ArticleJAMA health forum2025
Benefit-Risk Reporting for FDA-Cleared Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Medical Devices.
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.
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
24 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence for Amazonian health: validation is the price of entry.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2026Article
- The current state of demographic subgroup reporting for commercially available AI for radiology: a scoping review.European radiology · 2026Article
- Current Trends in AI and Eye Disease Diagnostics.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in urology: A review of United States Food and Drug Administration-cleared devices.BJU international · 2026Review
- Putting the I in AML: Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Acute Myeloid Leukemia.Cells · 2026Review
- 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 · 2026Review
- Between automation and alienation: rethinking AI's role in radiologist well-being.European radiology · 2026Article
- A lifecycle governance and learning health system framework for trustworthy, generalizable, and sustainable human-ai partnership in clinical practice: Lessons from the asthma-guidance and prediction system (A-GPS).Journal of the National Medical Association · 2026Review
- PROACTIVE-AI: An Intelligent Dashboard for Assessing and Predicting of FDA-approved AI Software Performance in Real-World Clinical Scenarios.Research square · 2026Article
- Impact of an Artificial Intelligence-Powered Clinical Decision Support System for Acute Kidney Injury Prevention in the Intensive Care Unit: Single-Center Uncontrolled Before-and-After Implementation Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Alignment of Policy, Practice, and Patient Safety for Trustworthy AI in Radiology.Radiology. Artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence Legislation Literacy, Governance Readiness, and Adoption Intentions in Romanian Healthcare: A Cross-Sectional Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Mapping the evidence supporting FDA-authorized digital therapeutics, before and after authorization.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- What the AI era doctor should know: a scoping review of proposed artificial intelligence competencies for medical education.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- The absence of full lifecycle risk management for AI-based medical devices in radiology.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Re: McCarthy et al: A Practical Guide to Evaluating Artificial Intelligence Imaging Models in Scientific Literature.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- From classical machine learning to emerging foundation models: review on multimodal data integration for cancer research.Artificial intelligence review · 2026Article
- Approval of AI-Based Medical Devices in China From 2020 to 2025: Retrospective Analysis.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.