Confounding factors and biases abound when predicting molecular biomarkers from histological images

Deep learning models that infer clinically relevant biomarker status from tissue images are being explored as rapid and low-cost alternatives to molecular testing. Here we show, through statistical analysis across multiple cancer types, datasets and modelling approaches, that the datasets used to train these models contain strong dependencies between biomarkers and clinicopathological features, which prevent models from isolating the effect of a single biomarker and lead them to learn confounded signals. Consequently, their prediction accuracy varies substantially with the status of codependent biomarkers and clinicopathological variables, and for several biomarkers, the gain over what a pathologist can already infer from routine histopathological features, such as grade, remains modest. These findings indicate that current approaches are not yet suitable as substitutes for molecular testing but can support triage or complementary decision-making with caution. Unconfounded biomarker prediction will require models that learn causal rather than correlational relationships between biomarkers and tissue morphology.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Nature Biomedical Engineering
Published
2026-03-02
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41551-026-01616-8
Primary Topic
AI in cancer detection
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Confounding factors and biases abound when predicting molecular biomarkers from histological images

Kim Branson, Sabine Tejpar, Fayyaz ul Amir Afsar Minhas, Muhammad Dawood et al.
Nature Biomedical Engineering
AI in cancer detection
article

Confounding factors and biases abound when predicting molecular biomarkers from histological images

Kim Branson, Sabine Tejpar, Fayyaz ul Amir Afsar Minhas, Muhammad Dawood, Nasir Rajpoot
article en

Abstract

Deep learning models that infer clinically relevant biomarker status from tissue images are being explored as rapid and low-cost alternatives to molecular testing. Here we show, through statistical analysis across multiple cancer types, datasets and modelling approaches, that the datasets used to train these models contain strong dependencies between biomarkers and clinicopathological features, which prevent models from isolating the effect of a single biomarker and lead them to learn confounded signals. Consequently, their prediction accuracy varies substantially with the status of codependent biomarkers and clinicopathological variables, and for several biomarkers, the gain over what a pathologist can already infer from routine histopathological features, such as grade, remains modest. These findings indicate that current approaches are not yet suitable as substitutes for molecular testing but can support triage or complementary decision-making with caution. Unconfounded biomarker prediction will require models that learn causal rather than correlational relationships between biomarkers and tissue morphology.

Nature Biomedical Engineering
John Radcliffe Hospital (GB), Machine Intelligence Research Institute (US), University of Warwick (GB), University of Oxford (GB), Coventry (United Kingdom) (GB), Oxford BioMedica (United Kingdom) (GB), Coventry University (GB), KU Leuven (BE)
UK Research and Innovation, University of Warwick, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 41%
AI in cancer detection
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Confounding factors and biases abound when predicting molecular biomarkers from histological images — Kim Branson, Sabine Tejpar, et al. · Nature Biomedical Engineering (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS