Organizations: Fuzhou University Affiliated Provincial Hospital, Interdisciplinary Institute for Medical Engineering, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou, China. · Medical Optical Technology R&D Center, Research Institute of Tsinghua, Pearl River Delta, Guangzhou, China. · Department of Pathology, School of Basic Medicine and Xijing Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi’an, China. · Institute of Biopharmaceutical and Health Engineering, Tsinghua Shenzhen International Graduate School, Tsinghua University, Shenzhen, China. · Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. · Department of Pathology, Ankang Central Hospital, Ankang, China. · Jinan Inspur Data Technology Co., Ltd., Jinan, China · Jinfeng Laboratory, Chongqing, China.
Visual foundation models learn rich pathological morphology but lack explicit concept-level supervision. Vision--language pretraining can provide this supervision but requires costly image--text pairs. Here, we introduce GloSAGE, a semantic self-distillation framework that uses lesion profiles predicted by a pretrained visual teacher to construct structured pathology descriptions. Reliability-guided selection identifies image--text anchors, while Knowledge-Structured Pathology Text Synthesis and Evidence-Guided Negative-pair Construction account for partially observed lesions. Image--text alignment trains projection layers while retaining the frozen visual encoder; an intermediate Semantic Transfer Layer supplies features for downstream tasks. Developed on GloMillion and evaluated across seven glomerulus- and case-level cohorts, GloSAGE supported zero-shot lesion recognition, image--text retrieval, hard-negative discrimination and concept-intervention analyses. It outperformed its source visual model in most lesion-recognition tasks and improved lesion grading, while supporting competitive case-level disease classification, injury grading and baseline renal function estimation. Ablations supported the combined contributions of knowledge-structured text and evidence-guided negatives, and the intermediate transfer layer improved mean lesion-recognition ROC-AUC relative to the complete projection output. A frozen language model conditioned on GloSAGE features generated glomerular descriptions. These findings suggest that teacher-derived lesion profiles can provide annotation-efficient semantic supervision for extending a glomerular visual foundation model.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of GloSAGE. (A) Development of GloSAGE through semantic self-distillation. A pretrained visual teacher predicts lesion profiles for glomerular images in GloMillion, and KEYS converts these profiles into knowledge-structured captions. Paired images and captions undergo image–text contrastive pretraining through PIRA with EDGE-guided negative construction. STL transforms pretrained visual features for downstream tasks. GloSAGE is evaluated across seven cohorts for semantic capabilities, clinical diagnosis, component contributions and language-related extensions. (B) Framework of KEYS, PIRA and EDGE. Reliability-guided selection identifies over 40,000 trustworthy visual–semantic anchors. KEYS transforms their lesion profiles into structured descriptions incorporating lesion hierarchies, subtypes and severity grades. PIRA aligns images encoded by the frozen visual encoder with descriptions encoded by PubMedBERT through trainable projection heads, while EDGE excludes unsupported or contradicted negative pairs. STL comprises the first visual projection layer and GELU activation and provides the downstream visual representation. (C) Evaluation of semantic enhancement through zero-shot lesion recognition, bidirectional retrieval, hard-negative discrimination and concept intervention. (D) Evaluation of the diagnostic benefits of semantic enhancement at the glomerular and case levels. Glomerular evaluations include the distribution of ROC-AUC across 27 lesion-recognition tasks (left) and performance on 15 tasks across four independent cohorts (middle). Case-level evaluations include kidney disease diagnosis, subtyping, injury grading and biomarker prediction. (E) Ablation results assessing the contributions of individual components. (F) Exploratory evaluation of language-related capabilities.
Figure 2: Semantic assessment of GloSAGE across three histological stains. (A) Experimental setup and performance comparison for zero-shot lesion recognition. The bar chart shows the overall ROC-AUC of each model across all evaluated lesions for the three stains. The three bubble plots illustrate the lesion-wise ROC-AUC rankings of the models for PAS, Masson and PASM, respectively. (B) Experimental setup and performance comparison for bidirectional image–text retrieval, evaluated using R@1, R@5 and R@10. The upper and lower rows of line plots represent image-to-text and text-to-image retrieval, respectively, while the three columns correspond to PAS, Masson and PASM. (C) Ranking a matched lesion description against five hard negatives. Heatmaps show the difference between hard-negative accuracy and the six-candidate chance level (1/6) for individual lesions, while bar charts summarize the mean difference across all evaluated stress-test targets for each stain. (D) Experimental setup and performance comparison for concept intervention. The three horizontal bar charts illustrate the distribution of the best-performing model–lesion combinations across the three stains, while the vertical bar chart compares the overall ROC-AUC across models.
