McClintock, David S.

Background: The rapid adoption of digital pathology and artificial intelligence (AI) in oncology creates multiple opportunities for precision diagnostics but also creates an urgent need for evidence-based standards to ensure safe and effective implementation. Goal: This article, developed by the Digital Pathology Association, presents recommendations for digital pathology as well as the validation and clinical utility of AI-enabled digital pathology tools in clinical practice. This guidance addresses analytical and clinical validation, algorithm reliability, and criteria for establishing clinical utility attributed to test use. Key recommendations emphasize separate validation of scanning processes and AI algorithms, concordance studies to support interscanner generalizability, rigorous assessment of accuracy and reliability in real-world settings, and clear description of algorithmic use limitations. These recommendations further provide frameworks for when AI may replace or augment existing diagnostic approaches, such as biomarker scoring, cancer diagnosis, and prognostic risk assessment. Conclusions: By considering payer, regulatory, and clinical perspectives, the recommendations promote transparency, trust, and reproducibility in digital pathology while encouraging value-based care delivery. We support responsible innovation in computational pathology, ensuring that AI applications achieve not only technical performance goals but also deliver measurable clinical benefit to patients.

Abstract Objectives Traditional laboratory regulatory frameworks provide robust guidance for conventional clinical testing but lack requirements for data documentation for artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) solutions. This gap creates significant risks since AI solutions directly inherit patterns, biases, and limitations from their training data. Here, we describe the development and implementation of a comprehensive data documentation checklist with accompanying data lineage for use within an AI lifecycle framework for clinical laboratories. Methods Building on the previously established Clinical AI Readiness Evaluator (CARE) framework, we developed a comprehensive data checklist and data lineage methodology through a multiphase process, including (1) comprehensive review of existing AI/ML data documentation frameworks, (2) focused meetings with 3 institutional AI operations teams, and (3) 3 rounds of iterative refinement by our multidisciplinary team. The checklist’s effectiveness was then assessed using 3 diverse AI/ML projects moving through the CARE framework. Results The CARE Data Checklist and Data Lineage provide a structured approach to documenting critical aspects of datasets used in AI/ML projects, including data composition, demographics, collection methods, labeling processes, usage constraints, maintenance requirements, and a data readiness assessment. The checklist addresses unique data-centric challenges of AI/ML applications, facilitating transparency, reproducibility, and regulatory compliance. Conclusions The CARE Data Checklist and Data Lineage serve as both a technical guide and a communication tool bridging gaps between technical and clinical stakeholders. By working on these documents early in the AI lifecycle, laboratories can anticipate and address data-related challenges, ultimately saving time, optimizing resources, and improving the reliability of AI-augmented laboratory solutions.

Abstract Background: Recent advances in computer vision have given rise to image foundation models (FMs), large-scale neural networks pre-trained on millions of unlabeled histopathology patches, which can learn generalizable representations of tissue morphology. In many cancers, these FMs have predicted genetic mutations and prognoses directly from histology, suggesting that morphology encodes “hidden” molecular information. In lymphoma, this field is nascent but growing.General-purpose histopathology FMs have limited representation of lymphoid morphology. We developed and evaluated LymphoVision, a lymphoma-specialized image foundation model pretrained with self-supervised learning, to extract clinically meaningful features from routine hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) histology. Methods: LymphoVision was pre-trained using knowledge distillation and consistency (DINOv2) on over 37 million multi-resolution patches (5x, 10x, 20x, 40x) sampled using a density-aware strategy from 31,211 H&E whole slide images (WSIs) from 9,155 archival lymphoma and reactive lymphoproliferative cases. To ensure diverse, representative samples, our patch sampling method uses an efficient graph-based clustering algorithm and prioritizes morphologically informative regions by clustering patch embeddings and performing density sampling within each cluster. The pretrained encoder was evaluated using a clustering-constrained attention multiple instance learning (MIL) framework on three diagnostic tasks: (1) cell-of-origin (COO) classification in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), distinguishing germinal center B-cell (GCB) from non-GCB subtypes based on the Hans immunohistochemistry algorithm; (2) follicular lymphoma (FL) grading, differentiating low-grade (grades 1–2) from high-grade (grade 3); and (3) multiclass lymphoma subtype classification across six categories: DLBCL, FL, marginal zone lymphoma (MZL), mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), classical Hodgkin lymphoma (CHL), and benign/reactive lymphoid conditions. WSI-level labels were derived from pathology reports, and none of the evaluation cases were included in pretraining. Models used a ViT-Giant LymphoVision backbone to generate 20x patch embeddings, followed by MIL using 50% training data and 2-fold cross-validation (25% validation, 25% test). Performance was assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), accuracy, recall (sensitivity) and F1 score. Results: For DLBCL COO classification (total n=358 cases), LymphoVision achieved a mean test AUC of 0.93 (range 0.92–0.94), accuracy of 84.5% and F1 of 0.85 across two independent test folds (n=91 per fold, 50% GCB). These results outperformed general-purpose FMs on the same task and cases, including Virchow-v2 (AUC 0.85) and UNI-v2 (AUC 0.88), despite those models being pretrained on 10–100 times more images. For FL grading (total n=660 cases), the test set in each fold included 166 cases (18% grade 3), yielding a mean test AUC of 0.88 (range 0.87–0.90), accuracy of 89.2% and F1 of 0.80. In multiclass lymphoma subtype classification (total n=1,176 cases), the test set included 296 cases per fold. LymphoVision achieved a mean test AUC of 0.98 (range 0.97-0.99), mean test accuracy of 87.1% and mean F1 of 0.84. Class-wise recall was 92.0% for DLBCL (n=112), 88.2% for FL (n=72), 77.2% for MZL (n=29), 70.8% for MCL (n=35), 87.5% for CHL (n=24), and 95.8% for benign/reactive lymphoid conditions (n=24). Conclusion: LymphoVision is a lymphoma-specialized FM trained using self-supervision that achieves high diagnostic accuracy across multiple clinically meaningful tasks using weak supervision and standard H&E images, suggesting the encoder has learned fine-grained lymphoma morphology. Based on historical benchmarks from the 1997 International Lymphoma Study Group classification project, expert hematopathologists achieved diagnostic agreement rates of 55% to 84% using H&E morphology alone for the non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) entities included in our multiclass task. LymphoVision approached or exceeded these benchmarks. These findings underscore the value of our approach using disease-specialized pretraining and intelligent patch sampling for data-efficient histopathology learning. LymphoVision has the potential to augment diagnostics, enable scalable AI-powered classification in real-world workflows, and serve as a foundation for prognostic and theragnostic applications. External validation and multimodal integration are ongoing.

