Pretext Matters: An Empirical Study of SSL Methods in Medical Imaging
Authors: Vedrana Ivezić, Mara Pleasure, Ashwath Radhachandran, Saarang Panchavati, Shreeram Athreya, Vivek Sant, Benjamin Emert, Gregory Fishbein, Corey Arnold, William Speier
Organizations: Biomedical AI Research Lab, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA · Department of Radiology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA · Department of Bioengineering, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA · Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA · Division of Endocrine Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA · Department of Pathology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA · Department of Computational Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
Though self-supervised learning (SSL) has demonstrated incredible ability to learn robust representations from unlabeled data, the choice of optimal SSL strategy can lead to vastly different performance outcomes in specialized domains. Joint embedding architectures (JEAs) and joint embedding predictive architectures (JEPAs) have shown robustness to noise and strong semantic feature learning compared to pixel reconstruction-based SSL methods, leading to widespread adoption in medical imaging. However, no prior work has systematically investigated which SSL objective is better aligned with the spatial organization of clinically relevant signal. In this work, we empirically investigate how the choice of SSL method impacts the learned representations in medical imaging. We select two representative imaging modalities characterized by unique noise profiles: ultrasound and histopathology. When informative signal is spatially localized, as in histopathology, JEAs are more effective due to their view-invariance objective. In contrast, when diagnostically relevant information is globally structured, such as the macroscopic anatomy present in liver ultrasounds, JEPAs are optimal. These differences are especially evident in the clinical relevance of the learned features, as independently validated by board-certified radiologists and pathologists. Together, our results provide a framework for matching SSL objectives to the structural and noise properties of medical imaging modalities.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: SSL pretext tasks on a lung image for (a) MAE, (b) I-JEPA, and (c) DINOv3.
Ultrasound
Histopathology
Dataset
Task
Dataset
Task
MMOTU
Ovarian Tumor
CPTAC-Lung
LUAD vs LSCC
AUL
Liver Mass Malignancy
PLCO-Lung
LUAD vs LSCC
TN5000
Thyroid Tumor
PLCO-Breast
Breast Cancer Subtype
Fatty Liver
Hepatic Steatosis (NAFLD)
Ovarian
Ovarian Cancer Subtype
POCUS
Lung Pathology
PANDA
Prostate Biopsy ISUP Grade
Table 1: Overview of downstream tasks. (Acronyms: NAFLD - Non Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease; LUAD - Lung Adenocarcinoma; LSCC - Lung Squamous Cell Carcinoma; ISUP - International Society of Urological Pathology.) See 0.D.1 for more info.
Figure 2: Example visualizations including attention maps, cosine similarity maps (anchor points denoted by red X), and PCA maps for both ultrasound and pathology.
MAE
DINOv3
I-JEPA
Dataset
AUROC (%)
F1 (%)
AUROC (%)
F1 (%)
AUROC (%)
F1 (%)
MMOTU
78.43 ± 0.12
38.04 ± 1.4
84.57 ± 0.07
50.31 ± 0.65
82.59 ± 0.06
42.03 ± 0.58
AUL
81.86 ± 0.21
62.52 ± 2.1
86.77 ± 0.23
66.33 ± 0.52
86.47 ± 0.21
64.71 ± 0.81
TN5000
69.88 ± 0.2
58.25 ± 2.2
72.36 ± 0.42
63.34 ± 1.5
75.60 ± 0.12
65.83 ± 1.6
Fatty Liver
65.89 ± 0.6
50.76 ± 5.7
86.66 ± 1.5
64.06 ± 1.7
98.70 ± 0.26
92.80 ± 1.2
POCUS
96.12 ± 0.19
91.01 ± 0.11
99.49 ± 0.07
94.00 ± 0.19
97.18 ± 0.06
90.48 ± 0.52
Table 2: Performance comparison across SSL methods on eight ultrasound classification tasks averaged across five seeds. All values are reported as percentages (%).
Figure 3: Attention heatmaps from each attention head of the final ViT layer across models pre-trained on ultrasounds. The dark oval area in the GBCU image is the gallbladder with the liver region to the left. The oval area of the Fatty Liver image is the kidney, the white line above is the diaphragm, and the shaded region to the right is the liver. The TN5000 image contains a thyroid nodule marked with calipers.
Figure 4: Cosine similarity maps computed in relation to anchor patches (red X).
MAE
DINOv3
I-JEPA
Dataset
AUROC (%)
F1 (%)
AUROC (%)
F1 (%)
AUROC (%)
F1 (%)
CPTAC-Lung
77.1 ± 4.2
27.2 ± 33.3
91.4 ± 1.0
83.3 ± 1.4
54.8 ± 1.3
31.6 ± 29.4
PLCO-Lung
63.8 ± 0.9
30.6 ± 13.7
82.9 ± 1.3
66.8 ± 5.3
57.4 ± 8.4
21.8 ± 26.7
PLCO-Breast
49.2 ± 2.2
26.5 ± 6.2
65.2 ± 1.1
38.7 ± 8.5
52.3 ± 6.2
11.6 ± 8.6
Ovarian
73.5 ± 0.7
34.1 ± 7.3
92.0 ± 1.8
73.3 ± 2.4
55.2 ± 4.3
4.5 ± 2.0
PANDA
81.9 ± 0.2
44.2 ± 0.3
87.0 ± 0.3
53.9 ± 0.8
64.0 ± 0.6
22.7 ± 1.5
Table 3: Performance comparison across SSL methods on five histopathology classification tasks. All values are reported as percentages (%).
Figure 5: Attention heatmaps from each attention head of the final ViT layer across models pre-trained on histopathology data for three downstream datasets.