Figure 3: GloSAGE enhances diagnostic performance across multiple levels of glomerular pathology analysis. (A) Performance comparison of glomerular lesion recognition across different foundation models. The upper-left panel shows the mean ROC-AUC across all lesions for each of the three stains. The upper-right, lower-left, and lower-right panels show the relative reduction in ROC-AUC deficit achieved by GloSAGE compared with other models on PAS, Masson, and PASM stains, respectively. (B) Representative visualizations of glomerular lesion recognition by GloSAGE. The three rows correspond to PAS, Masson, and PASM stains, respectively, while the three columns represent mesangial hypercellularity (MH), crescent formation (Cre), and global sclerosis (GS). (C) Performance comparison of glomerular lesion grading. The left panel shows the distributions of ROC-AUC across multiple cross-validation folds for different models, while the right panel illustrates the distribution of ROC-AUC improvements achieved by GloSAGE over GloPath. (D) Representative visualizations of glomerular lesion grading by GloSAGE. The three rows correspond to PAS, Masson, and PASM stains, respectively, and the three columns illustrate different severity grades or morphological subtypes. (E) Performance on GloGS-1 (recognition of GS), GloGS-2 (recognition of GS), GloGrade (injury grading of glomeruli). (F) Performance on GloPro (lesion recognition on PAS).
Figure 4: (A) Case-level performance comparison for disease classification (top row) and injury grading (bottom row) on RenalXJ. (B) Representative examples of the top 12 glomeruli ranked by attention weights in case-level disease classification and injury grading on RenalXJ. (C) Case-level performance comparison for disease classification (top row) and biomarker regression (bottom row) on RenalKPMP. (D) Representative examples of the top 12 glomeruli ranked by attention weights in case-level disease classification and biomarker regression on RenalKPMP.
Figure 5: Ablation of the semantic components of GloSAGE. (A) GloSAGE architecture highlighting KEYS, EDGE and STL. (B) ROC-AUC rankings of the ablation configurations across individual lesions. (C) Mean ROC-AUC for each stain. (D) GloSAGE gains relative to each ablation configuration on lesion-recognition tasks. Rows correspond to PAS, Masson and PASM, respectively; columns correspond to w/o EDGE, w/o KEYS and w/o EDGE and KEYS, respectively. (E) Comparison of STL features with the complete projection-head output (GloSAGE-P). The upper-left panel shows mean ROC-AUC across the three stains; the upper-right, lower-left and lower-right panels show lesion-specific ROC-AUC for PAS, Masson and PASM, respectively.
Figure 6: Image-conditioned generation of glomerular descriptions. (A) A trainable visual-prefix adapter converts features from a frozen visual encoder into eight tokens that condition a frozen language model. Each image is paired with the same fixed descriptive instruction; knowledge-graph-derived descriptions provide the training references. (B) ROUGE-1, ROUGE-2, and ROUGE-L recall scores against structured reference descriptions across PAS, Masson, and PASM. (C) Selected generated descriptions from the GloSAGE-based system alongside GPT-6-Astra outputs for the same images. Panel C is qualitative and is not a quantitative comparison between the two systems.
Appendix figures & tables33 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure S1: Glomerular lesion knowledge graph and structured-text construction. The selected hierarchy and node attributes illustrate how KEYS retrieves concept names, definitions and synonyms to assemble pathological descriptions. Representative examples show global sclerosis in PAS, loop necrosis with a cellular crescent in Masson, and no positive findings in PASM. Crescent subtypes are consolidated into a single lesion group during profile construction. The empty-profile description is restricted to the assessed lesion set.
Figure S2: Comparison of models on zero-shot tasks on three stains.
Figure S3: Lesion-wise concept-intervention effect sizes: mean change in image–text similarity on images positive for the original lesion, after replacing its description with a competing concept.
Figure S4: Performance rankings of models across 27 lesion recognition tasks.
Lesion
GloSAGE
GloPath
KEEP
PLIP
CONCH
PAS-MH
0.703
0.432
0.584
0.421
0.439
PAS-PAS(+)
0.828
0.356
0.458
0.425
0.443
PAS-PAS(-)
0.816
0.479
0.478
0.575
0.643
PAS-Crum
0.567
0.674
0.525
0.556
0.571
PAS-ADH
0.513
0.389
0.486
0.455
