Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42368309›Full record

ReviewGlobal health & medicine2026

Clinical artificial intelligence (AI) in Japan: Regulatory pathways, domain-specific evidence, and its data infrastructure from an international perspective.

Kenji Karako, Wei Tang

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Global health & medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

2 authors.

Kenji KarakoDepartment of Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Wei TangDepartment of Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) has advanced rapidly across clinical domains, generating both a growing evidence base and dedicated regulatory frameworks for AI-based software as a medical device (SaMD). This review provides a comprehensive assessment of clinical AI across five major domains-diagnostic imaging, gastrointestinal endoscopy, cardiology and remote patient monitoring, diagnosis of infectious diseases, and an AI-ready data infrastructure-examining Japan's regulatory framework, approved device portfolio, and research contributions in an international context. We reviewed literature published between 2019 and 2026, using Japan's regulatory trajectory, approved device portfolio, and domain-specific research output as the primary lens for international comparison and prioritizing prospective studies, multicenter trials, and real-world implementation reports. The state of evidence varies markedly across the domains examined: endoscopy AI has the strongest randomized trial base, while diagnostic imaging AI has seen a systematic decline in real-world performance despite large-scale regulatory approval. Across the three dimensions examined, Japan has a distinctive profile: its strengths are a regulatory and clinical deployment infrastructure-evince by an established program medical device pathway and among the world's highest densities of diagnostic imaging systems and endoscopy volumes-while the data infrastructure lags, constrained by limited open-access resources relative to programs such as The Cancer Imaging Archive and the European Health Data Space. Large language models and generative AI, falling largely outside existing SaMD frameworks, carry the risk of hallucinations and gaps in oversight that healthcare systems in Japan and abroad are only beginning to address. Japan's established program medical device regulatory pathway, high-volume clinical deployment infrastructure, and proven regulatory-approval-to-reimbursement pathway provide a strong foundation for clinical AI adoption; post-approval change management frameworks and clinical accountability mechanisms need to be strengthened, AI-ready data accessibility needs to be expanded, and validated tools need to be embedded within reimbursed clinical workflows to translate this foundation into internationally competitive AI development and deployment.

Indexed as

artificial intelligence (AI)data infrastructureJapanmachine learningsoftware as a medical device

Identifiers

PMID42368309
PMCPMC13306877

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.