Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

How Good is my Histopathology Vision-Language Foundation Model? A Holistic Benchmark

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2503.12990 v1 pith:J664MQQO submitted 2025-03-17 eess.IV cs.CV

How Good is my Histopathology Vision-Language Foundation Model? A Holistic Benchmark

classification eess.IV cs.CV
keywords histopathologyclinicalexistingtasksvlmsbenchmarkacquisitioncomprehensive
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Recently, histopathology vision-language foundation models (VLMs) have gained popularity due to their enhanced performance and generalizability across different downstream tasks. However, most existing histopathology benchmarks are either unimodal or limited in terms of diversity of clinical tasks, organs, and acquisition instruments, as well as their partial availability to the public due to patient data privacy. As a consequence, there is a lack of comprehensive evaluation of existing histopathology VLMs on a unified benchmark setting that better reflects a wide range of clinical scenarios. To address this gap, we introduce HistoVL, a fully open-source comprehensive benchmark comprising images acquired using up to 11 various acquisition tools that are paired with specifically crafted captions by incorporating class names and diverse pathology descriptions. Our Histo-VL includes 26 organs, 31 cancer types, and a wide variety of tissue obtained from 14 heterogeneous patient cohorts, totaling more than 5 million patches obtained from over 41K WSIs viewed under various magnification levels. We systematically evaluate existing histopathology VLMs on Histo-VL to simulate diverse tasks performed by experts in real-world clinical scenarios. Our analysis reveals interesting findings, including large sensitivity of most existing histopathology VLMs to textual changes with a drop in balanced accuracy of up to 25% in tasks such as Metastasis detection, low robustness to adversarial attacks, as well as improper calibration of models evident through high ECE values and low model prediction confidence, all of which can affect their clinical implementation.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Do Pathology Vision-Language Models Truly See Pathology?

    cs.CV 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Answer accuracy on pathology VQA overstates visual understanding; a new benchmark with text-only filtering and region-level grounding shows current VLMs are weakly bound to image evidence.