Abstract Objective Despite exponential growth in artificial intelligence (AI) research for laboratory medicine and pathology, a significant gap exists between model development and clinical AI implementation. This article introduces a structured framework, the Clinical AI Readiness Evaluator (CARE), to bridge this gap and support the responsible adoption of AI in clinical laboratory settings. Methods Building upon the Machine Learning Technology Readiness Levels framework, we developed CARE specifically for the clinical laboratory environment by incorporating health care–specific requirements, regulatory considerations, and workflow integration needs. This framework was iteratively refined through practical application across diverse AI use cases within laboratory medicine and pathology. Results The CARE framework provides a systematic approach to AI development and implementation through 8 component workstreams: clinical use case, data, data pipeline, code, clinical user experience, clinical technology infrastructure, clinical orchestration, and regulatory compliance. Unlike generic AI frameworks, CARE distinguishes itself by emphasizing both health care and laboratory workflow integration, regulatory requirements, ethical considerations, and comprehensive validation for clinical contexts. The framework accommodates both internally developed models and commercial AI solutions, providing clear guidance through technology readiness levels and structured review processes. Conclusions The CARE framework addresses the unique challenges of implementing AI in laboratory medicine and pathology by providing a comprehensive roadmap from initial concepts through clinical deployment and maintenance. This article, the first in a series of 4, establishes the foundational AI lifecycle framework, while subsequent articles will explore data documentation, ethical AI considerations, and governance structures. By adopting this structured approach, laboratories can responsibly harness AI’s potential to enhance diagnostic accuracy and operational efficiencies and, ultimately, improve patient care.

Context.— Computational pathology combines clinical pathology with computational analysis, aiming to enhance diagnostic capabilities and improve clinical productivity. However, communication barriers between pathologists and developers often hinder the full realization of this potential. Objective.— To propose a standardized framework that improves mutual understanding of clinical objectives and computational methodologies. The goal is to enhance the development and application of computer-aided diagnostic (CAD) tools. Design.— This article suggests pivotal roles for pathologists and computer scientists in the CAD development process. It calls for increased understanding of computational terminologies, processes, and limitations among pathologists. Similarly, it argues that computer scientists should better comprehend the true use cases of the developed algorithms to avoid clinically meaningless metrics. Results.— CAD tools improve pathology practice significantly. Some tools have even received US Food and Drug Administration approval. However, improved understanding of machine learning models among pathologists is essential to prevent misuse and misinterpretation. There is also a need for a more accurate representation of the algorithms’ performance compared to that of pathologists. Conclusions.— A comprehensive understanding of computational and clinical paradigms is crucial for overcoming the translational gap in computational pathology. This mutual comprehension will improve patient care through more accurate and efficient disease diagnosis.

Abstract Background Network-connected medical devices have rapidly proliferated in the wake of recent global catalysts, leaving clinical laboratories and healthcare organizations vulnerable to malicious actors seeking to ransom sensitive healthcare information. As organizations become increasingly dependent on integrated systems and data-driven patient care operations, a sudden cyberattack and the associated downtime can have a devastating impact on patient care and the institution as a whole. Cybersecurity, information security, and information assurance principles are, therefore, vital for clinical laboratories to fully prepare for what has now become inevitable, future cyberattacks. Content This review aims to provide a basic understanding of cybersecurity, information security, and information assurance principles as they relate to healthcare and the clinical laboratories. Common cybersecurity risks and threats are defined in addition to current proactive and reactive cybersecurity controls. Information assurance strategies are reviewed, including traditional castle-and-moat and zero-trust security models. Finally, ways in which clinical laboratories can prepare for an eventual cyberattack with extended downtime are discussed. Summary The future of healthcare is intimately tied to technology, interoperability, and data to deliver the highest quality of patient care. Understanding cybersecurity and information assurance is just the first preparative step for clinical laboratories as they ensure the protection of patient data and the continuity of their operations.