ArticleJMIR AI2025
Balancing Innovation and Control: The European Union AI Act in an Era of Global Uncertainty.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Navigating AI governance for oncology nursing: Existing models, implications, and a Call for nurse-led oversight in Asia Pacific health systems.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2026Article
- Explainable and Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence in Cardiology: A Narrative Review of Clinical Applications, Operational Integration, and Future Directions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Nanostructured electrode materials and flexible-substrate engineering for wearable multi-analyte biosensors in diabetes monitoring and personalized care: a comprehensive review.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2026Review
- Advances in In Vitro Diagnostics for Cholangiocarcinoma: From Biomarker Discovery to Artificial Intelligence.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Contested futures of AI ethics for global population health.BMJ digital health & AI · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Unlabelled: The European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act (EU AI Act), adopted in 2024, establishes a landmark regulatory framework for artificial intelligence (AI) systems, with significant implications for health care. The Act classifies medical AI as "high-risk," imposing stringent requirements for transparency, data governance, and human oversight. While these measures aim to safeguard patient safety, they may also hinder innovation, particularly for smaller health care providers and startups. Concurrently, geopolitical instability-marked by rising military expenditures, trade tensions, and supply chain disruptions-threatens health care innovation and access. This paper examines the challenges and opportunities posed by the AI Act in health care within a volatile geopolitical landscape. It evaluates the intersection of Europe's regulatory approach with competing priorities, including technological sovereignty, ethical AI, and equitable health care, while addressing unintended consequences such as reduced innovation and supply chain vulnerabilities. The study employs a comprehensive review of the EU AI Act's provisions, geopolitical trends, and their implications for health care. It analyzes regulatory documents, stakeholder statements, and case studies to assess compliance burdens, innovation barriers, and geopolitical risks. The paper also synthesizes recommendations from multidisciplinary experts to propose actionable solutions. Key findings include: (1) the AI Act's high-risk classification for medical AI could improve patient safety but risks stifling innovation due to compliance costs (eg, €29,277 annually per AI unit) and certification burdens (€16,800-23,000 per unit); (2) geopolitical factors-such as United States-China semiconductor tariffs and EU rearmament-exacerbate supply chain vulnerabilities and divert funding from health care innovation; (3) the dominance of "superstar" firms in AI development may marginalize smaller players, further concentrating innovation in well-resourced organizations; and (4) regulatory sandboxes, AI literacy programs, and international collaboration emerge as viable strategies to balance innovation and compliance. The EU AI Act provides a critical framework for ethical AI in health care, but its success depends on mitigating regulatory burdens and geopolitical risks. Proactive measures-such as multidisciplinary task forces, resilient supply chains, and human-augmented AI systems-are essential to foster innovation while ensuring patient safety. Policymakers, clinicians, and technologists must collaborate to navigate these challenges in an era of global uncertainty.
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.