arXiv subjects

Lena Philipp

Publications and source records attributed to Lena Philipp.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Designing UNICORN: a Unified Benchmark for Imaging in Computational Pathology, Radiology, and Natural Language

Foundation models are changing the way we develop medical artificial intelligence. By learning broadly generalizable features across diverse data modalities, a single model can be rapidly adapted to address multiple modalities and tasks with minimal supervision. This potential comes with the urgent need to reliably benchmark, understand and compare the performance and clinical impact of foundation models across data modalities and clinical tasks. We introduce UNICORN, a fundamentally new benchmarking concept for medical foundation models. UNICORN brings four main contributions to medical artificial intelligence. First, a framework that enables a one-to-many benchmarking approach, where a single foundation model is tested across multiple tasks and data modalities. Here, we populate it with 20 tasks across radiology, pathology, and clinical text, covering classification, detection, segmentation, regression, and vision-language generation. Second, a publicly available evaluation platform that implements, for the first time, a two-step approach to run foundation models for data encoding followed by custom task-specific adaptation via few-shot learning and linear probing mechanisms. Third, we create a meta-model that combines state-of-the-art foundation models in pathology, radiology and language with novel task-specific adapters that address all UNICORN tasks, which we refer to as Unicorn Model-0 (UM-0). Finally, we design a novel UNICORN score to benchmark and compare model performance across all tasks. We present the results of UM-0 using sequestered test data from over 2,400 patients, 3,700 vision cases, and 2,400 clinical reports from 17 institutions across eight countries, spanning eight anatomical regions and four imaging modalities. Data, baselines, and evaluation platform are publicly accessible at unicorn.grand-challenge.org.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2026

EvalBlocks: A Modular Pipeline for Rapidly Evaluating Foundation Models in Medical Imaging

Developing foundation models in medical imaging requires continuous monitoring of downstream performance. Researchers are burdened with tracking numerous experiments, design choices, and their effects on performance, often relying on ad-hoc, manual workflows that are inherently slow and error-prone. We introduce EvalBlocks, a modular, plug-and-play framework for efficient evaluation of foundation models during development. Built on Snakemake, EvalBlocks supports seamless integration of new datasets, foundation models, aggregation methods, and evaluation strategies. All experiments and results are tracked centrally and are reproducible with a single command, while efficient caching and parallel execution enable scalable use on shared compute infrastructure. Demonstrated on five state-of-the-art foundation models and three medical imaging classification tasks, EvalBlocks streamlines model evaluation, enabling researchers to iterate faster and focus on model innovation rather than evaluation logistics. The framework is released as open source software at https://github.com/DIAGNijmegen/eval-blocks.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2025

Fairness Evaluation of Risk Estimation Models for Lung Cancer Screening

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality in adults worldwide. Screening high-risk individuals with annual low-dose CT (LDCT) can support earlier detection and reduce deaths, but widespread implementation may strain the already limited radiology workforce. AI models have shown potential in estimating lung cancer risk from LDCT scans. However, high-risk populations for lung cancer are diverse, and these models' performance across demographic groups remains an open question. In this study, we drew on the considerations on confounding factors and ethically significant biases outlined in the JustEFAB framework to evaluate potential performance disparities and fairness in two deep learning risk estimation models for lung cancer screening: the Sybil lung cancer risk model and the Venkadesh21 nodule risk estimator. We also examined disparities in the PanCan2b logistic regression model recommended in the British Thoracic Society nodule management guideline. Both deep learning models were trained on data from the US-based National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), and assessed on a held-out NLST validation set. We evaluated AUROC, sensitivity, and specificity across demographic subgroups, and explored potential confounding from clinical risk factors. We observed a statistically significant AUROC difference in Sybil's performance between women (0.88, 95% CI: 0.86, 0.90) and men (0.81, 95% CI: 0.78, 0.84, p < .001). At 90% specificity, Venkadesh21 showed lower sensitivity for Black (0.39, 95% CI: 0.23, 0.59) than White participants (0.69, 95% CI: 0.65, 0.73). These differences were not explained by available clinical confounders and thus may be classified as unfair biases according to JustEFAB. Our findings highlight the importance of improving and monitoring model performance across underrepresented subgroups, and further research on algorithmic fairness, in lung cancer screening.

cs.LG↗