NEWS


Report asks: is it time for an AI reality check?


Laboratory industry trade show Lab Innovations has marked its 2025 event with the publication of a new report examining how artificial intelligence (AI) is being applied in UK laboratories. Produced in collaboration with leading experts across science and technology, the publication: AI Reality Check: The True Impact of AI in Science and Laboratories, explores how digital tools are beginning to reshape scientific activity and what this means for laboratories that must balance innovation with responsibility. Contributors include Dr Marie Oldfield, AI Lead at the Institute of Science and Technology (IST), Joan Ward,


Deputy Chair of the IST, Maya Carlyle, Principal AI Engineer at the National Physical Laboratory and Duncan Lugton, Head of Policy and Impact at the Institution of Chemical Engineers. Their combined perspectives provide insight into how laboratories are approaching AI; from the opportunities it presents to the ethical and organisational questions that come with adoption. “There is a risk of hasty AI implementation without sufficient training and explanation of how these tools actually work,” said Maya Carlyle. “Laboratories require clear guidance, skills development and strong governance to ensure the technology adds value rather than undermining scientific standards.” The report positions AI as a subject of intense focus within the laboratory community. It describes the institutions that are keen to explore AI to accelerate discovery and improve efficiency, while also recognising that many are still in the early stages of adoption. There is enthusiasm, but also caution, as laboratories weigh how deeply and quickly AI should be integrated into existing practice. The report has also been sent directly to policy makers and influencers in the sector. The report is available now from https://www.lab-innovations.com/industry- report/


8


Joint statement announces pause for QAPC and NQAAPs


The Institute of Biomedical Science (IBMS), the Royal College of Pathologists (RCPath) and the Association for Laboratory Medicine (LabMed) have released a joint statement announcing a temporary pause in national quality assurance panel activities while a sustainable model is developed. The IBMS, RCPath and LabMed have jointly issued a statement confirming a temporary pause in the activities of the Quality Assurance in Pathology Committee (QAPC) and the National Quality Assurance Advisory Panels (NQAAPs) from January 2026.


The QAPC and NQAAPs, hosted and managed by RCPath, have played an important role in maintaining high standards by reviewing referrals from External Quality Assessment (EQA) schemes and addressing technical concerns about assay and analyser performance.


The joint statement explains that the decision to pause activities will allow time to


agree a sustainable model for governance, funding and coordination. The current framework relies on volunteer expertise and RCPath resources, and lacks formal links with national oversight bodies such as the Care Quality Commission, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and the Department of Health and Social Care.


A stakeholder meeting later in 2025 will bring together professional bodies, regulators, service providers and government representatives to identify a collective solution. IBMS President Joanna Andrew commented: “The IBMS supports this joint statement. A sustainable and nationally coordinated quality assurance framework is essential for patient safety and public confidence in pathology. We will continue working with RCPath, LabMed and partners across the system to help achieve that outcome.”


Virtual pathology streamlines rapid on-site evaluation


Grundium, a specialist in digital imaging for pathology, and Washington University, St. Louis (WashU), have shown that Grundium’s technology matches the diagnostic accuracy of traditional methods for rapid on-site evaluation while decreasing turnaround times and improving patient care. Using compact scanners from Grundium, the university’s pathology team transformed how rapid on-site evaluations (ROSE) and frozen sections are performed across six different locations. The initiative addresses several critical challenges in pathology today: rising cancer incidence, limited availability of qualified pathologists and cytologists, and workflows that are often too slow or fragmented to meet patient needs. WashU’s pathology department implemented Grundium’s Ocus scanners to perform ROSE and frozen section reviews digitally. Slides were prepared at remote sites and scanned in real time, allowing pathologists to guide procedures, confirm adequacy, and render preliminary diagnoses while covering multiple geographically distant locations. This approach replaced hours of daily travel and waiting time with active case review, translating into


the equivalent of an additional workday of diagnostic productivity each week. Furthermore, such an approach enables WashU to provide sub-speciality expertise for remote sites and smaller institutions. Grundium’s compact Ocus whole-slide scanners automate the process of digitising microscope slides. The scanners produce high-resolution digital images of tissue and cell samples, which can then be accessed and shared online via a secure web browser. This eliminates the need for physical slide transport, reduces manual work, and enables remote collaboration among experts, streamlining the digital pathology workflow. Another distinct advantage of the Ocus scanners is the ‘live view’ capability, which allows the pathologist to view and control a slide more rapidly than traditional scanning.


DECEMBER 2025 WWW.PATHOLOGYINPRACTICE.COM


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60