Performance vs Consistency: Evaluating a Foundation Model in Lung-RADS Screening

Pathological assessment guides lung cancer diagnosis, treatment selection, and prognostic evaluation, yet current CPath approaches rely on task-specific models for isolated objectives. Although pan-cancer foundation models offer versatility, they lack subspecialty-level depth and have not been evaluated across clinical workflows or prospectively validated in real-world settings. We introduce PulmoFoundation, a multi-center, prospectively validated, randomized controlled trial (RCT)-evaluated foundation model for comprehensive lung pathology assessment across pre-operative, intra-operative, and post-operative care. Built upon Virchow2 via subspecialty-specific pretraining using ~40,000 diagnostic H&E-stained whole-slide images (WSIs), PulmoFoundation was systematically evaluated on ~26,000 WSIs across 32 clinically relevant tasks. In addition to accurately predicting molecular markers and patient survival, our model achieves clinical-grade performance in core diagnostic tasks across biopsy, frozen section, and surgical resection slides. In a registered prospective study of 1,357 patients across 11 diagnostic tasks, our model achieved an average AUC of 92.3%. Using pre-specified triage thresholds, PulmoFoundation could reduce additional second-review burden for 68.8% of biopsies and 83.0% of frozen sections, and defer 44.5% of IHC stain orders, with PPVs of 1.0, 0.991, and 0.966. Beyond prospective validation, we conducted a crossover RCT with eight pathologists, in which AI assistance improved diagnostic accuracy across 4,928 case-reader pairs (91.7% w/ AI vs. 83.8% w/o AI). AI assistance also reduced median diagnostic time by 19.6%, increased diagnostic confidence by 8.7%, and improved inter-rater agreement from moderate (kappa = 0.56) to substantial (kappa = 0.76). Together, these evaluations support PulmoFoundation as a clinically validated decision-support system for lung pathology.

Radiomics is the established approach for CT-based lung cancer phenotyping, yet comparisons with foundation models rarely isolate contributions of feature extractor, classification head, and segmentation choice, or test cross-cohort robustness. We benchmark five feature extractors (Curia, Curia-2, DINOv3, Radiomics2D, Radiomics3D), seven classification heads (TabPFN, TabICL, XGBoost, CatBoost, Random Forest, logistic regression, Ridge), and three segmentation regimes on five tasks: tumor volume and stage classification, 2-year survival prediction, histology classification, and age prediction. Models are trained on LUNG1 (n=338) and evaluated on an internal test set (n=84) and the external LUNG2 cohort (n=211), with worst-case cross-cohort performance as the primary metric. The dominant design factor is task-dependent: segmentation drives volume and stage classification, while classifier choice drives survival, histology, and age prediction. Radiomics is competitive for tumor volume, tumor stage and survival (partly due to label-derivation effects for the former); Curia variants reach comparable peak scores for survival; DINOv3 falls slightly short across tasks. Patch and slice aggregation have negligible impact. We recommend Curia with tumor segmentation and a CatBoost head as a safe default, achieving the best mean rank across the three primary clinical tasks, though task-specific selection consistently outperforms any cross-task default. When tumor delineations are unavailable, Curia-2 with lung segmentation and logistic regression offers a competitive alternative. All pipelines use a two-stage design suited to small cohort sizes where end-to-end fine-tuning would risk overfitting.

Current work on radiology report evaluation has focused primarily on LLM-based metrics for chest X-rays (CXR), leaving open whether such approaches remain robust across other modalities and anatomies, and which model and prompt configurations are best suited to serve as LLM judges. We present a comprehensive evaluation of LLM judges for radiology report evaluation across diverse model families, prompting strategies, and adaptation methods, leveraging two expert-annotated datasets that span multiple imaging modalities and anatomical regions. Specifically, we compare four existing metrics (RadFact, GREEN, FineRadScore, and CRIMSON) with our proposed metric, VERT, across open- and closed-source models of varying sizes and reasoning capabilities. Among existing metrics, GREEN proves the most robust, outperforming more recent CXR-specific approaches. VERT further improves Kendall's correlation with radiologist judgment by up to 26% over GREEN, while ensembling and lightweight fine-tuning of Qwen3-30B yield gains of up to 9.9% and 25%, respectively, of which the latter also has a latency reduction of 37.2x. A systematic error analysis further shows that, while these metrics correlate with expert ratings overall, they tend to miscount errors such as omissions. Overall, our results show that carefully selected general-purpose LLM judges provide strong radiology report evaluation across modalities, with lightweight adaptation offering complementary gains when annotated data is available.