New Lantern

Name: New Lantern
Brand: New Lantern

AI Native

Keep your eyes on the images. Let AI do the rest. New Lantern the first AI Radiology Resident.

Est 2021|Valuation $74M|Raised $22.6M

LinkedIn 2K|Web traffic 3K|FTEs 33|HQ San Francisco, California, US

Published Sep 19, 2026

01Common complaints

1) If third-party dictation/reporting integration (e.g., PowerScribe) is a non-negotiable requirement and integration capability cannot be validated. 2) If procurement requires publicly available, detailed security certifications (e.g., SOC 2/ISO 27001) and related third-party audit reports before purchase. 3) If a large body of independent customer reviews is required for vendor selection; New Lantern’s independent review footprint appears limited. 4) If the organization’s primary need is reporting-only functionality and it prefers not to undertake a PACS/viewer migration; a reporting-only product may reduce migration risk.

Deal disqualifiers (poor fit)

Hard requirement to retain a specific third‑party reporter (e.g., PowerScribe) if vendor integration is not available
Requirement for publicly documented security certifications and third‑party audit reports prior to procurement
Extremely complex multi‑site deployments where vendor has limited documented large‑scale deployment history

Limitations suggested by public evidence

Integration uncertainty with incumbent reporting systems (community discussion highlights this as a potential adoption risk).

Roadmap / “not yet available”

No detailed, publicly available product roadmap was found in accessible sources during this research.

Scale limitations

No public stress or performance benchmark reports were found (e.g., load time measurements across network types, tomo priors, multi-monitor workflows).

Security/compliance gaps (public documentation)

Public documentation of security certifications and compliance statements was not clearly available in accessible vendor materials.

02Why they buy

Key vendor-cited features (evidence-based framing)

Consolidated cloud-native suite that combines viewing, worklist, and reporting functions according to vendor materials and press coverage.
Automated measurement tools and workflows for longitudinal disease comparison as described in vendor materials.
Subspecialty viewer modes (mammography, PET/CT) announced in product communications and industry coverage.

Areas where competitors may have an advantage

Incumbent vendors often have broader, documented integration ecosystems and longer track records.
Best-of-breed viewers may have established performance reputations for large-scale or specialty-heavy workflows.

03Field reports

What’s available publicly (limitations)

New Lantern is relatively new in the market, and mainstream review platforms (G2, TrustRadius, Gartner Peer Insights) did not show prominent, product-specific review pages for New Lantern in accessible searches. This may indicate limited review volume, product naming ambiguity, or gated platform access.

Vendor-published testimonials (summary)

The vendor’s website includes selected testimonials attributed to named clinicians. These are vendor-selected and not independent reviews. Summaries of the vendor-published testimonial content include: 1) A radiologist and director of AI noted that New Lantern automated some measurement tasks and streamlined disease evolution comparison workflows, and that the system integrated technologist notes and supported personalized impression templates. 2) A breast imaging lead reported time and IT cost reductions associated with moving to a cloud deployment and described responsive vendor support. These testimonials reflect vendor-selected customer experiences and should be validated via independent references and pilot evaluations.

Community/social discussion (more mixed, early-stage)

A discussion thread in an industry community forum raised questions about real-world integration capabilities, including whether New Lantern supports interfacing with third-party dictation/reporting systems such as PowerScribe. Responses in that thread suggested limited or unclear third-party reporter integration, which some commenters identified as a potential adoption risk for organizations standardized on incumbent reporting workflows.

Why customers reported choosing it (as suggested by vendor materials and limited public discussion)

Desire to reduce on-prem PACS server maintenance by moving to a cloud architecture (cost and operational rationale cited in vendor materials).
Consolidation of tools to reduce switching between viewer, measurement, and reporting applications.
Vendor claims regarding viewer performance and automation of reporting and measurements (these claims are vendor-provided and not independently validated).

Why customers might not buy or might leave (inferred from concerns)

If third-party dictation/reporting integration (e.g., PowerScribe) is required but not available or mature.
If AI reporting output quality does not meet practice standards or if customization (macros/templates) is insufficient relative to incumbents.
If cloud latency or image streaming performance does not meet practice expectations for high-data modalities (e.g., tomo, PET/CT) at scale.

