales (16.7×, 11.1×, 8×, 5.7×) all lie inside [5×, 20×], so the model has seen that conditioning value during training. Evaluating there measures interpolation, not generalization to previously unseen scales. The only genuine extrapolation point is 4×, and the paper does not single it out. That doesn't sink the method—matching five individually trained models on their home scales is already a solid result—but the abstract and intro over-sell the generalization.

Second, there are no error bars or seed variance. Several near-tie entries (e.g., classification at 20×: 0.705 vs 0.711, and at 6.7×: 0.757 vs 0.756) could flip the 'top three' ranking under seed variability. The Wilcoxon comparison is a step in the right direction, but it does not replace repeated-seed reporting.

Third, the claim that deployment needs 'no knowledge of the acquisition magnification' is misleading, because pixel size is the input to the conditioning MLP. Pixel size is a direct proxy for magnification. If the intent is that the model doesn't need a human-provided label because pixel size is read from the file metadata, say that.

Fourth, the paper doesn't compare against existing magnification-robust methods (MAD, HIPT, Virchow2) empirically. It cites them but only compares to single-magnification baselines. That limits the claim of being state of the art.

These are all addressable. The central idea and the efficiency result are solid enough to deserve referee time. I'd send it to a good conference or workshop, and ask for the interpolation/extrapolation issue to be fixed before acceptance.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Conditional Layer Normalization (CLN), a mechanism that generates affine normalization parameters from the input pixel size via a small MLP, integrated into ResNet for classification and U-Net for segmentation. The model is trained on patches whose pixel sizes are sampled uniformly from a continuous range (corresponding to 5x-20x magnification), and evaluated on the PANDA prostate cancer dataset at several magnifications. The authors report that a single CLN-conditioned model on average matches or exceeds independently trained single-magnification baselines, ranks among the top three at every evaluated magnification, and reduces training and inference cost roughly 4-5x with no increase in MAC count.

Significance. If the claims hold, the contribution is practically valuable: it replaces a five-model ensemble with a single network, adds no per-input FLOPs, and is a simple drop-in layer requiring no architectural redesign. The paper is transparent about the architectures, hyperparameters, and evaluation protocol, and it provides a code link. The main advertised strength, however, is generalization to previously unseen scales, and that claim is only partially supported by the experimental design. The significance therefore depends on whether the continuous-training interpolation result is accepted as the principal contribution or whether true out-of-distribution scale generalization is required.

major comments (3)

[Section 2.3 and Section 3] The evaluation of 'unseen intermediate magnifications' (16.7x, 11.1x, 8x, 5.7x) is not a test of out-of-distribution generalization, because the continuous training protocol samples pixel sizes uniformly from the same range [5x,20x]. Every pixel size in that interval is encountered during training, so these evaluations measure interpolation within the training support of the conditioning variable. The only evaluation point outside the training range is 4x, and the paper does not isolate or emphasize that point. The abstract and conclusion claim generalization to 'arbitrary, previously unseen scales' and 'unseen intermediate scales'; this is overstated. Please reframe the claim as interpolation across the trained pixel-size range, and add a proper held-out evaluation, e.g., train on [5x,20x] and evaluate at 2.5x or 40x, or train on discrete scales and evaluate on the continuous interval.
[Section 2.1 and Abstract] The text states that the model requires no knowledge of acquisition magnification at deployment and that it 'decouples inference from scanner-dependent magnification,' but the method takes pixel size px as an input to the conditioning MLP (Eq. 1). Pixel size is exactly a continuous, hardware-independent descriptor of magnification; unless it is estimated from image content or obtained from scanner metadata, it must be known at deployment. This is an internal inconsistency in the stated selling point. Please clarify what information is assumed available at inference and, if pixel size is assumed to be in the metadata, say so explicitly.
[Table 1 and Section 3] The claims of average superiority and top-three ranking at every magnification rest on near-tie entries: for classification at 20x the conditional model scores 0.705 versus 0.711 and 0.700 for the baselines, and at 6.7x it scores 0.757 versus 0.756. No error bars, seed variance, or confidence intervals are reported for any cell. The Wilcoxon signed-rank tests reported in Figure 3 may be significant, but they compare distributions of per-slide scores and do not establish stability of the ranking in such close cases. A different random seed could flip the top-three status at these operating points. Please report mean and standard deviation over multiple seeds or bootstrap confidence intervals for at least the close cells, and discuss whether the top-three claim is stable.

minor comments (4)

