Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40605778›Full record

ArticleJMIR AI2025

Striking a Balance: Innovation, Equity, and Consistency in AI Health Technologies.

Eric Perakslis, Kimberly Nolen, Ethan Fricklas, Tracy Tubb

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR AI, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

4 authors.

Eric PerakslisDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2395-810X
Kimberly NolenPfizer Inc, New York, NY, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8821-254X
Ethan FricklasDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0009-4337-038X
Tracy TubbDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-7441-9744

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Unlabelled: With the explosion of innovation driven by generative and traditional artificial intelligence (AI), comes the necessity to understand and regulate products that often defy current regulatory classification. Tradition, and lack of regulatory expediency, imposes the notion of force-fitting novel innovations into pre-existing product classifications or into the essentially unregulated domains of wellness or consumer electronics. Further, regulatory requirements, levels of risk tolerance, and capabilities vary greatly across the spectrum of technology innovators. For example, currently unregulated information and consumer electronic suppliers set their own editorial and communication standards without extensive federal regulation. However, industries like biopharma companies are held to a higher standard in the same space, given current direct-to-consumer regulations like the Sunshine Act (also known as Open Payments), the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, the federal False Claims Act, and others. Clear and well-defined regulations not only reduce ambiguity but facilitate scale, showcasing the importance of regulatory clarity in fostering innovation and growth. To avoid highly regulated industries like health care and biopharma from being discouraged from developing AI to improve patient care, there is a need for a specialized framework to establish regulatory evidence for AI-based medical solutions. In this paper, we review the current regulatory environment considering current innovations but also pre-existing legal and regulatory responsibilities of the biopharma industry and propose a novel, hybridized approach for the assessment of novel AI-based patient solutions. Further, we will elaborate the proposed concepts via case studies. This paper explores the challenges posed by the current regulatory environment, emphasizing the need for a specialized framework for AI medical devices. By reviewing existing regulations and proposing a hybridized approach, we aim to ensure that the potential of AI in biopharmaceutical innovation is not hindered by uneven regulatory landscapes.

Indexed as

algorithmartificial intelligencedeep learningdigital healthhealth technologylarge language modelmachine learningnatural language processingpractical modelpredictive analyticspredictive modelpredictive systemregulatoryregulatory landscape

Identifiers

PMID40605778
PMCPMC12223681

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.