Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41832928›Full record

ReviewEuropean radiology2026

Artificial intelligence as medical device in radiology in 2025: the regulatory scenario in the EU, USA, and China.

Filippo Pesapane, Carlo De Cecco, Hao Wang, Mathias K Hauglid, Francesco Sardanelli

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
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.

Filippo PesapaneBreast Imaging Division, Radiology Department, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy. filippo.pesapane@ieo.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0374-5054
Carlo De CeccoDivision of Cardiothoracic Imaging, Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Hao WangInstitute for Medical Device Control, National Institutes for Food and Drug Control, Beijing, China.
Mathias K HauglidWikborg Rein Advokatfirma AS, Oslo, Norway.
Francesco SardanelliLega Italiana per la Lotta contro i Tumori (LILT) Milano Monza Brianza, Milan, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the last decade, advanced AI methods were applied to radiology, providing tools for clinical practice. Regulations across countries are a relevant topic, considering that AI tools must be regarded as medical devices. We describe the regulatory scenarios in the EU, USA, and China. For the EU, we considered the 2017 Medical Device Regulation, including AI tools as "active" medical devices, the 2018 General Data Protection Regulation, protecting data privacy, and the risk-based approach by the 2024 AI Act. For the USA, we considered the three FDA premarket pathways: the 510(k)-clearance demonstrating substantial equivalence, the De Novo classification for novel devices without predicates, and the Premarket Approval process for high-risk applications demanding rigorous clinical evidence; recent regulations regarded lifecycle management, post-marketing surveillance and adaptive algorithms, underscoring the importance of real-world evidence of AI tool performance. For China, the role of the 2022 Guidance for classification and definition of AI medical software by the National Medical Products Administration is illustrated, describing how to determine whether a tool is an AI-enabled medical device, categorizing the associated risk level. The NMPA published six premarket technical review guides related to AI-enabled medical devices in radiology and medical imaging; protection of patient privacy is enforced by the law and de-identification is mandatory for manufacturers. Regulations in these three scenarios show meaningful convergences about patient's data protection, risk assessment and classification, ensuring equity and generalizability, transparency and explainability, and the need of human oversight. The radiology community will act in a world scenario more homogeneous than expected. KEY POINTS: Question Regulatory fragmentation across the EU, USA, and China creates uncertainty for radiology AI development, validation, and clinical adoption, requiring clearer international harmonization. Findings Despite differences, regulations in the EU, USA, and China converge on core requirements: patient data protection, risk classification, transparency, bias mitigation, and human oversight. Clinical relevance By highlighting convergences across major jurisdictions, this review informs radiologists and developers on safe integration of AI tools, ensuring patient safety, equity, and trustworthy adoption in clinical practice.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceEquipment and SuppliesRadiologyChinaDevice ApprovalEuropean UnionHumansUnited StatesArtificial intelligenceData anonymizationMedical device legislationPrivacyProduct surveillance

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.