Abstract
Pretrained image encoders are central to medical image classification, where expert annotation is costly and task-specific cohorts are often limited. As the model space expands from general-purpose to broad-medical and specialty-specific encoders, selecting the representation becomes a substantive modeling decision. Clean-test discrimination alone is insufficient for this purpose: encoders with similar AUROC can differ in calibration, label efficiency, and stability under acquisition perturbations or distribution shift. We introduce CRS-Bench, a controlled benchmark for multi-objective medical encoder selection. CRS-Bench evaluates 15 pretrained encoder families across dermatology, ophthalmology, and radiology using ISIC 2019, APTOS 2019, and CheXpert, with CheXpert-to-MIMIC-CXR as an observed institutional shift, yielding 17,575 controlled run records and 3,515 seed-aggregated metric rows. Each encoder is characterized along four operational reliability dimensions: discrimination, calibration, label efficiency, and robustness. We summarize these dimensions using the Clinical Reliability Score (CRS), a Pareto-aware, reference-relative score combining dominance, profile balance, and worst-axis performance. AUROC and CRS are positively associated but not decision-equivalent: 21 of 105 pairwise orderings reverse, with a mean absolute rank displacement of 1.87. Paired-seed bootstrap analysis identifies PanDerm, MedSigLIP, and MedGemma as a stable leading reliability tier rather than a statistically resolved single leader. CRS-Bench provides a controlled framework for selecting medical image encoders from multi-axis reliability profiles rather than clean-test AUROC alone.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.22059
