Research: Gigapixel Efficiency

A deep learning framework for efficient pathology image analysis

Processing whole slide images typically requires analyzing 18,000+ tiles and hours of computation. But what if AI could work like a pathologist?

The computational bottleneck: Current AI approaches face fundamental inefficiency. Whole slide images are massive gigapixel files divided into thousands of tiles for analysis. Most systems process every tile regardless of diagnostic relevance, averaging 18,000 tiles per slide.
This brute-force approach demands enormous resources and creates clinical adoption barriers.

Experienced pathologists don't examine every millimeter uniformly. They strategically focus on diagnostically informative regions while quickly scanning normal tissue or artifacts.

Peter Neidlinger et al. developed EAGLE (Efficient Approach for Guided Local Examination), mimicking this selective strategy. The system combines two foundation models: CHIEF for identifying regions meriting detailed analysis, and Virchow2 for extracting features from selected areas.

Key metrics:
- Speed: Processed slides in 2.27 seconds, reducing computation time by 99%
- Accuracy: Outperformed state-of-the-art models across 31 tasks spanning four cancer types
- Interpretability: Allows pathologists to validate which tiles informed decisions

The authors note that "careful tile selection, slide-level encoding, and optimal magnification are pivotal for high accuracy, and combining a lightweight tile encoder for global scanning with a stronger encoder on selected regions confers marked advantage."

Practical implications: This efficiency addresses multiple adoption barriers. Reduced computational requirements eliminate dependence on high-performance infrastructure, democratizing access for smaller institutions. The speed enables real-time workflows integrating into existing diagnostic routines rather than separate batch processing.

Most importantly, the selective approach provides interpretability - pathologists can examine specific tissue regions influencing AI analysis, supporting validation and trust-building.

Broader context: EAGLE represents a shift from computational brute force toward intelligent efficiency in medical AI. Rather than scaling hardware requirements, it scales down computational demands while improving performance.

This illustrates how understanding domain expertise can inform more effective AI architectures than purely data-driven approaches.

How might similar efficiency-focused approaches change AI implementation in your field?

Code

Insights: Data Debt

Data Debt: How Minor Issues Become Major Expenses

After reviewing dozens of computer vision projects over the past 5 years, I can tell you this: 𝐩𝐨𝐨𝐫 𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐚 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 #𝟏 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐂𝐕 𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐥 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐞𝐞𝐭 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬. Not insufficient compute power. Not inadequate algorithms. Not even lack of talent. It's the data.

The most successful computer vision deployments I've seen weren't built by teams with the biggest budgets—they were built by teams with the most disciplined data practices. Clean data beats clever algorithms every single time.

The pattern is always the same. It starts innocuously:
• Annotators interpreted instructions slightly differently
• Some samples weren't imaged cleanly
• A patient subgroup is underrepresented
• Scanners from different manufacturers created varying color distributions
• Duplicate patient images accidentally leaked between training and test sets

None of these issues are obvious at the start. But here's what I've learned the hard way: 𝐬𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐚 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦𝐬 𝐬𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐛𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐮𝐝𝐠𝐞𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬.

The fix-it-later costs are brutal. Re-annotating images? Expensive. Re-scanning and re-annotating samples? More expensive. Missing data from critical patient subgroups? Painfully expensive.

And that's before you factor in the hidden costs—all the wasted time spent developing models on flawed data, the delayed timelines, the credibility hits when results don't hold up.

I created this visualization to show how data quality issues compound. Each "small" problem becomes the foundation for bigger downstream failures, rolling into an ever-growing snowball of costs and complications.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐨𝐭𝐭𝐨𝐦 𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞: You can always retrain a model or try a new modeling approach. Fixing data decisions is what drains your budget.

Prevention costs pennies. Remediation costs dollars. Crisis management costs fortunes.

What's been your most expensive data quality lesson?

News: Carbon Footprint

We did the math on AI’s energy footprint. Here’s the story you haven’t heard.