Public case studies

No detailed, independently verifiable case studies (with methodology, baselines, and externally validated metrics) were located in the publicly accessible sources reviewed for this research.

Vendor metrics & claims (treated as unverified)

Vendor and press materials include claims such as: - Automation of a portion of workflows (exact percentage figures were cited in vendor materials and press coverage). - Time-saved estimates and productivity multipliers attributed to automated reporting and measurements. Critical evaluation: these claims lack publicly disclosed methodology (case mix, baselines, definitions of automation, study volumes, and measurement approaches). Buyers should request methodology, raw data, and referenceable customer studies during due diligence.

04Best fit

Company sizes

Most plausible ICP (inferred):

Radiology practices / groups: small to mid-sized practices (ranging from small groups up to larger single-practice organizations)
Health systems / hospitals: mid-sized health systems considering cloud migration to reduce on‑prem maintenance

Industries and verticals

Radiology professional groups
Breast imaging programs (product materials referenced mammography viewer modes)
Nuclear medicine / PET/CT-heavy environments (product materials referenced PET/CT viewer modes)

Roles and personas

Decision makers: Radiology practice leadership, CIO/CTO, imaging informatics directors, PACS administrators
End users: radiologists, technologists (for note capture and workflow), IT support

Qualification criteria (good fit)

Desire to consolidate imaging tools and reduce on‑prem infrastructure overhead
Openness to adopt a newer vendor for potential workflow benefits
Willingness to replace incumbent reporting/dictation where integration is not mandatory

05The pitch

What the product does (core value proposition)

New Lantern is a cloud-native radiology platform that combines a PACS viewer, worklist/routing, and AI-assisted reporting into a single product. The vendor describes the core objective as reducing radiologists’ administrative and repetitive tasks (measurements, comparison/disease evolution analysis, and report drafting) to enable radiologists to allocate more time to image interpretation. On its product site, New Lantern lists feature areas and capabilities including: - Smart Worklist (case distribution by specialty and real-time RVU tracking) - Cloud-native PACS Viewer (vendor states a focus on viewer performance) - AI Reporter (automation of portions of reporting workflows) - AI Measurements (streamlined volumetric measurement features) - Supporting capabilities such as document auto-fill, segmentation infrastructure, and built-in dictation/impression templates Important caveat: Many performance and automation metrics cited by the vendor are vendor-claimed and not independently validated in public sources.

Target market and positioning

- Target users: radiologists (including subspecialists), radiology practice groups, imaging centers, and hospital radiology departments. - Positioning: marketed as an assistant to automate parts of workflow (vendor has used terms such as "AI copilot"); emphasis is on workflow automation rather than fully autonomous diagnosis. - Differentiation theme: consolidation of separate viewer, dictation/reporting, and measurement tools into a single cloud-based suite.

Get a comprehensive analysis of New Lantern including market position, competitive landscape, adoption trends, and peer benchmarks.

Download full report →

Published Sep 19, 2026

01Common complaints

If third-party dictation/reporting integration (e.g., PowerScribe) is a non-negotiable requirement and integration capability cannot be validated.
If procurement requires publicly available, detailed security certifications (e.g., SOC 2/ISO 27001) and related third-party audit reports before purchase.
If a large body of independent customer reviews is required for vendor selection; New Lantern’s independent review footprint appears limited.
If the organization’s primary need is reporting-only functionality and it prefers not to undertake a PACS/viewer migration; a reporting-only product may reduce migration risk.

Deal disqualifiers (poor fit)

Hard requirement to retain a specific third‑party reporter (e.g., PowerScribe) if vendor integration is not available
Requirement for publicly documented security certifications and third‑party audit reports prior to procurement
Extremely complex multi‑site deployments where vendor has limited documented large‑scale deployment history

Limitations suggested by public evidence

Integration uncertainty with incumbent reporting systems (community discussion highlights this as a potential adoption risk).

Roadmap / “not yet available”

No detailed, publicly available product roadmap was found in accessible sources during this research.

Scale limitations

No public stress or performance benchmark reports were found (e.g., load time measurements across network types, tomo priors, multi-monitor workflows).

Security/compliance gaps (public documentation)

Public documentation of security certifications and compliance statements was not clearly available in accessible vendor materials.

