Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40471897›Full record

ArticlePLOS digital health2025

The illusion of safety: A report to the FDA on AI healthcare product approvals.

Rawan Abulibdeh, Leo Anthony Celi, Ervin Sejdić

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Machine Learning-Driven radiomics on 18 F-FDG PET for glioma diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Rawan AbulibdehDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Leo Anthony CeliLaboratory for Computational Physiology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6712-6626
Ervin SejdićDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence is rapidly transforming healthcare, offering promising advancements in diagnosis, treatment, and patient outcomes. However, concerns regarding the regulatory oversight of artificial intelligence driven medical technologies have emerged, particularly with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's current approval processes. This paper critically examines the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's regulatory framework for artificial intelligence powered healthcare products, highlighting gaps in safety evaluations, post-market surveillance, and ethical considerations. Artificial intelligence's continuous learning capabilities introduce unique risks, as algorithms evolve beyond their initial validation, potentially leading to performance degradation and biased outcomes. Although the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has taken steps to address these challenges, such as artificial intelligence/machine learning-based software as a medical device action plan and proposed regulatory adjustments, significant weaknesses remain, particularly in real-time monitoring, transparency and bias mitigation. This paper argues for a more adaptive, community-engaged regulatory approach that mandates extensive post-market evaluations, requires artificial intelligence developers to disclose training data sources, and establishes enforceable standards for fairness, equity, and accountability. A patient-centered regulatory framework must also integrate diverse perspectives to ensure artificial intelligence technologies serve all populations equitably. By fostering an agile, transparent, and ethics-driven oversight system, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration can balance innovation with patient safety, ensuring that artificial intelligence-driven medical technologies enhance, rather than compromise, healthcare outcomes.

Identifiers

PMID40471897
PMCPMC12140231

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.