0.330
PAS-SS
0.749
0.491
0.537
0.508
0.559
Appendix
Table S1: ROC-AUC of zero-shot task on lesion recognition (PAS)
Lesion
GloSAGE
GloPath
KEEP
PLIP
CONCH
MT-MH
0.778
0.384
0.440
0.502
0.416
MT-ADH
0.470
0.513
0.585
0.623
0.390
MT-SS
0.633
0.570
0.693
0.417
0.469
MT-SFN
0.837
0.572
0.670
0.545
0.647
MT-Cre
0.821
0.667
0.643
0.583
0.823
MT-GS
0.596
0.745
0.290
0.232
0.865
Appendix
Table S2: ROC-AUC of zero-shot task on lesion recognition (Masson)
Lesion
GloSAGE
GloPath
KEEP
PLIP
CONCH
PASM-MH
0.776
0.498
0.418
0.513
0.408
PASM-PAS(-)
0.837
0.638
0.463
0.543
0.771
PASM-ADH
0.654
0.454
0.473
0.525
0.378
PASM-SS
0.768
0.484
0.395
0.493
0.392
PASM-SFN
0.827
0.715
0.634
0.509
0.558
PASM-MN
0.670
0.483
0.603
0.571
0.504
Appendix
Table S3: ROC-AUC of zero-shot task on lesion recognition (PASM)
Image-to-Text
Text-to-Image
Model
R@1
R@5
R@10
R@1
R@5
R@10
CONCH
0.0052
0.0411
0.1021
0.0108
0.0215
0.0323
GloSAGE
0.1694
0.2723
0.3292
0.0215
0.0645
0.0753
KEEP
0.0109
0.0415
0.0863
0.0108
0.0323
0.0538
PLIP
0.0081
0.1210
0.2126
0.0108
0.0430
0.0753
Appendix
Table S4: Retrieval performance on PAS-stained images
Image-to-Text
Text-to-Image
Model
R@1
R@5
R@10
R@1
R@5
R@10
CONCH
0.0033
0.0658
0.2242
0.0500
0.0500
0.2000
GloSAGE
0.2867
0.4826
0.6007
0.1000
0.1500
0.3000
KEEP
0.0076
0.0397
0.1094
0.0500
0.1500
0.2000
PLIP
0.2671
0.7193
0.8069
0.1000
0.1500
0.2000
Appendix
Table S5: Retrieval performance on Masson-stained images
Image-to-Text
Text-to-Image
Model
R@1
R@5
R@10
R@1
R@5
R@10
CONCH
0.0062
0.0355
0.0719
0.0392
0.1176
0.1373
GloSAGE
0.1083
0.2233
0.2655
0.0588
0.0784
0.1569
KEEP
0.0110
0.0652
0.1112
0.0000
0.0392
0.0784
PLIP
0.0585
0.2530
0.4528
0.0196
0.0588
0.0784
Appendix
Table S6: Retrieval performance on PASM-stained images
Model
PAS
Masson
PASM
GloSAGE
0.283
0.201
0.179
PLIP
0.106
0.139
0.116
CONCH
0.176
0.083
0.179
KEEP
0.226
0.120
0.188
Appendix
Table S7: Mean hard-negative description-discrimination accuracy by staining. Each lesion-positive image is matched to one correct and five closely related incorrect descriptions; chance top-1 accuracy is 0.1667. Means assign equal weight to each evaluated lesion (12 PAS, 8 Masson and 11 PASM), including additional stress-test lesions beyond the 27 canonical zero-shot recognition tasks. GloPath is omitted here to match the models displayed in Fig. 2 C.
Lesion
GloSAGE
PLIP
CONCH
KEEP
PAS-MH
0.002
0.008
0.003
0.021
PAS-PAS( + )
0.244
0.000
0.962
0.000
PAS-PAS( − )
0.827
0.013
0.000
0.680
PAS-Crum
0.161
0.000
0.000
0.032
PAS-ADH
0.014
0.000
0.000
0.000
PAS-SS
0.092
0.618
0.066
0.895
Appendix
Table S8: Lesion-wise hard-negative top-1 accuracy for PAS. The final row is the unweighted mean across all 12 evaluated lesion targets; PAS-SFN is an additional stress-test target beyond the standard 11-lesion recognition panel.
Lesion
GloSAGE
PLIP
CONCH
KEEP
MT-MH
0.333
0.004
0.046
0.007
MT-ADH
0.051
0.000
0.000
0.000
MT-SS
0.233
0.000
0.067
0.900
MT-SFN
0.030
0.104
0.060
0.000
MT-Cre
0.184
0.000
0.000
0.000
MT-GS
0.375
1.000
0.492
0.055
Appendix
Table S9: Lesion-wise hard-negative top-1 accuracy for Masson. The final row is the unweighted mean across all eight evaluated lesion targets; MT-Crum and MT-MN are additional stress-test targets beyond the standard six-lesion recognition panel.
Lesion
GloSAGE
PLIP
CONCH
KEEP
PASM-MH
0.030
0.000
0.000
0.017
PASM-PAS( − )
0.384
0.000
0.233
0.178
PASM-ADH
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
PASM-SS
0.029
0.000
0.088
0.794
PASM-SFN
0.263
0.289
0.237
0.184
PASM-MN
0.343
0.051
0.000
0.056
Appendix
Table S10: Lesion-wise hard-negative top-1 accuracy for PASM. The final row is the unweighted mean across all 11 evaluated lesion targets; PASM-Crum is an additional stress-test target beyond the standard ten-lesion recognition panel.
Model
MH
PAS( + )
PAS( − )
Crum
ADH
SS
MN
MP
EP
Cre
GS
Overall
GloSAGE
0.523
0.664
0.884
0.551
0.441
0.696
0.721
0.660
0.564
0.662
0.710
0.651
PLIP
0.502
0.482
0.361
0.515
0.501
0.607
0.513
0.537
0.409
0.428
0.577
0.492
CONCH
0.455
0.495
0.529
0.477
0.360
0.343
0.560
0.581
0.645
0.808
0.334
0.509
KEEP
0.589
0.383
0.517
0.583
0.396
0.512
0.554
0.682
0.310
0.604
0.708
0.529
Appendix
Table S11: Intervention-discrimination ROC-AUC under PAS staining. The score is the change in image–text similarity between the original and intervened descriptions; ROC-AUC evaluates its separation of lesion-positive versus lesion-negative images. It is not a difference between two diagnostic ROC-AUC values. Each lesion entry averages its valid interventions; Overall averages valid interventions across lesions.