02Why they buy

Key vendor-cited features (evidence-based framing)

Consolidated cloud-native suite that combines viewing, worklist, and reporting functions according to vendor materials and press coverage.
Automated measurement tools and workflows for longitudinal disease comparison as described in vendor materials.
Subspecialty viewer modes (mammography, PET/CT) announced in product communications and industry coverage.

Areas where competitors may have an advantage

Incumbent vendors often have broader, documented integration ecosystems and longer track records.
Best-of-breed viewers may have established performance reputations for large-scale or specialty-heavy workflows.

03Field reports

What’s available publicly (limitations)

Vendor-published testimonials (summary)

A radiologist and director of AI noted that New Lantern automated some measurement tasks and streamlined disease evolution comparison workflows, and that the system integrated technologist notes and supported personalized impression templates.
A breast imaging lead reported time and IT cost reductions associated with moving to a cloud deployment and described responsive vendor support.

These testimonials reflect vendor-selected customer experiences and should be validated via independent references and pilot evaluations.

Community/social discussion (more mixed, early-stage)

Why customers reported choosing it (as suggested by vendor materials and limited public discussion)

Desire to reduce on-prem PACS server maintenance by moving to a cloud architecture (cost and operational rationale cited in vendor materials).
Consolidation of tools to reduce switching between viewer, measurement, and reporting applications.
Vendor claims regarding viewer performance and automation of reporting and measurements (these claims are vendor-provided and not independently validated).

Why customers might not buy or might leave (inferred from concerns)

If third-party dictation/reporting integration (e.g., PowerScribe) is required but not available or mature.
If AI reporting output quality does not meet practice standards or if customization (macros/templates) is insufficient relative to incumbents.
If cloud latency or image streaming performance does not meet practice expectations for high-data modalities (e.g., tomo, PET/CT) at scale.

Public case studies

No detailed, independently verifiable case studies (with methodology, baselines, and externally validated metrics) were located in the publicly accessible sources reviewed for this research.

Vendor metrics & claims (treated as unverified)

Vendor and press materials include claims such as:

Automation of a portion of workflows (exact percentage figures were cited in vendor materials and press coverage).
Time-saved estimates and productivity multipliers attributed to automated reporting and measurements.

Critical evaluation: these claims lack publicly disclosed methodology (case mix, baselines, definitions of automation, study volumes, and measurement approaches). Buyers should request methodology, raw data, and referenceable customer studies during due diligence.

04Best fit

Company sizes

Most plausible ICP (inferred):

Radiology practices / groups: small to mid-sized practices (ranging from small groups up to larger single-practice organizations)
Health systems / hospitals: mid-sized health systems considering cloud migration to reduce on‑prem maintenance

Industries and verticals

Radiology professional groups
Breast imaging programs (product materials referenced mammography viewer modes)
Nuclear medicine / PET/CT-heavy environments (product materials referenced PET/CT viewer modes)

Roles and personas

Decision makers: Radiology practice leadership, CIO/CTO, imaging informatics directors, PACS administrators
End users: radiologists, technologists (for note capture and workflow), IT support

Qualification criteria (good fit)

Desire to consolidate imaging tools and reduce on‑prem infrastructure overhead
Openness to adopt a newer vendor for potential workflow benefits
Willingness to replace incumbent reporting/dictation where integration is not mandatory

05The pitch

What the product does (core value proposition)

On its product site, New Lantern lists feature areas and capabilities including:

Smart Worklist (case distribution by specialty and real-time RVU tracking)
Cloud-native PACS Viewer (vendor states a focus on viewer performance)
AI Reporter (automation of portions of reporting workflows)
AI Measurements (streamlined volumetric measurement features)
Supporting capabilities such as document auto-fill, segmentation infrastructure, and built-in dictation/impression templates

Important caveat: Many performance and automation metrics cited by the vendor are vendor-claimed and not independently validated in public sources.

Target market and positioning

Target users: radiologists (including subspecialists), radiology practice groups, imaging centers, and hospital radiology departments.
Positioning: marketed as an assistant to automate parts of workflow (vendor has used terms such as "AI copilot"); emphasis is on workflow automation rather than fully autonomous diagnosis.
Differentiation theme: consolidation of separate viewer, dictation/reporting, and measurement tools into a single cloud-based suite.

Get a comprehensive analysis of New Lantern including market position, competitive landscape, adoption trends, and peer benchmarks.

Download full report →