ArticleClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2026
Artificial Intelligence for Regulatory Evidence: A Systematic Document Analysis of European Medicines Agency Regulatory Advice and Public Reports.
Article in Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence-assisted lead optimization in drug discovery: bridging computational advances and translational challenges.Medicinal chemistry research : an international journal for rapid communications on design and mechanisms of action of biologically active agents · 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
Artificial intelligence (AI) is receiving increasing attention across the entire lifecycle of medicines, from early development to postauthorization use. While various AI tools have been developed in commercial and academic settings, the extent of their use in regulatory contexts within the European Union remains unknown. In this study, we systematically analyzed the use of AI for regulatory evidence by reviewing Public reports and internal development advice documents from the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Of 26,480 documents screened, 52 documents contained AI use, reflecting 43 unique AI tools used across quality, nonclinical, clinical, and pharmacovigilance domains. The majority of AI tools were deployed in clinical applications, and outputs were used either directly as endpoints, in shaping clinical trial methodology, or in ancillary analyses. Comments and advice from the EMA regarding AI use varied according to the context of use and covered aspects of documentation, methodology, validation, and lifecycle management. Our findings indicate that AI use in regulatory evidence is still limited but showing an increasing trend. As the field is still novel, there are limited regulatory precedents, and AI-specific guideline development and harmonization across regulatory jurisdictions are still ongoing. In this light, the quantitative characterization of AI tools and AI-related regulatory comments captured in this analysis provide concrete insights into AI use and frequent regulatory considerations, aiding in both AI tool and AI guideline development.
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.