Model
MH
ADH
SS
SFN
Cre
GS
Overall
GloSAGE
0.518
0.488
0.654
0.529
0.683
0.621
0.584
PLIP
0.551
0.411
0.584
0.345
0.561
0.741
0.507
CONCH
0.404
0.421
0.332
0.604
0.637
0.336
0.481
KEEP
0.454
0.514
0.480
0.570
0.502
0.578
0.475
Appendix
Table S13: Intervention-discrimination ROC-AUC under Masson staining. See Supplementary Table S11 for the score definition and aggregation.
Model
MH
PAS( − )
ADH
SS
SFN
MN
MP
EP
Cre
GS
Overall
GloSAGE
0.527
0.840
0.437
0.665
0.636
0.595
0.545
0.616
0.721
0.549
0.613
PLIP
0.562
0.436
0.432
0.381
0.414
0.505
0.496
0.543
0.548
0.527
0.485
CONCH
0.417
0.653
0.428
0.334
0.506
0.617
0.497
0.732
0.773
0.456
0.532
KEEP
0.451
0.620
0.556
0.480
0.674
0.608
0.580
0.375
0.725
0.559
0.559
Appendix
Table S14: Intervention-discrimination ROC-AUC under PASM staining. See Supplementary Table S11 for the score definition and aggregation.
Model
MH
PAS(+)
PAS( − )
Crum
ADH
SS
MN
MP
EP
Cre
GS
GloSAGE
0.930 ± 0.005
0.954 ± 0.002
1.000 ± 0.000
0.922 ± 0.024
0.815 ± 0.014
0.967 ± 0.004
0.957 ± 0.001
0.968 ± 0.003
0.975 ± 0.002
0.989 ± 0.003
0.997 ± 0.001
GloPath
0.909 ± 0.038
0.955 ± 0.003
1.000 ± 0.000
0.887 ± 0.037
0.779 ± 0.033
0.962 ± 0.006
0.949 ± 0.013
0.965 ± 0.005
0.968 ± 0.015
0.980 ± 0.005
0.997 ± 0.001
UNI
0.879 ± 0.092
0.936 ± 0.008
1.000 ± 0.000
0.842 ± 0.108
0.762 ± 0.016
0.924 ± 0.019
0.947 ± 0.006
0.952 ± 0.008
0.969 ± 0.004
0.984 ± 0.005
0.996 ± 0.001
CONCH
0.884 ± 0.032
0.934 ± 0.004
0.997 ± 0.001
0.777 ± 0.157
0.720 ± 0.027
0.919 ± 0.011
0.923 ± 0.006
0.954 ± 0.006
0.965 ± 0.002
0.963 ± 0.008
0.993 ± 0.001
PLIP
0.889 ± 0.005
0.924 ± 0.004
0.996 ± 0.002
0.842 ± 0.048
0.765 ± 0.016
0.915 ± 0.024
0.868 ± 0.012
0.950 ± 0.003
0.943 ± 0.004
0.967 ± 0.007
0.994 ± 0.002
KEEP
0.926 ± 0.002
0.936 ± 0.005
1.000 ± 0.000
0.861 ± 0.020
0.760 ± 0.015
0.951 ± 0.012
0.923 ± 0.011
0.946 ± 0.004
0.966 ± 0.011
0.966 ± 0.005
0.998 ± 0.000
Appendix
Table S15: Performance of lesion recognition across all the models (PAS)
Model
MH
ADH
SS
SFN
Cre
GS
GloSAGE
0.962 ± 0.005
0.763 ± 0.024
0.948 ± 0.013
0.986 ± 0.004
0.963 ± 0.002
0.997 ± 0.001
GloPath
0.961 ± 0.003
0.750 ± 0.050
0.910 ± 0.054
0.982 ± 0.007
0.974 ± 0.018
0.995 ± 0.003
UNI
0.952 ± 0.005
0.773 ± 0.080
0.868 ± 0.060
0.990 ± 0.002
0.986 ± 0.005
0.995 ± 0.000
CONCH
0.928 ± 0.007
0.704 ± 0.038
0.709 ± 0.076
0.985 ± 0.001
0.983 ± 0.008
0.993 ± 0.001
PLIP
0.929 ± 0.003
0.708 ± 0.099
0.710 ± 0.042
0.984 ± 0.006
0.960 ± 0.018
0.992 ± 0.002
KEEP
0.930 ± 0.005
0.723 ± 0.008
0.786 ± 0.077
0.984 ± 0.006
0.984 ± 0.004
0.992 ± 0.002
Appendix
Table S16: Performance of lesion recognition across all the models (Masson)
Model
MH
PAS( − )
ADH
SS
SFN
MN
MP
EP
Cre
GS
GloSAGE
0.928 ± 0.001
0.998 ± 0.001
0.762 ± 0.030
0.961 ± 0.010
0.986 ± 0.002
0.946 ± 0.012
0.953 ± 0.001
