ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
Examining developer perspectives on medical AI regulatory frameworks.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Regulatory frameworks ensure the trustworthiness of artificial intelligence in medicine (AI-MD). Yet, developers' perspectives on these frameworks remain underexplored. We surveyed 122 AI-MD developers online, examining their awareness, familiarity, and adoption of regulatory frameworks, alongside their views on ethical principles and stakeholder responsibilities. About half (57.4%, n = 70) were aware of any frameworks while reporting moderate familiarity. A third (33.6%, n = 41) indicated that their organizations had formally adopted such frameworks. Developers identified robustness as the most critical ethical principle and viewed themselves as primarily responsible for implementing regulatory standards. Independent t-tests indicated marginal and significant differences in awareness (p = 0.051) and familiarity (p < 0.001), respectively, between developers from adopting and non-adopting organizations. Senior and junior developers differed significantly on both measures (p < 0.05). These findings highlight developers' strong sense of professional accountability but also reveal limited familiarity and adoption, underscoring the need for greater education and organizational support to foster responsible AI-MD practices.
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.