[Section 2.3] The phrase 'trained with no prior knowledge under identical hyperparameters' is ambiguous; it likely means 'without pretraining' rather than the literal 'no prior knowledge.' Please rephrase.
[Section 2.4] The split description 'min 20% of total samples , 600' is unclear. Specify the exact number of training, validation, and test slides and how the minimum 20% criterion is applied.
[Figure 3] The color bar label and caption say the p-value scale ranges from 0.05 to <= 10^-10, but the text also reports many p-values below 10^-200. The visualization and text are not fully consistent; please clarify how values beyond the color scale are encoded and whether such extreme p-values are numerically reliable.
[Section 2.3] The evaluation section lists 4.0x as an unseen magnification, but the text does not flag it as the only point outside the training range. Consider explicitly labeling in-distribution versus extrapolation points in Table 1 and Figure 4, since this distinction is central to the paper's claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: CLN is evaluated against independent single-magnification baselines on the external PANDA dataset; the result is not forced by construction. Minor self-citations appear only in preprocessing tooling.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The conditional layer (Section 2.1) maps pixel size to affine parameters; the continuous sampling strategy (Section 2.2) trains over the range [5x, 20x]; and the evaluation (Section 2.3) compares against five independently trained single-magnification baselines on the external PANDA dataset. The central result—that one CLN model matches or exceeds those baselines—is an empirical outcome, not an identity: the tables (Table 1) could in principle have shown CLN failing. The only self-citations are Refs [6,7] for tissue-mask preprocessing, and they do not determine the outcome. One non-circular overclaim is worth noting: the intermediate test magnifications (16.7x, 11.1x, 8x, 5.7x) lie inside the continuous training support [5x, 20x], so they are interpolation rather than genuinely unseen scales; only 4x is extrapolation. This weakens the advertised generalization claim but is a correctness issue, not circularity. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no load-bearing premise rests on a self-citation. Score 2 reflects only the minor, non-load-bearing self-citations in preprocessing.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central result rests on domain assumptions about pixel size as a conditioning signal and about continuous sampling, rather than on free parameters or invented entities. The conditioning MLP hidden sizes and initialization are design choices, not fitted constants. No numbers are fitted to data to make the result work.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Pixel size (µm/px) is a sufficient signal to condition on for cross-magnification generalization, with no need for scanner, staining, or tissue-preparation context.
Section 2.1 selects pixel size as the sole conditioning signal; the paper does not ablate other metadata, and Section 4 admits scanner and stain axes remain for future work. If pixel size does not subsume these factors, the model may not generalize outside PANDA.
domain assumption Uniformly sampling pixel sizes across the 5x-20x range during training exposes the network to a dense enough continuum to interpolate to unseen magnifications.
Section 2.2 introduces continuous magnification training; no analysis of sampling density or sensitivity appears, and evaluation at 4x lies outside the training range.
domain assumption Patch-level labels derived from the dominant class in the remapped three-class Gleason annotation are sufficiently reliable at every magnification.
Section 2.4 derives binary labels from dominant class; at low magnification patches mix tissue types, so label noise may be higher and uneven across conditions.
domain assumption Resizing all patches to 224x224 preserves diagnostically relevant information at all magnifications.
Section 2.3 fixes patch size and resizing; this is standard but means low-magnification patches span larger tissue areas, changing the semantic content of each patch.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of One Model to Magnify Them All: Efficient Scale-Invariant Histopathology via Conditional Normalization and Continuous Magnification Training." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KPHRABHW

@misc{pith2026260809403,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: One Model to Magnify Them All: Efficient Scale-Invariant Histopathology via Conditional Normalization and Continuous Magnification Training},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KPHRABHW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09403}
}

read the original abstract

Whole slide images (WSIs) in digital histopathology are acquired at discrete magnification levels encoding complementary diagnostic information from global tissue architecture to fine-grained cellular morphology. Yet, deep learning models remain sensitive to scale variation. Existing magnification-invariant methods rely on multi-scale architectures at predefined discrete resolutions, while in clinical deployment the acquisition magnification varies continuously, rarely aligns with a model's fixed training resolution, and intermediate scales are common, so robust coverage otherwise demands a costly ensemble of magnification-specific models. We propose Conditional Layer Normalization (CLN), a lightweight mechanism that generates affine normalization parameters from input pixel size via a small MLP, integrated into standard CNN architectures for both WSI classification and segmentation. Trained on patches sampled continuously across a range of pixel sizes, the model decouples inference from scanner-dependent magnification and generalizes to arbitrary, previously unseen scales at test time. On the PANDA prostate cancer dataset, our approach on average matches or exceeds independently trained single-magnification models and ranks among the top three performers at every evaluated magnification, including those unseen during training. This collapses a five-model ensemble into a single network and reduces training, and inference cost roughly 4-5 times, while leaving the multiply-accumulate count unchanged. The code is available at: https://github.com/aflorkowska/OneModelToMagnifyThemAll.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09403 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Conditional Layer Normalization (CLN) architecture and its integration [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Pairwise statistical comparison (Wilcoxon signed-rank test) between the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Model performance with respect to the magnification level in the PANDA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

