Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41004181›Full record

ArticleJAMA health forum2025

Benefit-Risk Reporting for FDA-Cleared Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Medical Devices.

John C Lin, Bhav Jain, Jay M Iyer, Ishan Rola, Anusha R Srinivasan, Chaerim Kang, Heta Patel, Ravi B Parikh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA health forum, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Current Trends in AI and Eye Disease Diagnostics.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Artificial Intelligence in Rhinology: A State-of-the-Art Review of Clinical Readiness and Implementation Pathways.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors.

John C LinDepartment of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Bhav JainDepartment of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Jay M IyerDepartments of Molecular and Cellular Biology and Statistics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Ishan RolaThe Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus.
Anusha R SrinivasanDivision of Biology and Medicine, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.
Chaerim KangDivision of Biology and Medicine, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.
Heta PatelDepartment of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Ravi B ParikhEmory School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Devices enabled by artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) are increasingly used in clinical settings, but there are concerns regarding benefit-risk assessment and surveillance by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Objective: To characterize pre- and postmarket efficacy, safety, and risk assessment reporting for FDA-cleared AI/ML devices. Design and Setting: This was a cross-sectional study using linked data from FDA decision summaries and approvals databases, the FDA Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience Database, and the FDA Medical Device Recalls Database for all AI/ML devices cleared by the FDA from September 1995 to July 2023. Data were analyzed from October to November 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures: AI/ML reporting of study design, data availability, efficacy, safety, bias assessments, adverse events, device recalls, and risk classification. Results: The analysis included data for all 691 AI/ML devices that received FDA clearance through 2023, with 254 (36.8%) cleared in or after 2021. Device summaries often failed to report study designs (323 [46.7%]), training sample size (368 [53.3%]), and/or demographic information (660 [95.5%]). Only 6 devices (1.6%) reported data from randomized clinical trials and 53 (7.7%) from prospective studies. Few premarket summaries contained data published in peer-reviewed journals (272 [39.4%]) or provided statistical or clinical performance, including sensitivity (166 [24.0%]), specificity (152 [22.0%]), and/or patient outcomes (3 [<1%]). Some devices reported safety assessments (195 [28.2%]), adherence to international safety standards (344 [49.8%]), and/or risks to health (42 [6.1%]). In all, 489 adverse events were reported involving 36 (5.2%) devices, including 458 malfunctions, 30 injuries, and 1 death. A total of 40 devices (5.8%) were recalled 113 times, primarily due to software issues. Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study suggests that despite increasing clearance of AI/ML devices, standardized efficacy, safety, and risk assessment by the FDA are lacking. Dedicated regulatory pathways and postmarket surveillance of AI/ML safety events may address these challenges.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceDevice ApprovalEquipment and SuppliesMachine LearningProduct Surveillance, PostmarketingCross-Sectional StudiesEquipment SafetyHumansRisk AssessmentUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug Administration

Identifiers

PMID41004181
PMCPMC12475944

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.