At least a dozen sessions at the 2025 Executive War College explored artificial intelligence use in clinical labs
Although not explicitly stated, it was clear at the 2025 Executive War College on Diagnostics, Clinical Laboratory, and Pathology Management conference that artificial intelligence must be a path forward for labs to control costs in an unfavorable economic environment.
Even though the technology is largely unproven in clinical lab settings, the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) in labs is enough reason for laboratory leaders to explore it further.
“AI is allowing us to drive our business,” said Sam Terese, CEO and president at Alverno Laboratories, during a general session at the Executive War College. “It is really resonating that we need to use AI in the future.”
Clinical laboratory leaders should constantly ask themselves whether there is an AI solution to a problem, advised Sam Terese (above), CEO and president at Alverno Laboratories. Terese spoke at the 2025 Executive War College. (Photo copyright: LabX.)
‘Not a Lot of Trust’ in AI from Patients
Terese acknowledged that patients do not yet feel comfortable with the technology. “When you throw AI and healthcare together, from the public’s perspective, there’s not a lot of trust,” he said.
That said, Alverno is committed to increased use of AI in clinical labs in 2025, including for:
Terese urged laboratory owners and executives to not underestimate how quickly AI adoption could spread within the clinical lab industry. Digital pathology took half a century to evolve into its current state, but “AI took five years. The timeline is moving rapidly,” he observed.
Don’t Move Blindly Forward with AI, Experts Warn
At least a dozen sessions at this week’s Executive War College addressed an aspect of AI in labs.
Lab leaders must advise their staff to use AI with systems or processes that can tolerate mistakes because AI will get things wrong, Cecchini added.
“I treat AI like an eager intern where you have to check everything it does,” he said.
Presenter Ankit Ranjan, PhD, founder of AI company Sample Healthcare, agreed with that sentiment. He suggested that clinical laboratories should consider AI as a copilot until its algorithms can prove to lab staff that conclusions or predictions are accurate. The long game for AI in labs is not to cut a few staff from the budget but instead act as a revenue driver.
“Inserting AI into end-to-end processes is what really addresses problems,” Ranjan said.
Watch for much more coverage about the state of AI in clinical laboratories in upcoming issues of The Dark Report. If you’re not a subscriber, it’s a great time to take a free trial of our business intelligence briefings.
Clinical laboratories are particularly tasty targets for cybercriminals seeking the abundance of protect health information contained in patient electronic health records
Recent data from cybersecurity company Netwrix of Frisco, Texas, shows that 84% of healthcare organizations—including clinical laboratories and pathology groups—caught at least one cyberattack in the past year and “69% of them faced financial damage as a result.” That’s according to the company’s latest Hybrid Security Trends Report which notes that 24% of healthcare organizations are “fully cloud-based,” as opposed to just 11% of non-healthcare industries.
“Phishing was the most common type of incident experienced on premises, similar to other industries. Account compromise topped the list for cloud attacks: 74% of healthcare organizations that spotted a cyberattack reported user or admin account compromise,” the Netwrix report notes.
Phishing, where cybercriminals send fake emails and texts to unsuspecting employees that trick them into providing private information, continues to be one of the most prevalent cyberthreats experienced by healthcare organizations and often serves as the catalyst for much larger and more dangerous cyberattacks.
This is particularly dangerous in clinical laboratories where as much as 80% of protected health information (PHI) in patients’ electronic health records (EHRs) is laboratory test results and other personal medical data.
“Protected health information (PHI) is one of the most expensive types of data sold on darknet forums, which makes healthcare organizations a top target for cybercriminals, said Ilia Sotnikov (above), security strategist and VP of user experience at Netwrix, in the report. Clinical laboratory patient electronic health records are particularly weighted toward PHI. (Photo copyright: Netwrix.)
Don’t Open That Email!
Typical phishing scams begin with innocent-looking emails from companies that appear to be legitimate and often contain language that implies urgent action is needed on the part of the user. These emails can be very convincing, appear to originate from reputable companies, and usually instruct users to open an attachment contained in the email or click on a link that goes to a known company website. However, the site is a fake.