0.975 ± 0.001
0.988 ± 0.000
0.996 ± 0.002
GloPath
0.928 ± 0.004
0.997 ± 0.001
0.768 ± 0.038
0.945 ± 0.018
0.982 ± 0.004
0.944 ± 0.008
0.955 ± 0.008
0.972 ± 0.009
0.982 ± 0.010
0.995 ± 0.001
UNI
0.924 ± 0.003
0.998 ± 0.001
0.747 ± 0.022
0.943 ± 0.031
0.977 ± 0.011
0.929 ± 0.013
0.969 ± 0.001
0.971 ± 0.006
0.983 ± 0.009
0.992 ± 0.001
CONCH
0.912 ± 0.005
0.993 ± 0.004
0.695 ± 0.013
0.933 ± 0.018
0.945 ± 0.014
0.894 ± 0.014
0.943 ± 0.007
0.953 ± 0.006
0.938 ± 0.004
0.990 ± 0.002
PLIP
0.905 ± 0.005
0.993 ± 0.002
0.790 ± 0.049
0.902 ± 0.034
0.946 ± 0.005
0.920 ± 0.009
0.953 ± 0.005
0.971 ± 0.002
0.968 ± 0.019
0.991 ± 0.002
KEEP
0.912 ± 0.006
0.984 ± 0.021
0.749 ± 0.057
0.914 ± 0.012
0.955 ± 0.015
0.927 ± 0.002
0.957 ± 0.004
0.972 ± 0.007
0.944 ± 0.041
0.989 ± 0.001
Appendix
Table S17: Performance of lesion recognition across all the models (PASM)
Lesion
GloPath
UNI
CONCH
PLIP
KEEP
MH
+22.38
+41.96
+39.41
+36.34
+5.18
PAS(+)
-1.70
+28.35
+30.52
+39.78
+27.62
PAS(-)
+100.00
+100.00
+100.00
+100.00
+100.00
Crum
+30.81
+50.71
+64.99
+50.81
+43.83
ADH
+15.98
+22.09
+33.75
+21.06
+22.69
SS
+13.59
+56.85
+59.77
+61.70
+32.94
Appendix
Table S18: Relative reduction in ROC-AUC deficit of GloSAGE compared with baseline models on PAS staining.
Lesion
GloPath
UNI
CONCH
PLIP
KEEP
MH
+2.41
+21.48
+47.76
+46.80
+46.20
ADH
+5.19
-4.37
+20.03
+18.75
+14.28
SS
+41.96
+60.13
+81.95
+81.91
+75.44
SFN
+23.17
-34.63
+7.61
+12.74
+13.30
Cre
-42.09
-160.00
-113.14
+7.66
-123.56
GS
+48.72
+45.71
+59.87
+66.23
+63.45
Appendix
Table S19: Relative reduction in ROC-AUC deficit of GloSAGE compared with baseline models on Masson staining.
Lesion
GloPath
UNI
CONCH
PLIP
KEEP
MH
-0.40
+5.79
+18.59
+24.33
+18.39
PAS(-)
+32.15
+29.44
+75.50
+74.80
+88.92
ADH
-2.35
+6.25
+22.00
-12.90
+5.47
SS
+28.37
+31.15
+41.98
+60.01
+54.35
SFN
+20.90
+37.48
+74.11
+73.49
+68.23
MN
+3.17
+23.46
+48.47
+31.72
+25.54
Appendix
Table S20: Relative reduction in ROC-AUC deficit of GloSAGE compared with baseline models on PASM staining.
Task
GloSAGE
GloPath
UNI
PLIP
CONCH
KEEP
PAS-MH-Grading
0.897 ± 0.005
0.896 ± 0.004
0.894 ± 0.004
0.873 ± 0.005
0.861 ± 0.004
0.890 ± 0.009
MT-MH-Grading
0.920 ± 0.009
0.907 ± 0.011
0.901 ± 0.007
0.883 ± 0.006
0.852 ± 0.012
0.856 ± 0.015
PASM-MH-Grading
0.892 ± 0.005
0.893 ± 0.006
0.877 ± 0.005
0.885 ± 0.011
0.834 ± 0.014
0.877 ± 0.012
PAS-Cre-Grading
0.976 ± 0.016
0.982 ± 0.008
0.946 ± 0.011
0.949 ± 0.031
0.932 ± 0.028
0.964 ± 0.017
MT-Cre-Grading
0.961 ± 0.015
0.908 ± 0.046
0.915 ± 0.032
0.840 ± 0.028
0.881 ± 0.074
0.922 ± 0.043
PASM-Cre-Grading
0.925 ± 0.016
0.937 ± 0.016
0.936 ± 0.029
0.915 ± 0.005
0.892 ± 0.036
0.892 ± 0.054
Appendix
Table S21: Performance comparison of models on lesion grading tasks. Values are ROC-AUC (mean ± standard deviation).
