Timo Milbich

CV
h-index1
3papers
16citations
Novelty48%
AI Score39

3 Papers

2.8CVJan 8
Atlas 2 -- Foundation models for clinical deployment

Maximilian Alber, Timo Milbich, Alexandra Carpen-Amarie et al.

Pathology foundation models substantially advanced the possibilities in computational pathology -- yet tradeoffs in terms of performance, robustness, and computational requirements remained, which limited their clinical deployment. In this report, we present Atlas 2, Atlas 2-B, and Atlas 2-S, three pathology vision foundation models which bridge these shortcomings by showing state-of-the-art performance in prediction performance, robustness, and resource efficiency in a comprehensive evaluation across eighty public benchmarks. Our models were trained on the largest pathology foundation model dataset to date comprising 5.5 million histopathology whole slide images, collected from three medical institutions Charité - Universtätsmedizin Berlin, LMU Munich, and Mayo Clinic.

17.4CVJan 9, 2025
Atlas: A Novel Pathology Foundation Model by Mayo Clinic, Charité, and Aignostics

Maximilian Alber, Stephan Tietz, Jonas Dippel et al.

Recent advances in digital pathology have demonstrated the effectiveness of foundation models across diverse applications. In this report, we present Atlas, a novel vision foundation model based on the RudolfV approach. Our model was trained on a dataset comprising 1.2 million histopathology whole slide images, collected from two medical institutions: Mayo Clinic and Charité - Universtätsmedizin Berlin. Comprehensive evaluations show that Atlas achieves state-of-the-art performance across twenty-one public benchmark datasets, even though it is neither the largest model by parameter count nor by training dataset size.

1.5CVJan 5
Mind the Gap: Continuous Magnification Sampling for Pathology Foundation Models

Alexander Möllers, Julius Hense, Florian Schulz et al.

In histopathology, pathologists examine both tissue architecture at low magnification and fine-grained morphology at high magnification. Yet, the performance of pathology foundation models across magnifications and the effect of magnification sampling during training remain poorly understood. We model magnification sampling as a multi-source domain adaptation problem and develop a simple theoretical framework that reveals systematic trade-offs between sampling strategies. We show that the widely used discrete uniform sampling of magnifications (0.25, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0 mpp) leads to degradation at intermediate magnifications. We introduce continuous magnification sampling, which removes gaps in magnification coverage while preserving performance at standard scales. Further, we derive sampling distributions that optimize representation quality across magnification scales. To evaluate these strategies, we introduce two new benchmarks (TCGA-MS, BRACS-MS) with appropriate metrics. Our experiments show that continuous sampling substantially improves over discrete sampling at intermediate magnifications, with gains of up to 4 percentage points in balanced classification accuracy, and that optimized distributions can further improve performance. Finally, we evaluate current histopathology foundation models, finding that magnification is a primary driver of performance variation across models. Our work paves the way towards future pathology foundation models that perform reliably across magnifications.