ArticlePLOS digital health2025
The illusion of safety: A report to the FDA on AI healthcare product approvals.
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.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- 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 · 2025Pooled it
- Applications of Reinforcement Learning for Autonomous Surgical Robotics: A Systematic Review.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- PROACTIVE-AI: An Intelligent Dashboard for Assessing and Predicting of FDA-approved AI Software Performance in Real-World Clinical Scenarios.Research square · 2026Article
- The HALO Model: A Learning Health System Framework for Artificial Intelligence.Learning health systems · 2026Article
- Do Multimodal Vision-Language Models Enhance the Medical Diagnostic Process? A Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- A qualitative interview study investigating patient, health professional, and developer perspectives on real-world implementation of patient-centered AI systems.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence revolutionizing CNS drug discovery and development.Drug discovery today · 2026Review
- Advances in In Vitro Diagnostics for Cholangiocarcinoma: From Biomarker Discovery to Artificial Intelligence.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Review
- FDA-Approved AI Solutions in Dental Imaging: A Narrative Review of Applications, Evidence, and Outlook.International dental journal · 2026Review
- Toward a standardized validation framework in robotic surgery AI: proposal for an Surgical Validation Scoring (SURVAS) system.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- Public perspectives on artificial intelligence in healthcare in the USA: a cross-sectional survey.BMJ digital health & AI · 2026Article
- Navigating the artificial intelligence landscape in trauma, critical care and emergency general surgery: insights from the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) 2025 Annual Meeting Panel Discussion.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2026Review
- Performance of DeepSeek-R1, ChatGPT (GPT-o3-mini), and Gemini 2.0 Flash on German Medical Multiple-Choice Questions: Comparative Evaluation.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- A qualitative Interview Study Investigating Patient, Health Professional, and Developer Perspectives on Real-World Implementation of Patient-Centered AI Systems.Research square · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Microsurgical Planning: A Five-Year Leap in Clinical Translation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Who moved my scan? Early adopter experiences with pre- and post-market healthcare AI regulation challenges.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.