Once the harmful file attachment is opened, users will be directed to download fake software or ransomware that attempts to capture the user’s personal information. When visiting a malicious website, consumers will often receive pop-ups with instructions for updating information, but the true purpose is to harvest personal data.
Never provide any personal information to an unsolicited request.
If you believe the contact is legitimate, initiate a contact with the organization using verified data, usually via telephone.
Never provide any passwords over the phone or in response to an unsolicited Internet request.
Review any accounts, such as bank statements, often to search for any suspicious activity.
“Healthcare workers regularly communicate with many people they do not know—patients, laboratory assistants, external auditors and more—so properly vetting every message is a huge burden,” said IT security expert Dirk Schrader, VP of security research at Netwrix, in the report. “Plus, they do not realize how critical it is to be cautious, since security awareness training often takes a back seat to the urgent work of taking care of patients. Combined, these factors can lead to a higher rate of security incidents.”
Top 10 Brands Faked in Phishing Scams
Phishing emails often appear to be from legitimate companies to lull the recipient into a false sense of security. In a January 22 report, Check Point Research (CPR) announced its latest Brand Phishing Ranking for the fourth quarter of 2024. The report reveals the brands that were most frequently impersonated in phishing attacks by cybercriminals for the purpose of stealing personal information from consumers.
According to the CPR report, 80% of disclosed brand phishing incidents occurred within just 10 brands (listed below with each brand’s percentage of phishing attacks). They are:
According to the report, fraudulent domains “replicated official websites to mislead shoppers with fake discounts, ultimately stealing login credentials and personal information. These fraudulent sites replicate the brand’s logo and offer unrealistically low prices to lure victims. Their goal is to trick users into sharing sensitive information, such as login credentials and personal details, enabling hackers to steal their data effectively.”
Steps Clinical Labs Can Take to Protect Patients’ PHI
Clinical laboratories and pathology groups can take precautions that minimize the risk of allowing cybercriminals access to their patients’ PHI.
“A core defense strategy is to minimize standing privileges by using a privileged access management (PAM) solution. Another is to implement identity threat detection and response (IDTR) tools to quickly block malicious actors using compromised credentials,” said Ilia Sotnikov, security strategist and VP of user experience at Netwrix, in the report.
The threat of phishing scams is a lingering issue that everyone in healthcare should be aware of and take necessary precautions to recognize and prevent having one’s PHI stolen. Clinical laboratory management should constantly remind lab personnel and contractors to be vigilant regarding fake emails and texts from well-known brands that ask for private information.
PRESS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE THE DARK INTELLIGENCE GROUP21806 Briarcliff Dr.Spicewood, TX 78669512-264-7103 o512-264-0969 f Media Contact: Amanda Curtisacurtis@darkreport.com Experts to Identify Essential Steps & Pitfalls to Help Clinical Laboratories Meet the Deadline to Comply with the FDA’s Laboratory Developed Test (LDT) Rule Speaker Panel: Jane Pine Wood with McDonald Hopkins, Valerie Palmieri with MOMENTUM Consulting and Sheila Walcoff with Goldbug Strategies (Photo: Business...
New guidelines also advise people to limit their vitamin D supplementation to recommended daily doses
Clinical laboratories may eventually receive fewer doctors’ orders for vitamin D testing thanks to new guidelines released by the Endocrine Society. The new Clinical Practice Guideline advises against “unnecessary testing for vitamin D levels.” It also urges healthy people, and those 75-years of age or younger, to avoid taking the vitamin at levels above the daily recommended amounts, according to a news release.
Even though the Endocrine Society does recommend vitamin D supplements for certain groups, it advises individuals to hold off on routine testing. That’s because there appears to be uncertainty among ordering clinicians about what to do for patients based on their vitamin D test results.
“When clinicians measure vitamin D, they’re forced to decide what to do about it. That’s where questions about the levels come in. And that’s a big problem. So, what this panel is saying is ‘Don’t screen,’” Clifford Rosen, MD, Director of Clinical and Translational Research and Senior Scientist, Maine Medical Center Research Institute at the University of Maine, told Medscape Medical News.