Model
MH
PAS(+)
PAS(-)
Crum
ADH
SS
MN
MP
EP
Cre
GS
GloSAGE
0.9196
0.8462
0.9900
0.7863
0.8127
0.9142
0.8807
0.9919
0.9995
0.9680
0.9974
GloPath
0.8969
0.8565
0.9830
0.7467
0.7904
0.9205
0.9194
0.9817
0.9987
0.9542
0.9966
UNI
0.8869
0.8226
0.9858
0.7458
0.7706
0.8660
0.8914
0.9620
0.9937
0.9462
0.9976
PLIP
0.8591
0.8126
0.9645
0.7649
0.7739
0.8722
0.8791
0.9052
0.9956
0.9363
0.9963
CONCH
0.8373
0.7979
0.9570
0.6999
0.7478
0.8177
0.8686
0.9426
0.9641
0.9074
0.9954
KEEP
0.8788
0.8365
0.9653
0.7769
0.7560
0.8099
0.8685
0.9534
0.9930
0.8851
0.9966
Appendix
Table S22: Performance on 11 PAS-related lesion recognition tasks on GloPro.
Model
ROC-AUC
F1-score
Accuracy
GloSAGE
0.9873±0.0085
0.9444±0.0274
0.9445±0.0273
GloPath
0.9777±0.0077
0.9335±0.0087
0.9336±0.0087
UNI
0.9582±0.0216
0.8925±0.0378
0.8933±0.0375
PLIP
0.9123±0.0102
0.7562±0.0531
0.7676±0.0476
CONCH
0.8740±0.0270
0.7870±0.0175
0.7905±0.0171
KEEP
0.8908±0.0330
0.8056±0.0299
0.8081±0.0275
Appendix
Table S23: Performance comparison on disease classification on RenalXJ (deep feature based). Values are mean ± sample standard deviation across 3 folds. The task involves IgA nephropathy versus membranous nephropathy classification.
Model
ROC-AUC
F1-score
Accuracy
GloSAGE
0.7358±0.0310
0.7054±0.0078
0.7352±0.0193
GloPath
0.6915±0.0209
0.6361±0.0137
0.6718±0.0393
UNI
0.7013±0.0358
0.6571±0.0104
0.7206±0.0090
PLIP
0.6968±0.0126
0.6007±0.0342
0.6974±0.0036
CONCH
0.6681±0.0104
0.6312±0.0539
0.7169±0.0228
KEEP
0.7080±0.0457
0.6022±0.0213
0.7048±0.0047
Appendix
Table S24: Performance comparison on injury grading on RenalXJ (deep feature based). Values are mean ± sample standard deviation across 3 folds. The task involves three kidney injury grades (0, 1, and 2).
Model
F1-score
AUC
Acc
GloSAGE
0.8657 ± 0.0017
0.9334 ± 0.0258
0.8667 ± 0.0015
GloPath
0.8432 ± 0.0585
0.9458 ± 0.0088
0.8448 ± 0.0559
UNI
0.8367 ± 0.0117
0.9291 ± 0.0193
0.8377 ± 0.0118
CONCH
0.7839 ± 0.0038
0.9004 ± 0.0185
0.7852 ± 0.0045
PLIP
0.7703 ± 0.0353
0.8966 ± 0.0171
0.7743 ± 0.0316
KEEP
0.7504 ± 0.0699
0.8797 ± 0.0221
0.7632 ± 0.0549
Appendix
Table S25: Performance comparison on disease classification on RenalXJ (lesion-based).
Model
AUC
Acc
GloSAGE
0.7433 ± 0.0406
0.7259 ± 0.0231
GloPath
0.7690 ± 0.0609
0.6963 ± 0.0039
UNI
0.7252 ± 0.0518
0.6974 ± 0.0044
CONCH
0.7533 ± 0.0785
0.7398 ± 0.0058
PLIP
0.7322 ± 0.0674
0.6963 ± 0.0039
KEEP
0.7238 ± 0.0546
0.6926 ± 0.0073
Appendix
Table S26: Performance comparison on injury classification on RenalXJ (lesion-based).
Model
MH
PAS( + )
PAS( − )
Crum
ADH
SS
MN
MP
EP
Cre
GS
GloSAGE
0.9296 ± 0.0048
0.9539 ± 0.0019
1.0000 ± 0.0000
0.9220 ± 0.0239
0.8146 ± 0.0139
0.9673 ± 0.0038
0.9574 ± 0.0014
0.9685 ± 0.0031
0.9746 ± 0.0018
0.9893 ± 0.0026
0.9967 ± 0.0006
w/o EDGE
0.9222 ± 0.0042
0.9503 ± 0.0016
1.0000 ± 0.0000
0.9034 ± 0.0254
0.7965 ± 0.0057
0.9555 ± 0.0189
0.9476 ± 0.0077
0.9674 ± 0.0019
0.9749 ± 0.0012
0.9823 ± 0.0024
0.9943 ± 0.0018
w/o KEYS
0.9226 ± 0.0049
0.9479 ± 0.0042
1.0000 ± 0.0000
0.8813 ± 0.0418
0.7955 ± 0.0138
0.9667 ± 0.0128
0.9554 ± 0.0023
0.9666 ± 0.0034
0.9721 ± 0.0026
0.9818 ± 0.0086
0.9964 ± 0.0005
w/o EDGE and KEYS
0.9192 ± 0.0097
0.9416 ± 0.0080
1.0000 ± 0.0000
0.8779 ± 0.0336
0.7789 ± 0.0090
0.9558 ± 0.0217
0.9521 ± 0.0053
0.9675 ± 0.0050
0.9688 ± 0.0070
0.9817 ± 0.0085
0.9965 ± 0.0003
GloSAGE-P
0.9260 ± 0.0082
0.9484 ± 0.0031
0.9998 ± 0.0003
0.8685 ± 0.0823
0.7692 ± 0.0096
0.9297 ± 0.0332
0.9464 ± 0.0085
0.9676 ± 0.0015
0.9512 ± 0.0229
0.9814 ± 0.0072
0.9946 ± 0.0027
Vanilla visual pretraining (GloPath)
0.909 ± 0.038
0.955 ± 0.003
1.000 ± 0.000
0.887 ± 0.037
0.779 ± 0.033
0.962 ± 0.009
0.949 ± 0.013
0.965 ± 0.005
0.968 ± 0.015
0.980 ± 0.005
0.997 ± 0.001
Appendix
Table S27: Ablation results for lesion recognition on PAS-stained images. Values are reported as mean ± standard deviation. Bold indicates the highest mean among the five GloSAGE configurations, including ties; the GloPath baseline is excluded from this comparison.
