Benchmarking foundation models as feature extractors for weakly-supervised computational pathology

Advancements in artificial intelligence have driven the development of numerous pathology foundation models capable of extracting clinically relevant information. However, there is currently limited literature independently evaluating these foundation models on truly external cohorts and clinically-relevant tasks to uncover adjustments for future improvements. In this study, we benchmarked ten histopathology foundation models on 13 patient cohorts with 6,791 patients and 9,493 slides from lung, colorectal, gastric, and breast cancers. The models were evaluated on weakly-supervised tasks related to biomarkers, morphological properties, and prognostic outcomes. We show that a vision-language foundation model, CONCH, yielded the highest performance in 42% of tasks when compared to vision-only foundation models. The experiments reveal that foundation models trained on distinct cohorts learn complementary features to predict the same label, and can be fused to outperform the current state of the art. Creating an ensemble of complementary foundation models outperformed CONCH in 66% of tasks. Moreover, our findings suggest that data diversity outweighs data volume for foundation models. Our work highlights actionable adjustments to improve pathology foundation models.

End-To-End Clinical Trial Matching with Large Language Models

Matching cancer patients to clinical trials is essential for advancing treatment and patient care. However, the inconsistent format of medical free text documents and complex trial eligibility criteria make this process extremely challenging and time-consuming for physicians. We investigated whether the entire trial matching process - from identifying relevant trials among 105,600 oncology-related clinical trials on clinicaltrials.gov to generating criterion-level eligibility matches - could be automated using Large Language Models (LLMs). Using GPT-4o and a set of 51 synthetic Electronic Health Records (EHRs), we demonstrate that our approach identifies relevant candidate trials in 93.3% of cases and achieves a preliminary accuracy of 88.0% when matching patient-level information at the criterion level against a baseline defined by human experts. Utilizing LLM feedback reveals that 39.3% criteria that were initially considered incorrect are either ambiguous or inaccurately annotated, leading to a total model accuracy of 92.7% after refining our human baseline. In summary, we present an end-to-end pipeline for clinical trial matching using LLMs, demonstrating high precision in screening and matching trials to individual patients, even outperforming the performance of qualified medical doctors. Our fully end-to-end pipeline can operate autonomously or with human supervision and is not restricted to oncology, offering a scalable solution for enhancing patient-trial matching in real-world settings.