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Model
Hyperparameter
Value
MAE
ViT
ViT-small
Batch size
256
Learning rate
1.5×10−4
Warmup epochs
10
DINOv3
ViT
ViT-small
Batch size
128
Appendix
Table 4: Comparison of Hyperparameters across three Models. Learning rate peak for DINOv3 histopathology model was 1×10−5 otherwise all parameters were shared across ultrasound and histopathology.
Figure 6: Example attention maps from DINOv3 and MAE comparing [CLS] token and mean patch attentions for an ultrasound example. I-JEPA mean patch attention map is provided as a reference.
Figure 7: Example attention maps from DINOv3 and MAE comparing [CLS] token and mean patch attentions for a histopathology example. I-JEPA mean patch attention map is provided as a reference.
Figure 8: Attention maps from each SSL method for gallbladder ultrasounds, including both a benign and malignant example.
Figure 9: Attention maps from each SSL method for ultrasounds of normal liver and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NFLD).
Figure 10: Attention maps from each SSL method for thyroid ultrasounds. Both ultrasounds show benign nodules but of varying sizes. Nodules are denoted by the calipers.
Figure 11: Attention maps from each SSL method for ultrasounds of the carotid and the four chamber view of the heart.
Figure 12: Carotid artery ultrasound cosine similarity map for each model. The anchor point (red X) is placed on the boundary of the carotid artery to demonstrate I-JEPA’s ability to learn anatomical structures.
Figure 13: PCA Visualizations of two histopathology patches from three downstream examples.
Self-supervised learning (SSL) is increasingly used in medical image analysis to reduce dependence on costly expert annotations by learning transferable representations from unlabeled data. However, SSL performance depends not only on model architecture, but also on whether the pretext task preserves information required by the downstream clinical objective. This review presents a task-oriented synthesis of SSL methods for medical imaging, focusing on how pretext-task design interacts with imaging modality, label availability, and downstream performance. We analyze 75 studies published from 2017 to 2025 and organize them into four paradigms: contrastive learning, non-contrastive and predictive learning, generative and reconstruction-based learning, and hybrid learning. Rather than cataloging methods chronologically, we examine how these paradigms support classification, segmentation, detection, reconstruction, and regression. The evidence suggests that no SSL strategy is universally optimal. Contrastive objectives generally encourage global discriminative representations and are well aligned with classification, but may underrepresent subtle or localized pathology. Spatial prediction, masked modeling, and reconstruction-based objectives better preserve anatomical structure and are often more suitable for segmentation and dense prediction. Hybrid methods can provide balanced representations, although they increase training complexity. Across modalities, SSL is most beneficial in low-label and few-shot regimes, but its effectiveness depends on modality-aware augmentation, pathology-preserving corruption, and clinically meaningful evaluation. We conclude with practical design guidelines and identify open challenges, including pathology-aware pretext tasks, resource-efficient training for high-dimensional data, and standardized evaluation protocols.
Ultrasound (US) imaging poses unique challenges for representation learning due to its inherently noisy acquisition process. The low signal-to-noise ratio and stochastic speckle patterns hinder standard self-supervised learning methods relying on a pixel-level reconstruction objective. Joint-Embedding Predictive Architectures (JEPAs) address this drawback by predicting masked latent representations rather than raw pixels. However, standard approaches depend on hyperparameter-brittle and computationally expensive online teachers updated via exponential moving average. We propose US-JEPA, a self-supervised framework that adopts the Static-teacher Asymmetric Latent Training (SALT) objective. By using a frozen, domain-specific teacher to provide stable latent targets, US-JEPA decouples student-teacher optimization and pushes the student to expand upon the semantic priors of the teacher. In addition, we provide the first rigorous comparison of all publicly available state-of-the-art ultrasound foundation models on UltraBench, a public dataset benchmark spanning multiple organs and pathological conditions. Under linear probing for diverse classification tasks, US-JEPA achieves performance competitive with or superior to domain-specific and universal vision foundation model baselines. Our results demonstrate that masked latent prediction provides a stable and efficient path toward robust ultrasound representations.
Biomedical Artificial Intelligence Research Lab, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States of America · Medical Informatics, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States of America · Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States of America +3
Self-supervised learning (SSL) can reduce the need for labelled medical images, but the choice of pretext objective remains unclear for lung ultrasound (LUS). Contrastive learning, masked reconstruction, and joint-embedding predictive architectures (JEPA) differ in the space in which their targets are defined, yet existing ultrasound studies compare them under different corpora, backbones, and evaluation protocols. We compare these three objective families using the same encoder backbone, pretraining corpus, optimisation schedule, and frozen-evaluation protocol. Encoders are pretrained on COVID-BLUeS LUS videos and evaluated with linear, kNN, and attentive probes at 5%, 10%, 50%, and 100% label budgets. Evaluation is performed on POCUS using patient-level five-fold cross-validation and on the independently acquired Mendeley-Uganda dataset, which is excluded from both pretraining and probe fitting. At the full label budget under linear probing, VideoMAE and V-JEPA achieve 66.5±13.1 and 65.4±11.7 balanced accuracy on POCUS, while MoCo achieves 42.1±1.2. On Mendeley-Uganda, the ranking reverses: MoCo performs best at 62.7±1.0, followed by VideoMAE at 53.8±2.8, while V-JEPA falls near chance at 35.1±4.9. These results show that POCUS probe accuracy alone does not identify the objective that transfers best across datasets. We also outline planned representation-level analyses to examine this reversal. Code is publicly available at https://github.com/moeinheidari7829/LUSVideoSSL.
Moein Heidari, Junbo Rao, Jai Choraria +3
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada · Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA