The study examined whether embeddings from four foundation models—Mammo-CLIP, HOPPR, MedImageInsight, and BiomedCLIP—could detect pre‑diagnostic changes in screening mammograms. Using 1,773 biopsied women and matched controls, the researchers measured the speed of movement along a data‑derived “cancer direction” in embedding space over successive screening intervals. They found that embeddings from clinically grounded models (Mammo‑CLIP, HOPPR, MedImageInsight) showed faster drift in malignant cases compared to controls, while the general biomedical model BiomedCLIP did not, indicating that foundation model embeddings can encode early tissue changes without task‑specific fine‑tuning.
By Kalina P. Slavkova, Eric Brattain, Aditya Gowd, Akash Pattnaik, Jean-Benoit Delbrouck, Matthew Morgan, Julie Bauml, Javid Abderezaei, Khan Siddiqui
arXiv:2609.26443v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Recent advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI)-powered Computer-Aided Diagnosis (CAD) systems have substantially improved breast cancer screening, dia...
By Farnoush Bayatmakou, Maryam Hosseini, Reza Taleei, Arash Mohammadi
The paper introduces SEM‑HD, a framework that leverages longitudinal mammography history as privileged information during training to improve risk prediction while requiring only a single current exam at inference. By having a student model predict latent representations of past visits and using teacher supervision from actual longitudinal data, SEM‑HD preserves temporal modeling benefits without needing prior exams at deployment. Experiments on three cohorts and two backbone architectures show consistent gains in long‑horizon AUC and pAUC, especially in low false‑positive‑rate regions, and recover much of the performance gap to full‑history models.
By Banafsheh Karimian, Soufiane Belharbi, Alexis Guichemerre, Luke McCaffrey, Mohammadhadi Shateri, Eric Granger
arXiv:2607. 10358v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Foundation models are increasingly used as image feature extractors for mammography, but their robustness under external domain shift remains unclear.
By Giang Nguyen, Raghav Mehta, Emma A. M. Stanley, Tian Xia, Thi Hao Nguyen, Hieu Pham, Ben Glocker
arXiv:2608.24688v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Precision oncology necessitates a longitudinal model of patient state that captures cancer evolution and treatment over time, integrating multimodal ob...
By Eugene Vorontsov, Yi Kan Wang, Alican Bozkurt, Adam Casson, Ludmila Tydlitatova, Michal Zelechowski, Ezra E. W. Cohen, Jyoti D. Patel, Max Banaszak, Caitlin McWilliams, Shane Colley, Kate Sasser, Ryan Fukushima, Eric Lefkofsky, Razik Yousfi, Siqi Liu
The study evaluates whether mammography foundation models, pretrained for breast cancer tasks, can predict 5‑year major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in women using only screening mammograms. In a cohort of 22,497 women (500 MACE events), the models achieved AUROCs of 0.823 and 0.822, outperforming an age‑only baseline. The models also identified higher risk in patients with radiologist‑documented breast arterial calcifications, despite never being trained on that label.
By Paula Feldman, Nusrat Binta Nizam, Sunwoo Kwak, Batuhan Karaman, Katerina Dodelzon, Mert Sabuncu
arXiv:2607. 11343v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Accurate breast cancer risk prediction from screening mammography is critical for enabling personalized screening intervals and early detection.
By Solveig Thrun, Zijun Sun, Suaiba A. Salahuddin, Kristoffer Wickstr{\o}m, Elisabeth Wetzer, Stine Hansen, Robert Jenssen, Michael Kampffmeyer
arXiv:2607. 02768v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Pathologic complete response and tumor shrinkage measure whether breast cancer responds to neoadjuvant therapy, but not whether that response was structurally favorable, persistent, or hidden beneath volume loss.
By Dattatreya Kantha, Murray H. Loew
arXiv:2607. 25497v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Pathology foundation models are approaching clinical deployment, yet remain vulnerable to systematic non-biological variation across centres.
By Cl\'ement Grisi, Jeroen van der Laak, Geert Litjens
The paper introduces TopKSigLIP, a vision‑language model tailored for mammography that tackles two key challenges: high‑resolution imaging and homogeneous radiology reports. It replaces standard CLIP training with a TopK‑Patch module that selects sparse high‑resolution patches likely to contain lesions, and a Sup‑sigmoid loss that uses soft labels from structured data instead of contrastive loss. TopKSigLIP outperforms existing open‑source mammography and general medical VLMs on zero‑shot tasks such as density assessment, BI‑RADS classification, finding subtyping, and cancer prediction, while also providing better lesion localization than Grad‑CAM.
By Young Seok Jeon, Beatrice Brown-Mulry, Rohan Satya Isaac, Anjana Dissanayaka, Theo Dapamede, Mohammadreza Chavoshi, Judy Gichoya, Hari Trivedi
arXiv:2606. 07590v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Pathology foundation models are pretrained on large streams of WSI-derived patches, while supervision during data construction is often slide-level, sparse, or heterogeneous.
By Mingyi He, Xinyi Guo, Xitong Ling, Weiming Chen, Jiawen Li, Lianghui Zhu, Minxi Ouyang, Mingxi Fu, Yizhi Wang, Tian Guan
WILSON is a vision–language foundation model that represents whole‑slide images and multi‑slide patient cases as single multi‑magnification composite images. Trained on about 189,000 Mayo Clinic slides covering 42 organs and 829 diagnostic entities, it outperforms dedicated case‑level models on internal cohorts and matches slide‑level models while using far less compute. Fine‑tuning on triple‑negative breast cancer data improves histologic subtyping and lymphocyte grading, and the model retrieves diagnostic text with high recall and generates captions closer to report references than prior methods.
By Saghir Alfasly, Wataru Uegami, Sobhan Hemati, Wenchao Han, Xiaojia Tang, Kevin Thompson, Daniel Stone, Ghazal Alabtah, Saba Yasir, Michael R. Lucas, Eric W. Klee, Cheryl L. Willman, Judy C. Boughey, Matthew P. Goetz, Krishna R. Kalari, H. R. Tizhoosh