Lantz, Eric

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 Artificial intelligence (AI) augmented laboratory tests can improve quality, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and staff satisfaction. However, the clinical success of these tests can introduce unforeseen challenges for model retraining. This study describes the discovery of an “AI label feedback loop” in a clinically implemented AI-augmented kidney stone composition test. Methods An AI-augmented kidney stone composition test (V1) has been previously deployed for clinical kidney stone characterization. After several years of clinical use, a retrained model (V2) was developed using 6 times more data. Model performance of both V1 and V2 were evaluated across 3 datasets: a recent production validation (hold-out) set (mostly AI-influenced labels), the original V1 validation set (pre-AI, entirely human-labeled), and a subset of recent cases with exclusively human-generated or human-corrected labels. Results V2 demonstrated a 10% lower concordance rate than V1 when evaluated on the recent production hold-out set, despite a much larger training dataset. Performance between V1 and V2 was similar when applied to the pre-AI validation set. Notably, V2 outperformed V1 on the recent subset of cases with human-only or human-corrected labels, particularly for less-common stone types. These findings revealed an AI label feedback loop, confounding retraining and evaluation. Conclusions The integration of AI into clinical practice can potentially influence reported test results, complicating the development and evaluation of future models. To mitigate AI label feedback loops, ongoing human annotation and careful validation set construction are essential. These strategies can ensure reliable performance assessment and support the safe evolution of clinical AI systems.

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.