Mengwei Xu

Zhenyan Lu, Xiang Li, Dongqi Cai et al. · cambridge

Small language models (SLMs), despite their widespread adoption in modern smart devices, have received significantly less academic attention compared to their large language model (LLM) counterparts, which are predominantly deployed in data centers and cloud environments. While researchers continue to improve the capabilities of LLMs in the pursuit of artificial general intelligence, SLM research aims to make machine intelligence more accessible, affordable, and efficient for everyday tasks. Focusing on transformer-based, decoder-only language models with 100M-5B parameters, we survey 70 state-of-the-art open-source SLMs, analyzing their technical innovations across three axes: architectures, training datasets, and training algorithms. In addition, we evaluate their capabilities in various domains, including commonsense reasoning, mathematics, in-context learning, and long context. To gain further insight into their on-device runtime costs, we benchmark their inference latency and memory footprints. Through in-depth analysis of our benchmarking data, we offer valuable insights to advance research in this field.

Yingxue Xu, Zhengyu Zhang, Xiuming Zhang et al.

Pathology foundation models have shown strong retrospective performance, but whether such systems can support clinically relevant use remains unclear. This challenge is particularly important in breast cancer, where pathological assessment serves as the gold standard for diagnosis and guides treatment planning, surgical decision-making and risk stratification across pre-, intra- and post-operative stages. Here we present \textbf{BRAVE}, a breast-adaptive pathology foundation model developed and evaluated using a total resource of 101,638 breast whole-slide images from 32 sources across Asia, Europe and North America. We assessed BRAVE across 34 tasks in 82 cohorts spanning pre-operative biopsy, intra-operative frozen section and post-operative resection, using an evidence chain comprising retrospective benchmarking, clinically challenging scenarios, workflow-oriented clinical impact simulations, prospective observational validation with the thresholds locked in the retrospective cohorts and crossover pathologist-AI interaction studies. Across these settings, BRAVE supported practical roles in the clinical workflow, including safe exclusion of low-risk cases from routine review, AI-assisted second-review rescue of initially missed positives and prioritization of cases for further assessment. In prospective validation across three centres, BRAVE excluded 76.9% of negative biopsy cases (NPV 0.953) and 70.1% of negative frozen-section cases (NPV 0.973), and triaged 78.8% of post-operative subtyping cases as high-confidence clear-cut cases (NPV 1.000). In reader studies, AI assistance improved balanced accuracy from 88.5% to 95.1% (OR 3.14, P<0.001), with better efficiency, confidence and inter-rater agreement. BRAVE-derived scores also independently predicted disease-free survival (adjusted HR 4.79, P<0.001) and overall survival (adjusted HR 8.14, P<0.001).