On November 5, Weill Cornell Medicine disclosed that patient health information had been entered into AI tools without authorization during a radiology research study. The use violated the institution’s own policies.<\/p>\n
It is the latest in a run of similar cases at academic medical centers, and the common thread is where they happened: inside research.<\/p>\n
According to the notice and reporting by Becker’s Hospital Review, HIPAA Journal, and DataBreaches.net, the information was entered into AI tools between June 10 and June 20. Weill Cornell learned of it on September 6.<\/p>\n
The data came from Weill Cornell Imaging at NewYork-Presbyterian and NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital. It included medical record numbers and clinical details. It did not include patient names, Social Security numbers, or financial information.<\/p>\n
Weill Cornell says it has not identified any misuse, suspended the research activity, requested deletion of the data, and provided additional education on appropriate AI use. The number of people affected has not been disclosed.<\/p>\n
Becker’s reports that Loma Linda University Health disclosed in July that a file with limited patient information was uploaded on May 25 to an external AI platform during an IRB-approved research study. Loma Linda also requested deletion and is reviewing its policies and training.<\/p>\n
The Johns Hopkins Bayview case we covered earlier involved a hospital employee rather than a research study, but the pattern is the same: a person, a file, and a tool nobody had cleared.<\/p>\n
Research projects are not exempt.<\/strong> An approved study can still involve an unapproved tool. IRB approval covers the research protocol, and it does not automatically cover every software tool a team member opens during the work.<\/p>\n “No names” does not mean “no identifiers.”<\/strong> Medical record numbers are among the 18 identifier types in HIPAA’s Safe Harbor method. Data without names can still point to a patient, especially when combined with clinical detail.<\/p>\n In both cases, the institutions asked for the data to be deleted. That is the standard response, and it has a limit: deleting your own copy does not confirm what the tool provider kept. DataBreaches.net asked Weill Cornell whether it had received confirmation that the data was deleted, and the notice does not say.<\/p>\n The better time to deal with retention is before upload.<\/p>\nThe Cleanup Problem<\/h2>\n
What Research Teams Can Put in Place<\/h2>\n
\n
Where Trinka’s Confidential Data Plan Fits<\/h2>\n