Towards Brain MRI Foundation Models for the Clinic: Findings from the FOMO25 Challenge

Asbjørn Munk; Stefano Cerri; Vardan Nersesjan; Christian Hedeager Krag; Jakob Ambsdorf; Pablo Rocamora García; Julia Machnio; Peirong Liu

cs.CVApr 13, 2026

Towards Brain MRI Foundation Models for the Clinic: Findings from the FOMO25 Challenge

Authors: Asbjørn Munk, Stefano Cerri, Vardan Nersesjan, Christian Hedeager Krag, Jakob Ambsdorf, Pablo Rocamora García, Julia Machnio, Peirong Liu, +76 more

Abstract

Clinical deployment of automated brain MRI analysis faces a fundamental challenge: clinical data is heterogeneous and noisy, and high-quality labels are prohibitively costly to obtain. Self-supervised learning (SSL) can address this by leveraging the vast amounts of unlabeled data produced in clinical workflows to train robust foundation models that adapt out-of-domain with minimal supervision. However, the development of foundation models for brain MRI has been limited by small pretraining datasets and in-domain benchmarking focused on high-quality, research-grade data. To address this gap, we organized the FOMO25 challenge as a satellite event at MICCAI 2025. FOMO25 provided participants with a large pretraining dataset, FOMO60K, and evaluated models on data sourced directly from clinical workflows in few-shot and out-of-domain settings. Tasks covered infarct classification, meningioma segmentation, and brain age regression, and considered both models trained on FOMO60K (method track) and any data (open track). Nineteen foundation models from sixteen teams were evaluated using a standardized containerized pipeline. Results show that (a) self-supervised pretraining improves generalization on clinical data under domain shift, with the strongest models trained out-of-domain surpassing supervised baselines trained in-domain. (b) No single pretraining objective benefits all tasks: MAE favors segmentation, hybrid reconstruction-contrastive objectives favor classification, and (c) strong performance was achieved by small pretrained models, and improvements from scaling model size and training duration did not yield reliable benefits.

Figures & tables

Figure 1: Self-supervised pretraining boosts generalization. Across tasks, the top pretraining-based model from the Method Track outperforms both from-scratch out-of-domain and in-domain supervised baselines, demonstrating that SSL can effectively leverage heterogeneous MRI data. Baselines are nnU-Net (segmentation) and Asparagus (classification/regression). The best performing method for classification was ashash, for segmentation Dolphin_creators, and for regression FOMO2JOMO. For Task 2, “Easy cases” were defined as the top 25% of cases ranked by average Dice score across all challenge participants.

		Overall	Task 1 (Infarct)		Task 2 (Meningioma)			Task 3 (Brain age)
Place	Team	Rank	R	AUROC	R	Dice	NSD	R	Corr.	Mean AE
Method Track
1	FOMO2JOMO	2.3	2	0.782	4	0.095	0.072	1	0.651	10.96
2	Dolphins_creators	4.3	6	0.684	1	0.261	0.232	6	0.448	12.67
3	MaastrichtU-CDS	4.7	5	0.688	2.5	0.181	0.126	6.5	0.599	16.17
4	TUKE	4.8	4	0.750	7	0.046	0.043	3.5	0.602	11.96

Table 1: FOMO25 leaderboard results.

Figure 2: Effect of pretraining choices on downstream performance. (A–C) Pairwise rank differences between tasks, grouped by SSL objective category (global, hybrid, local): classification vs. segmentation (A), segmentation vs. regression (B), and classification vs. regression (C). Teams with Dice or NSD < 0.01 were excluded from (A) and (B). Positive values indicate better relative performance on the task shown at the top of the axis. (D) Overall rank as a function of encoder size. One outlier with 0.5B params was removed from the plot. (E) Overall rank as a function of the number of samples seen during pretraining. (F) Overall rank by whether sequences were treated as i.i.d. during pretraining. (G–I) Per-method rank comparisons across task pairs: classification vs. segmentation (G), classification vs. regression (H), and segmentation vs. regression (I), with lines colored by track.

Figure 3: Comparison of Method and Open Track Submissions. (A) Distribution of pretraining dataset sizes in the Open Track (Method Track teams all used FOMO60K). (B) Dimensionality of the input representation (2D vs. 3D). (C–F) Share of submissions within each track by SSL objective category (global, hybrid, local) (C), encoder size (D), backbone architecture (E), and number of available GPUs (F)

Figure 4: Effect of augmentation strategies on task performance. (A) Task-specific rank as a function of the total number of pretraining augmentations. (B) Task-specific rank as a function of the number of spatial augmentations only. Marker shapes denote track, and colors indicate overall rank within each track. Lower rank indicates better performance. Trend lines are shown for each task.

