ArticlePacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing2025
Implications of An Evolving Regulatory Landscape on the Development of AI and ML in Medicine.
Article in Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Understanding and Addressing Bias in Artificial Intelligence Systems: A Primer for the Emergency Medicine Physician.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2026Article
- Review
- Moving the Fine Print to the Front Page: Transparent Communication of Facial Genetics Research.Advanced genetics (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2025Article
- A Meta-Narrative Review of Channelopathies and Cannabis: Mechanistic, Epidemiologic, and Forensic Insights into Arrhythmia and Sudden Cardiac Death.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- The Transformative Role of Artificial Intelligence in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: Challenges and Opportunities.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) technologies in healthcare presents significant opportunities for enhancing patient care through innovative diagnostic tools, monitoring systems, and personalized treatment plans. However, these innovative advancements might result in regulatory challenges given recent Supreme Court decisions that impact the authority of regulatory agencies like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This paper explores the implications of regulatory uncertainty for the healthcare industry related to balancing innovation in biotechnology and biocomputing with ensuring regulatory uniformity and patient safety. We examine key Supreme Court cases, including Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, and Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and their impact on the Chevron doctrine. We also discuss other relevant cases to highlight shifts in judicial approaches to agency deference and regulatory authority that might affect how science is handled in regulatory spaces, including how biocomputing and other health sciences are governed, how scientific facts are applied in policymaking, and how scientific expertise guides decision making. Through a detailed analysis, we assess the potential impact of regulatory uncertainty in healthcare. Additionally, we provide recommendations for the medical community on navigating these challenges.
Indexed as
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.