Recent analysis shows that generating one AI image requires about 2,000 to 4,000 joules of energy—roughly equivalent to running a microwave for a few seconds. Generating a video can require significantly more.

While much attention focuses on AI's growing energy consumption, this analysis from MIT Technology Review reveals a more actionable insight—the massive variation in energy requirements across different AI architectures. A simple text query might use 114 joules, while video generation can consume 3.4 million joules. This difference isn't just about model size; it reflects fundamental architectural choices in how we design AI systems.

Real-world applications at scale: Computer vision is increasingly essential for high-impact applications: analyzing millions of medical scans for early cancer detection, processing satellite imagery for climate monitoring, and automated quality control in manufacturing. These applications often require processing thousands of images daily across distributed systems, making energy efficiency not just an environmental concern but an operational necessity.

Current architectural limitations: Most modern computer vision relies on transformer architectures and deep networks that were designed for performance benchmarks, not real-world efficiency. Medical imaging systems might process chest X-rays or pathology slides using the same computational approach as social media photo classification, despite vastly different requirements and constraints.

Efficiency opportunities: The energy challenge in computer vision isn't inevitable—it's an architecture problem that requires domain-specific solutions. Key approaches include smaller, task-specific models that match computational needs to application requirements; small domain-specific foundation models trained on focused datasets (like medical imaging or satellite data) rather than general-purpose vision models; adaptive processing that focuses computation on regions of interest; hierarchical architectures that progressively add detail only where needed; and temporal efficiency methods that leverage redundancy in sequential data like medical monitoring or satellite surveillance.

Beyond individual efficiency: As computer vision becomes essential infrastructure for healthcare, climate science, and manufacturing, architectural efficiency directly impacts both environmental sustainability and accessibility of these critical services. By prioritizing efficiency in our fundamental design choices, computer vision can continue enabling breakthroughs in cancer detection, climate monitoring, and scientific discovery while reducing its environmental footprint.

What domain-specific architectural innovations do you see as most promising for energy-efficient computer vision in healthcare and climate applications?

Insights: Scanner Variability

Foundation Models in Digital Pathology: Navigating Scanner Variability

A question from my recent webinar on foundation models for pathology: Is there any specific foundation model that excels in generalization across scanners better than others?

A common challenge in digital pathology AI is ensuring models perform consistently across different scanner types.

Here's what you need to know:

1. 𝐍𝐨 𝐂𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐖𝐢𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐫 (𝐘𝐞𝐭)
Currently, there's no widely recognized foundation model that definitively outperforms others in cross-scanner generalization.

2. 𝐃𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐊𝐞𝐲
Look for models trained on images from a variety of scanners. This diversity in training data often leads to better generalization.

3. 𝐓𝐚𝐬𝐤-𝐒𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬
The best model for cross-scanner performance may vary depending on your specific downstream tasks.

4. 𝐄𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐄𝐦𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲
Test multiple foundation models on your specific use case and scanner types to determine the best fit.

5. 𝐀𝐮𝐠𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐞𝐬
Consider data augmentation techniques that simulate scanner variability during fine-tuning.

💡 𝐏𝐫𝐨 𝐓𝐢𝐩: When selecting a foundation model, prioritize those with documented performance across multiple scanner types and diverse datasets.

𝐐𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲 𝐀𝐈 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲: What strategies have you found effective for improving model generalization across different scanners?

_{Enjoy this newsletter? Here are more things you might find helpful:}

_{Office Hours -- Are you a student with questions about machine learning for pathology or remote sensing? Do you need career advice? Once a month, I'm available to chat about your research, industry trends, career opportunities, or other topics.
Register for the next session}

Did someone forward this email to you, and you want to sign up for more? Subscribe to future emails
This email was sent to _t.e.s.t_@example.com. Want to change to a different address? Update subscription
Want to get off this list? Unsubscribe
My postal address: Pixel Scientia Labs, LLC, PO Box 98412, Raleigh, NC 27624, United States