[1]

Medical Image Analysis 70, 102004 (2021)

de Bel, T., Bokhorst, J.M., van der Laak, J., Litjens, G.: Residual CycleGAN for robust domain transformation of histopathological tissue slides. Medical Image Analysis 70, 102004 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2021.102004

arXiv 2021
[2]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

Chen, R.J., Chen, C., Li, Y., Chen, T.Y., Trister, A.D., Krishnan, R.G., Mahmood, F.: Scaling vision transformers to gigapixel images via hierarchical self-supervised learning. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). pp. 16144–16155. IEEE (2022). https://doi.org/10 .1109/CVPR52688.2022.01567

arXiv 2022
[3]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.14796 (2025)

Gokmen, M.S., Klusty, M.A., Nelson, P.T., Neltner, A.M., Cheung, S.C.S., Pearce, T.M., Gutman, D.A., Dugger, B.N., Bisht, D.S., Flanagan, M.E., Bumgardner, V.K.C.: Magniﬁcation-aware distillation (mad): A self-supervised framework for uniﬁed representation learning in gigapixel whole-slide images. arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.14796 (2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[4]

In: 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

Hashimoto, N., Fukushima, D., Koga, R., Takagi, Y., Ko, K., Kohno, K., Nakaguro, M., Nakamura, S., Hontani, H., Takeuchi, I.: Multi-scale domain- adversarial multiple-instance CNN for cancer subtype classiﬁcation with unan- notated histopathological images. In: 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). pp. 3851–3860. IEEE...

arXiv 2020
[5]

In: 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., Sun, J.: Deep residual learning for image recognition. In: 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). pp. 770–778. IEEE (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2016.90

doi:10.1109/cvpr.2016.90 2016
[6]

In: Strumiłło, P., Klepaczko, A., Strzelecki, M., Bociąga, D

Jurgas, A., Wodzinski, M., Atzori, M., Müller, H.: Robust Multiresolution and Multistain Background Segmentation in Whole Slide Images. In: Strumiłło, P., Klepaczko, A., Strzelecki, M., Bociąga, D. (eds.) The Latest Developments and Challenges in Biomedical Engineering. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol. 746, pp. 29–40. Springer Nature Switzerlan...

work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-38430-1_3 2024
[7]

Scientiﬁc Reports 14(1), 17847 (2024)

Jurgas, A., Wodzinski, M., D’Amato, M., van der Laak, J., Atzori, M., Müller, H.: Improving quality control of whole slide images by explicit artifact augmentation. Scientiﬁc Reports 14(1), 17847 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-68667 -2 10 A. Florkowska et al

work page doi:10.1038/s41598-024-68667 2024
[8]

https://kaggle.com/competitions/prostate-cancer-grade-assessment (2020), kaggle

Litjens, G., Pinckaers, H., Kartasalo, K., Demkin, M., Eklund, M., Ruusuvuori, P., Ström, P., Dane, S., Bulten, W.: Prostate cancer grade assessment (PANDA) challenge. https://kaggle.com/competitions/prostate-cancer-grade-assessment (2020), kaggle

work page 2020

Show all 16 references

[9]

In: At- zori, M., Burlutskiy, N., Ciompi, F., Li, Z., Minhas, F., Müller, H., Peng, T., Rajpoot, N., Torben-Nielsen, B., van der Laak, J., Veta, M., Yuan, Y., Zlobec, I

Marini, N., Otálora, S., Ciompi, F., Silvello, G., Marchesin, S., Vatrano, S., Butta- fuoco, G., Atzori, M., Müller, H.: Multi-scale task multiple instance learning for the classiﬁcation of digital pathology images with global annotations. In: At- zori, M., Burlutskiy, N., Cio...

2021
[10]

In: Navab, N., Hornegger, J., Wells, W.M., Frangi, A.F

Ronneberger, O., Fischer, P., Brox, T.: U-net: Convolutional networks for biomed- ical image segmentation. In: Navab, N., Hornegger, J., Wells, W.M., Frangi, A.F. (eds.) Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention – MICCAI
[11]

In: 2020 Interna- tional Conference on Machine Vision and Image Processing (MVIP)

Salehi, P., Chalechale, A.: Pix2pix-based stain-to-stain translation: A solution for robust stain normalization in histopathology images analysis. In: 2020 Interna- tional Conference on Machine Vision and Image Processing (MVIP). pp. 1–7. IEEE (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/M...