Figure 5: Impact of hyperparameter tuning on final rank. Categorization of the extent of hyperparameter tuning done for pretraining hyperparameters compared to the final rank on each task.

Figure 6: Rankings with supervised baseline models. (A, B) Bootstrap rank distributions (mean $\pm$ 95% CI) for the Method and Open Tracks, with teams grouped into statistically defined performance tiers (colours). (C-E) Task-level performance for the best out-of-domain method across both tracks alongside in-domain and out-of-domain supervised baselines: (C) ROC curves for the infarct classification task, (D) Dice and NSD score distributions for the meningioma segmentation task, (E) absolute error distributions for the brain-age regression task, with Mean AE and Corr. annotated. Rankings per individual task, along with permutation-test p-value matrices, are provided in Figure 7 for the Method Track and in Figure 8 for the Open Track.

Appendix figures & tables4 assets

Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.

Appendix

Task	Split	# Cases	Data Origin	Age (mean $\pm$ SD)	Sex (M/F)	Sequences	Slice thickness (mean $\pm$ SD)
Task 1 - Infarct Classification	Finetuning	21	India	61.52 $\pm$ 16.27	16 / 5	FLAIR, DWI (ADC+b1000), T2*(5) / SWI(16)	4.50 $\pm$ 0.89
	Validation	80	Denmark	63.17 $\pm$ 17.27	39 / 41	FLAIR, DWI (ADC+b1000), T2*(15) / SWI(65)	4.57 $\pm$ 1.73
	Test	320	Denmark	64.30 $\pm$ 17.37	161 / 159	FLAIR, DWI (ADC+b1000), T2*(59) / SWI(261)	4.57 $\pm$ 1.77
Task 2 - Meningioma Segmentation	Finetuning	23	India	48.27 $\pm$ 22.04	8 / 15	FLAIR, DWI (b1000), T2*(15) / SWI(8)	4.61 $\pm$ 0.78
	Validation	25	Denmark	65.36 $\pm$ 13.54	7 / 18	FLAIR, DWI (b1000), T2*(2) / SWI(23)	4.11 $\pm$ 2.04
	Test	107	Denmark	67.01 $\pm$ 13.19	30 / 77	FLAIR, DWI (b1000), T2*(16) / SWI(91)	4.28 $\pm$ 2.03

Appendix

Table 2: Summary of datasets used in FOMO25. For each task, we report the split, number of cases, data origin, age, sex, sequences included, and slice thickness. Numbers in parentheses indicate cases per sequence type for T2*/SWI. Slice thickness reported for original data before co-registration, averaged across all sequences.

Figure 7: Statistical analysis for the Method Track. Top row: bootstrap rank distributions for the combined ranking and each individual task, with independently computed performance tiers. Bottom row: pairwise permutation test p-value matrices (lower triangular); asterisks denote statistically significant differences (p < 0.05). Teams are ordered by mean rank within each task.

Figure 8: Statistical analysis for the Open Track. Top row: bootstrap rank distributions for the combined ranking and each individual task, with independently computed performance tiers. Bottom row: pairwise permutation test p-value matrices (lower triangular); asterisks denote statistically significant differences (p < 0.05). Teams are ordered by mean rank within each task.

Figure 9: Overview of submitted methods . (A) Pretraining augmentations used across all submissions, grouped by spatial, intensity, and artifact categories and colored by SSL objective type (Global, Hybrid, Local). (B) Distribution of GPU types used for pretraining. (C) Backbone architectures, showing the proportion of CNN, Swin Transformer, Uniformer, Vision Transformer, and xLSTM models. (D) Count of SSL objective types by category. (E) Number of GPUs used during pretraining. (F) Pretraining patch sizes, stratified by track. (G) Encoder parameter counts. Panels E–G separate submissions per track.

