ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2025
Risk-based evaluation of machine learning-based classification methods used for medical devices.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Challenges and Recommendations in Regulating AI Medical Devices in the European Union: A Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- The role of medical equipment reliability assessment in improving healthcare service quality: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Performance of an Intelligent Messaging Tool for Clinical Communications.JAMA network open · 2026Article
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
Abstract
backgroundIn the future, more medical devices will be based on machine learning (ML) methods. In general, the consideration of risks is a crucial aspect for evaluating medical devices. Accordingly, risks and their associated costs should be taken into account when assessing the performance of ML-based medical devices. This paper addresses the following three research questions towards a risk-based evaluation with a focus on ML-based classification models.
methodsFirst, we analyzed how often risk-based metrics are currently utilized in the context of ML-based classification models. This was performed using a literature research based on a sample of recent scientific publications. Second, we introduce an approach for evaluating such models where expected risks and associated costs are integrated into the corresponding performance metrics. Additionally, we analyze the impact of different risk ratios on the resulting overall performance. Third, we elaborate how such risk-based approaches relate to regulatory requirements in the field of medical devices. A set of use case scenarios were utilized to demonstrate necessities and practical implications, in this regard.
resultsFirst, it was shown that currently most scientific publications do not include risk-based approaches for measuring performance. Second, it was demonstrated that risk-based considerations have a substantial impact on the outcome. The relative increase of the resulting overall risks can go up to 196% when the ratio between different types of risks (false negatives vs. false positives) changes by a factor of 10.0. Third, we elaborated that risk-based considerations need to be included into the assessment of ML-based medical devices, according to the relevant EU regulations and standards. In particular, this applies when a substantial impact on the clinical outcome / in terms of the risk-benefit relationship occurs.
conclusionIn summary, we demonstrated the necessity of a risk-based approach for the evaluation of medical devices which include ML-based classification methods. We showed that currently many scientific papers in this area do not include risk considerations. We developed basic steps towards a risk-based assessment of ML-based classifiers and elaborated consequences that could occur, when these steps are neglected. And, we demonstrated the consistency of our approach with current regulatory requirements in the EU.
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.