2020
[12]

Medical Image Analysis 67, 101813 (2021)

Srinidhi, C.L., Ciga, O., Martel, A.L.: Deep neural network models for compu- tational histopathology: A survey. Medical Image Analysis 67, 101813 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2020.101813

2021
[13]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

Tokunaga, H., Teramoto, Y., Yoshizawa, A., Bise, R.: Adaptive weighting multi- ﬁeld-of-view CNN for semantic segmentation in pathology. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). pp. 12597–12606. IEEE (2019). https://doi.org/1...

2019
[14]

IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering 17, 63–79 (2024)

Xu, H., Xu, Q., Cong, F., Kang, J., Han, C., Liu, Z., Madabhushi, A., Lu, C.: Vi- sion transformers for computational histopathology. IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering 17, 63–79 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1109/RBME.2023.3297604

2024
[15]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00738 (2024)

Zimmermann, E., Vorontsov, E., Viret, J., Casson, A., Zelechowski, M., Shaikovski, G., Tenenholtz, N., Hall, J., Klimstra, D., Yousﬁ, R., Fuchs, T., Fusi, N., Liu, S., Severson, K.: Virchow2: Scaling self-supervised mixed magniﬁcation models in pathology. arXiv preprint arXiv:...

2024 arXiv
[2015]

9351, pp

Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 9351, pp. 234–241. Springer Interna- tional Publishing, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24574-4_28

2015 doi

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Medical Image Analysis 70, 102004 (2021)

de Bel, T., Bokhorst, J.M., van der Laak, J., Litjens, G.: Residual CycleGAN for robust domain transformation of histopathological tissue slides. Medical Image Analysis 70, 102004 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2021.102004

arXiv 2021

[2] [2]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

Chen, R.J., Chen, C., Li, Y., Chen, T.Y., Trister, A.D., Krishnan, R.G., Mahmood, F.: Scaling vision transformers to gigapixel images via hierarchical self-supervised learning. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). pp. 16144–16155. IEEE (2022). https://doi.org/10 .1109/CVPR52688.2022.01567

arXiv 2022

[3] [3]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.14796 (2025)

Gokmen, M.S., Klusty, M.A., Nelson, P.T., Neltner, A.M., Cheung, S.C.S., Pearce, T.M., Gutman, D.A., Dugger, B.N., Bisht, D.S., Flanagan, M.E., Bumgardner, V.K.C.: Magniﬁcation-aware distillation (mad): A self-supervised framework for uniﬁed representation learning in gigapixel whole-slide images. arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.14796 (2025)

work page arXiv 2025

[4] [4]

In: 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

Hashimoto, N., Fukushima, D., Koga, R., Takagi, Y., Ko, K., Kohno, K., Nakaguro, M., Nakamura, S., Hontani, H., Takeuchi, I.: Multi-scale domain- adversarial multiple-instance CNN for cancer subtype classiﬁcation with unan- notated histopathological images. In: 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). pp. 3851–3860. IEEE...

arXiv 2020

[5] [5]

In: 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., Sun, J.: Deep residual learning for image recognition. In: 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). pp. 770–778. IEEE (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2016.90

doi:10.1109/cvpr.2016.90 2016

[6] [6]

In: Strumiłło, P., Klepaczko, A., Strzelecki, M., Bociąga, D

Jurgas, A., Wodzinski, M., Atzori, M., Müller, H.: Robust Multiresolution and Multistain Background Segmentation in Whole Slide Images. In: Strumiłło, P., Klepaczko, A., Strzelecki, M., Bociąga, D. (eds.) The Latest Developments and Challenges in Biomedical Engineering. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol. 746, pp. 29–40. Springer Nature Switzerlan...

work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-38430-1_3 2024

[7] [7]

Scientiﬁc Reports 14(1), 17847 (2024)

Jurgas, A., Wodzinski, M., D’Amato, M., van der Laak, J., Atzori, M., Müller, H.: Improving quality control of whole slide images by explicit artifact augmentation. Scientiﬁc Reports 14(1), 17847 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-68667 -2 10 A. Florkowska et al

work page doi:10.1038/s41598-024-68667 2024

[8] [8]

https://kaggle.com/competitions/prostate-cancer-grade-assessment (2020), kaggle

Litjens, G., Pinckaers, H., Kartasalo, K., Demkin, M., Eklund, M., Ruusuvuori, P., Ström, P., Dane, S., Bulten, W.: Prostate cancer grade assessment (PANDA) challenge. https://kaggle.com/competitions/prostate-cancer-grade-assessment (2020), kaggle

work page 2020