“We have no data that there’s anything about screening that allows us to improve quality of life. Screening is probably not worthwhile in any age group,” he added.
“This guideline refers to people who are otherwise healthy, and there’s no clear indication for vitamin D, such as people with already established osteoporosis. This guideline is not relevant to them,” the author of the Endocrine Society guideline, Anastassios G. Pittas, MD (above), Professor of Medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston, told Medscape Medical News. This new guideline could result in doctors ordering fewer vitamin D tests from clinical laboratories. (Photo copyright: Tufts University.)
Vitamin D Screening Not Recommended for Certain Groups
The Endocrine Society’s new clinical guidelines advise healthy adults under 75 years of age to refrain from taking vitamin D supplements that exceed US Institute of Medicine—now the National Academy of Medicine (NAM)—recommendations.
Additionally, these updated guidelines:
Recommend vitamin D supplements at levels above NAM recommendations to help lower risks faced by children 18 years and younger, adults 75 and older, pregnant women, and people with prediabetes.
Suggest daily, lower-dose vitamin D (instead of non-daily, higher-dose of the vitamin) for people 50 years and older who have “indications for vitamin D supplementation or treatment.”
Advise “against routine testing for 25-hydroxyvitamin D [aka, calcifediol] levels” in all the above groups “since outcome-specific benefits based on these levels have not been identified. This includes 25-hyrdoxyvitamin D screening in people with dark complexion or obesity.”
One exception to the guideline applies to people with already established osteoporosis, according to the guideline’s author endocrinologist Anastassios G. Pittas, MD, Chief of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism; Co-Director, Tuft’s Diabetes and Lipid Center; and Professor of Medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston.
Vitamin D’s Link to Disease Studied
During a panel discussion at the Endocrine Society’s annual meeting, members acknowledged that many studies have shown relationships between serum concentrations of 25-hydroxy vitamin D (25(OH)D) and physical disorders including those of musculoskeletal, metabolic, and cardiovascular systems. Still, they questioned the link of vitamin D supplementation and testing with disease prevention.
“There is paucity of data regarding definition of optimal levels and optimal intake of vitamin D for preventing specific diseases. … What we really need are large-scale clinical trials and biomarkers so we can predict disease outcome before it happens,” said Panel Chair Marie Demay, MD, Endocrinologist, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Medscape Medical News reported.
Meanwhile, in their Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism paper, the researchers note that use of supplements (1,000 IU or more per day) increased from 0.3% to 18.2%, according to the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), CDC, for the years 1999-2000 and 2013-2014.
“The use of 25(OH)D testing in clinical practice has also been increasing; however, the cost effectiveness of widespread testing has been questioned, especially given the uncertainty surrounding the optimal level of 25(OH)D required to prevent disease,” the authors wrote.
“Thus, the panel suggests against routine 25(OH)D testing in all populations considered,” the researchers stated at the Endocrine Society annual meeting.
Other Groups Weigh-in on Vitamin D Testing
Pathologists and medical laboratory leaders may recall the explosion in vitamin D testing starting about 20 years ago. Vitamin D testing reimbursed by Medicare Part B “increased 83-fold” during the years 2000 to 2010, according to data cited in an analysis by the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP).
Also, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) said in a statement that there is not enough information to “recommend for or against” testing for vitamin D deficiency.
“No organization recommends population-based screening for vitamin D deficiency, and the American Society for Clinical Pathology recommends against it,” the USPSTF noted.
Clinical Laboratories Can Get the Word Out
The vitamin D debate has been going on for a while. And the latest guidance from the Endocrine Society may cause physicians and patients to stop ordering vitamin D tests as part of annual physicals or in routine screenings.
Medical laboratories can provide value by ensuring physicians and patients have the latest information about vitamin D test orders, reports, and interpretation.
Presented by: Rober Klein Artificial Intelligence: Regulatory and other Legal Issues. A primer for Clinical Laboratories by Roger Klein https://www.darkdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/Audio%20Files/2024EWC/R-Klein-130-Foster2.mp3 PDF copy of the Presentation Slides...