Explore similar work

Jul 20, 2026

BrainNext: A General-Purpose Self-Supervised Foundation Model for Brain MRI Analysis

Foundation models pretrained using self-supervised learning have transformed computer vision by learning transferable representations from large-scale unlabeled data. However, existing foundation models for neuroimaging remain limited by task-specific training, slice-based learning strategies, or relatively small pretraining datasets, restricting their generalizability across diverse brain MRI applications. In this work, we present BrainNext, a general-purpose self-supervised foundation model for volumetric brain MRI analysis. BrainNext combines masked autoencoder (MAE) pretraining with a native three-dimensional Bi-Directional xLSTM-UNet architecture to learn rich anatomical representations from 60,551 unlabeled brain MRI examinations spanning multiple MRI modalities. The pretrained model is subsequently adapted to downstream tasks through lightweight task-specific fine-tuning. We evaluate BrainNext on the Foundation Models for Medical Imaging (FOMO) 2025 Method Track, encompassing classification, segmentation, and brain-age estimation, where it achieved second place overall and ranked first in the meningioma segmentation task on the official FOMO 2025 challenge leaderboard, demonstrating strong transferability across heterogeneous neuroimaging tasks. These results highlight the potential of large-scale self-supervised pretraining to learn robust and transferable volumetric representations, establishing BrainNext as a scalable foundation model for diverse brain MRI applications.

Moona Mazher, Abdul Qayyum, Steven A. Niederer +1

UCL Hawkes Institute, Department of Computer Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom · National Heart & Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom · Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Stanford Cardiovascular Institute, Stanford University, California, USA

Medical Imaging Foundation Models Self-Supervised Pre-Training Medical Image Representation Learning

Ask PDF

Apr 30, 2026

BrainDINO: A Brain MRI Foundation Model for Generalizable Clinical Representation Learning

Brain MRI underpins a wide range of neuroscientific and clinical applications, yet most learning-based methods remain task-specific and require substantial labeled data. Here we show that a single self-supervised representation can generalize across heterogeneous brain MRI endpoints. We trained BrainDINO, a self-distilled foundation model, on approximately 6.6 million unlabeled axial slices from 20 datasets encompassing broad variation in population, disease, and acquisition setting. Using a frozen encoder with lightweight task heads, BrainDINO supported transfer across tumor segmentation, neurodegenerative and neurodevelopmental conditions classification, brain age estimation, post-stroke temporal prediction, molecular status prediction, MRI sequence classification, and survival modeling. Across tasks and supervision regimes, BrainDINO consistently equaled or exceeded natural-image and MRI-specific self-supervised baselines, with particularly strong advantages under label scarcity. Representation analyses further showed anatomically organized and pathology-sensitive feature structure in the absence of task-specific supervision. Our findings indicate that large-scale slice-wise self-supervised learning can yield a unified brain MRI representation that supports diverse neuroimaging tasks without volumetric pretraining or full-network fine-tuning, establishing a scalable foundation for robust and data-efficient brain imaging analysis. Code is available at https://github.com/mclwu22/BrainDINO

Yizhou Wu, Shansong Wang, Yuheng Li +5

Department of Radiation Oncology and Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. · Department of Radiation and Cellular Oncology, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. · Department of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA. +2

Medical Imaging Foundation Models Self-Supervised Pre-Training Medical Image Representation Learning Brain MRI

Ask PDF

Sep 25, 2026

Combining General and Domain-Specific Pretext Tasks for Brain MR Image Segmentation

A key challenge in medical image analysis is the scarcity of large annotated datasets for specific populations and diseases. As deep learning models rely heavily on labeled data, effective transfer learning strategies are needed to reduce the dependence on manual annotations. Self-supervised learning has emerged as a promising approach for developing foundation models by enabling the learning of transferable feature representations from large-scale unlabeled medical imaging datasets. In this study, we investigate voxel-level brain age prediction as a domain-specific self-supervised pretext task and compare it with image inpainting, a widely used non-domain-specific alternative. We further propose a multitask self-supervised pretraining framework that jointly optimizes both objectives to learn complementary neuroimaging representations. The pretrained models are evaluated on three downstream magnetic resonance image segmentation tasks: multiple sclerosis lesion segmentation, ischemic stroke lesion segmentation, and cortical brain structure segmentation. Overall, the proposed multitask pretraining framework consistently outperformed the single-task pretrained models and training from scratch across most experimental settings, demonstrating the benefit of combining domain-specific and general self-supervised learning pretext tasks for the development of generalizable neuroimaging foundation models.\ Code Availability: The source code used in this study is publicly available at https://github.com/TasneemN/Combining-General-and-Domain-Specific-Pretext-Tasks-for-Brain-MR-Image-Segmentation/

Tasneem Nasser, Susanne Schmid, Roberto Souza +1

Biomedical Engineering University of Calgary Calgary AB Canada · Hotchkiss Brain Institute University of Calgary Calgary AB Canada · Electrical and Software Engineering University of Calgary Calgary AB Canada +1

Medical Image Representation Learning Self-Supervised Pre-Training Medical Imaging Foundation Models Medical Image Segmentation Brain MRI

Ask PDF