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.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fine-Tuning, Retrieval-Augmented Generation, and Hybrid Large Language Models for Postoperative Decision Support: Comparative Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Multimodal artificial intelligence for enhanced skin cancer diagnosis and prognosis.Discover oncology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
41276747What 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.