Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41276747›Full record

ReviewTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2026

Regulatory Challenges and Opportunities: A Review of U.S. Food and Drug Administration-Approved Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning-Enabled Cardiovascular Devices.

Mahima Saini, Grishma Kc, Adrian J Williams, Paul M Coplan, Laura E Gressler

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

5 authors.

Mahima SainiDivision of Pharmaceutical Evaluation and Policy, Department of Pharmacy Practice, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.
Grishma KcDivision of Pharmaceutical Evaluation and Policy, Department of Pharmacy Practice, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.
Adrian J WilliamsDivision of Pharmaceutical Evaluation and Policy, Department of Pharmacy Practice, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.
Paul M CoplanMedical Device Epidemiology & Real World Evidence, Johnson & Johnson, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
Laura E GresslerDivision of Pharmaceutical Evaluation and Policy, Department of Pharmacy Practice, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA. legressler@uams.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) into medical devices has revolutionized healthcare, enhancing diagnostic accuracy and clinical decision-making. However, their rapid evolution poses challenges to traditional regulatory frameworks, particularly in ensuring safety and effectiveness. This review examines current Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulatory pathways for AI/ML-enabled cardiovascular medical devices. It assesses the pre- and postmarket criteria evaluated by the FDA and discusses strengths and gaps in the regulatory pathway. We conducted a systematic review of FDA-authorized AI/ML-enabled cardiovascular devices from November 1995 to May 2025. Inclusion criteria required devices to utilize AI/ML technology, be FDA-authorized via 510(k) pathway, and be intended for cardiovascular applications. Data extracted included device purpose, primary users, indications, pre- and postmarket evaluations, and identified limitations. Out of 1,247 FDA-authorized AI/ML devices, we selected 96 cardiovascular devices. All were cleared through 510(k) pathway. Common premarket evaluations included clinical validation, bench testing, and algorithm performance assessments. However, postmarket surveillance requirements beyond baseline FDA regulations, Medical Device Reporting (MDR) and the Quality System Regulation (QSR), were rarely identified, especially before recent FDA guidelines. Key limitations included restricted patient demographics and lack of transparency in AI capabilities. Public summaries showed no evidence of autonomous, in-field model retraining without human oversight; changes were managed through existing mechanisms or proposed Predetermined Change Control Plans (PCCPs). FDA's framework has enabled broad authorization, but stronger transparency and device-appropriate postmarket monitoring tailored to AI/ML-specific risks (e.g., dataset shift, bias, evolving performance) would enhance long-term safety and effectiveness.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligence (AI)CardiovascularMachine learning (ML)Medical devicesPostmarket surveillanceRegulatory pathways

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.