ArticlePLOS digital health2023
Performance evaluation methods for improvements at post-market of artificial intelligence/machine learning-based computer-aided detection/diagnosis/triage in the United States.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Ethical and Legal Implications of Implementing AI in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Computer-aided detection (CADe), computer-aided diagnosis (CADx), and computer-aided simple triage (CAST), which incorporate artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML), are continually undergoing post-market improvement. Therefore, understanding the evaluation and approval process of improved products is important. This study intended to conduct a comprehensive survey of AI/ML-based CAD products approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that had been improved post-market to gain insights into the efficacy and safety required for market approval. A survey of the product code database published by the FDA identified eight products that were improved post-market. The methods used to evaluate the performance of improvements were analysed, and post-market improvements were approved with retrospective data. Reader study testing (RT) or software standalone testing (SA) procedures were conducted retrospectively. Six RT procedures were conducted because of modifications to the intended use. An average of 17.3 readers (minimum 14, maximum 24) participated, and the area under the curve (AUC) was considered the primary endpoint. The addition of study learning data that did not change the intended use and changes in the analysis algorithm were evaluated by SA. The average sensitivity, specificity, and AUC were 93% (minimum 91.1, maximum 97), 89.6% (minimum 85.9, maximum 96), and 0.96 (minimum 0.96, maximum 0.97), respectively. The average interval between applications was 348 days (minimum -18, maximum 975), which showed that the improvements were implemented within approximately one year. This is the first comprehensive study on AI/ML-based CAD products that have been improved post-market to elucidate evaluation points for post-market improvements. The findings will be informative for the industry and academia in developing and improving AI/ML-based CAD.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.