Model
MH
ADH
SS
SFN
Cre
GS
GloSAGE
0.9622 ± 0.0045
0.7630 ± 0.0243
0.9475 ± 0.0130
0.9859 ± 0.0035
0.9633 ± 0.0016
0.9972 ± 0.0005
w/o EDGE
0.9643 ± 0.0027
0.7174 ± 0.0711
0.9212 ± 0.0277
0.9907 ± 0.0076
0.9535 ± 0.0268
0.9941 ± 0.0025
w/o KEYS
0.9597 ± 0.0080
0.7177 ± 0.0341
0.9409 ± 0.0272
0.9927 ± 0.0036
0.9428 ± 0.0517
0.9959 ± 0.0012
w/o EDGE and KEYS
0.9648 ± 0.0052
0.7710 ± 0.0928
0.9077 ± 0.0518
0.9877 ± 0.0164
0.9491 ± 0.0602
0.9955 ± 0.0002
GloSAGE-P
0.9509 ± 0.0034
0.7324 ± 0.0883
0.7966 ± 0.0270
0.9772 ± 0.0101
0.9345 ± 0.0351
0.9947 ± 0.0019
Vanilla visual pretraining (GloPath)
0.961 ± 0.003
0.750 ± 0.050
0.910 ± 0.054
0.982 ± 0.007
0.974 ± 0.018
0.995 ± 0.003
Appendix
Table S28: Ablation results for lesion recognition on Masson-stained images. Values are reported as mean ± standard deviation. Bold indicates the highest mean among the five GloSAGE configurations; the GloPath baseline is excluded from this comparison.
Model
MH
PAS( − )
ADH
SS
SFN
MN
MP
EP
Cre
GS
GloSAGE
0.9281 ± 0.0012
0.9982 ± 0.0007
0.7623 ± 0.0299
0.9609 ± 0.0102
0.9857 ± 0.0017
0.9456 ± 0.0119
0.9535 ± 0.0014
0.9747 ± 0.0014
0.9880 ± 0.0004
0.9961 ± 0.0020
w/o EDGE
0.9251 ± 0.0030
0.9974 ± 0.0007
0.7455 ± 0.0430
0.9344 ± 0.0167
0.9789 ± 0.0032
0.9278 ± 0.0095
0.9472 ± 0.0032
0.9635 ± 0.0210
0.9882 ± 0.0044
0.9935 ± 0.0019
w/o KEYS
0.9207 ± 0.0101
0.9964 ± 0.0020
0.7358 ± 0.0129
0.9138 ± 0.0536
0.9838 ± 0.0045
0.9408 ± 0.0168
0.9543 ± 0.0093
0.9588 ± 0.0093
0.9884 ± 0.0007
0.9919 ± 0.0006
w/o EDGE and KEYS
0.9286 ± 0.0053
0.9974 ± 0.0013
0.7830 ± 0.0522
0.9486 ± 0.0059
0.9818 ± 0.0078
0.9438 ± 0.0033
0.9470 ± 0.0111
0.9701 ± 0.0045
0.9887 ± 0.0046
0.9932 ± 0.0017
GloSAGE-P
0.9198 ± 0.0063
0.9969 ± 0.0022
0.7466 ± 0.1000
0.8750 ± 0.0677
0.9714 ± 0.0047
0.9253 ± 0.0063
0.9439 ± 0.0060
0.9572 ± 0.0092
0.9790 ± 0.0041
0.9907 ± 0.0026
Vanilla visual pretraining (GloPath)
0.928 ± 0.004
0.997 ± 0.001
0.768 ± 0.038
0.945 ± 0.018
0.982 ± 0.004
0.944 ± 0.008
0.955 ± 0.008
0.972 ± 0.009
0.982 ± 0.010
0.995 ± 0.001
Appendix
Table S29: Ablation results for lesion recognition on PASM-stained images. Values are reported as mean ± standard deviation. Bold indicates the highest mean among the five GloSAGE configurations; the GloPath baseline is excluded from this comparison.
