ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
Scaling medical device regulatory science using large language models.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 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.
- Confident but unsupported: auditing large language models against supplied evidence boundaries in drug-induced liver injury assessment.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Use of artificial intelligence to draft a mini-HTA report on a new medical device belonging to class IIb-III.Global & regional health technology assessmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) have led to a surge in AI/ML-enabled medical devices, posing new challenges for regulators because best practices for developing, testing, and monitoring these devices are still emerging. Consequently, there is a critical need for up-to-date data analyses of the regulatory landscape to inform policy-making. However, such analyses have historically relied upon manual annotation efforts because regulatory documents are unstructured, complex, multi-modal, and filled with jargon. Efforts to automate annotation using simple natural language processing methods have achieved limited success, as they lack the reasoning needed to interpret regulatory materials. Recent progress in large language models (LLMs) presents an unprecedented opportunity to unlock information embedded in regulatory documents. This work conducts the first wide-ranging validation study of LLMs for scaling data analyses in the field of medical device regulatory science. Evaluating LLM outputs using expert manual annotations and "LLM-as-a-judge," we find that LLMs can accurately extract attributes spanning pre- and post-market settings, with accuracy rates often reaching 80% or higher. We then demonstrate how LLMs can scale up analyses in three applications: (1) monitoring device validation practices, (2) coding medical device reports, and (3) identifying potential risk factors for post-market adverse events.
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.