A Deployment-Friendly Foundational Framework for Efficient Computational Pathology
About
Pathology foundation models (PFMs) have enabled robust generalization in computational pathology through large-scale datasets and expansive architectures, but their substantial computational cost, particularly for gigapixel whole slide images, limits clinical accessibility and scalability. Here, we present LitePath, a deployment-friendly foundational framework designed to mitigate model over-parameterization and patch level redundancy. LitePath integrates LiteFM, a compact model distilled from three large PFMs (Virchow2, H-Optimus-1 and UNI2) using 190 million patches, and the Adaptive Patch Selector (APS), a lightweight component for task-specific patch selection. The framework reduces model parameters by 28x and lowers FLOPs by 403.5x relative to Virchow2, enabling deployment on low-power edge hardware such as the NVIDIA Jetson Orin Nano Super. On this device, LitePath processes 208 slides per hour, 104.5x faster than Virchow2, and consumes 0.36 kWh per 3,000 slides, 171x lower than Virchow2 on an RTX3090 GPU. We validated accuracy using 37 cohorts across four organs and 26 tasks (26 internal, 9 external, and 2 prospective), comprising 15,672 slides from 9,808 patients disjoint from the pretraining data. LitePath ranks second among 19 evaluated models and outperforms larger models including H-Optimus-1, mSTAR, UNI2 and GPFM, while retaining 99.71% of the AUC of Virchow2 on average. To quantify the balance between accuracy and efficiency, we propose the Deployability Score (D-Score), defined as the weighted geometric mean of normalized AUC and normalized FLOP, where LitePath achieves the highest value, surpassing Virchow2 by 10.64%. These results demonstrate that LitePath enables rapid, cost-effective and energy-efficient pathology image analysis on accessible hardware while maintaining accuracy comparable to state-of-the-art PFMs and reducing the carbon footprint of AI deployment.
Related benchmarks
| Task | Dataset | Result | Rank | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cancer Subtyping | cohort of lung cancer H1 (internal) | Mean AUC0.9646 | 46 | |
| Androgen Receptor (AR) status prediction | Breast cancer H2 (internal cohort) | Mean AUC0.748 | 23 | |
| HER2 Status Prediction | Breast cancer H2 (internal cohort) | Mean AUC0.8412 | 23 | |
| Intestinal Metaplasia Classification | gastric cancer H7 (internal cohort) | Mean AUC0.9643 | 23 | |
| Molecular Subtyping | Breast cancer H9 (External) | Mean AUC0.8214 | 23 | |
| Perineural Invasion Detection | Gastric Cancer External Cohort H3 (evaluation) | Mean AUC0.852 | 23 | |
| TNM-N Staging (N0/N+) | Breast Cancer Internal Cohort H2 | Mean AUC0.8129 | 23 | |
| TNM-N Staging (N0/N+) | Gastric Cancer H1 internal cohort | Mean AUC0.8025 | 23 | |
| Vascular Invasion Detection | Gastric Cancer Cohort H3 (external) | Mean AUC74.97 | 23 | |
| Cancer Grading | Gastric Cancer H1 internal cohort | Mean AUC0.872 | 23 |