Model
ROUGE-1
ROUGE-2
ROUGE-L
GloSAGE
0.7906
0.7143
0.7791
PLIP
0.7744
0.6950
0.7660
CONCH
0.7859
0.7099
0.7776
KEEP
0.7757
0.6963
0.7671
Appendix
Table S30: Performance of image-conditioned glomerular description generation. ROUGE-1, ROUGE-2, and ROUGE-L are recall-based overlap scores against knowledge-graph-derived reference descriptions, averaged across PAS, Masson, and PASM.
Pathology foundation models are pretrained AI systems that learn reusable tissue-image representations for diagnosis, biomarker discovery, and clinical workflows.
Glomerular pathology is central to the diagnosis and prognosis of renal diseases, yet the heterogeneity of glomerular morphology and fine-grained lesion patterns remain challenging for current AI approaches. We present GloPath, an entity-centric foundation model trained on over one million glomeruli extracted from 14,049 renal biopsy specimens using multi-scale and multi-view self-supervised learning. GloPath addresses two major challenges in nephropathology: glomerular lesion assessment and clinicopathological insights discovery. For lesion assessment, GloPath was benchmarked across three independent cohorts on 52 tasks, including lesion recognition, grading, few-shot classification, and cross-modality diagnosis-outperforming state-of-the-art methods in 42 tasks (80.8%). In the large-scale real-world study, it achieved an ROC-AUC of 91.51% for lesion recognition, demonstrating strong robustness in routine clinical settings. For clinicopathological insights, GloPath systematically revealed statistically significant associations between glomerular morphological parameters and clinical indicators across 224 morphology-clinical variable pairs, demonstrating its capacity to connect tissue-level pathology with patient-level outcomes. Together, these results position GloPath as a scalable and interpretable platform for glomerular lesion assessment and clinicopathological discovery, representing a step toward clinically translatable AI in renal pathology.
Qiming He, Jing Li, Tian Guan +26
Institute of Biopharmaceutical and Health Engineering, Tsinghua Shenzhen International Graduate School, Tsinghua University, Shenzhen, China · Interdisciplinary Institute for Medical Engineering, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou, China · Medical Optical Technology R&D Center, Research Institute of Tsinghua, Pearl River Delta, Guangzhou, China +6
Fine-grained glomerular subtyping is essential for kidney biopsy interpretation, yet it presents a harder setting than the broad organ- or disease-level recognition tasks commonly used in vision-language model (VLM) evaluation. In this task, all categories arise within the same renal microanatomic unit, and clinically meaningful subtypes often differ by subtle, overlapping, and continuum-like morphological cues. Clinically valuable labels are also scarce, making fully supervised image-only paradigms difficult to translate to practice. Although VLMs are promising for data-efficient pathology learning, it remains unclear how their cross-modal representations should be adapted and evaluated for such within-structure discrimination under realistic few-shot constraints. To our knowledge, this study establishes the first fine-grained renal pathology benchmark for few-shot VLM adaptation and systematically examines how supervision level, model design, and adaptation strategy shape both classification performance and multimodal representation structure. Beyond accuracy, AUC, and F1, we assess image-text alignment, positive-negative similarity separation, embedding geometry, and calibration (ECE), asking when performance gains reflect more reliable cross-modal understanding. Across renal pathology cohorts, additional supervision consistently improves discrimination, but reliable adaptation is not explained by alignment alone; stronger performance is associated with larger class separation, more coherent embedding organization, and better awareness of confidence-related failure modes under domain variation. Within this retrospective two-cohort evaluation, these findings move assessment beyond coarse classification and accuracy alone and provide comparative evidence to inform model selection and future translational validation. Code: https://github.com/ddrrnn123/glo-vlms
Zhenhao Guo, Rachit Saluja, Tianyu Shi +13
New York University, New York, NY 10012, USA · Cornell Tech, New York, NY 10044, USA · Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, 37235, USA +4
Foundation models are reshaping computational pathology, yet their capabilities remain shaped by pretraining objectives, data sources, and spatial scales, fragmenting complementary expertise across separate backbones. Here we present ALICE, a unified foundation model trained through multi-stage agglomerative distillation that sequentially distills eight vision-only, vision-language, and slide-level teacher models into dedicated modules of a single backbone. ALICE is pretrained on 24,985,184 tile-level pathology images and 155,604 high-resolution images, and evaluated across 21 task scenarios, 96 downstream tasks, and 48 data sources, spanning region-of-interest tissue analysis, vision-language multimodal evaluation, and whole-slide clinical assessment. In all three evaluation settings, ALICE achieved the best average rank among task-matched pathology foundation models. These results demonstrate that agglomerative distillation can consolidate complementary capabilities from specialized models into a unified backbone for broad computational pathology applications. The model is available at https://github.com/WonderLandxD/ALICE.
Jiawen Li, Tian Guan, Huijuan Shi +5
Institute of Biopharmaceutical and Health Engineering, Tsinghua Shenzhen International Graduate School, Tsinghua University, Shenzhen, China · Department of Pathology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China · Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK +1