ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2026
Ensuring the quality of in silico evidence: application to medical devices.
Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of in silico methods-computational modelling and simulation-to support the development, evaluation, and regulatory approval of medical devices is expanding rapidly. These approaches offer clear benefits in accelerating innovation, reducing development burden, and strengthening safety assessment, yet their regulatory acceptance remains inconsistent across jurisdictions. This variability reflects differences in model maturity, documentation practices, and the absence of globally harmonised criteria for assessing credibility. Building on established standards and regulatory guidance, this position paper outlines a risk-informed framework for the credible generation, assessment, and regulatory utilisation of in silico evidence that could be implemented across the medical device lifecycle. The framework emphasises clear definition of a question of interest and context of use, proportional credibility requirements based on model risk, and rigorous application of verification, validation, and uncertainty quantification. Emerging challenges posed by data-driven and hybrid models, including artificial intelligence, highlighting additional governance and data integrity considerations are also addressed. Importantly, the generation of in silico evidence increasingly relies on bioinformatics and computational biomedicine workflows, including the integration of heterogeneous biomedical data sources (e.g. medical imaging, real-world data, and population-level datasets), preprocessing and feature extraction pipelines, and hybrid mechanistic-data-driven modelling approaches. In this perspective, the authors argue that the credibility of in silico evidence is not determined solely at the level of the executable model, but across the full computational pipeline, encompassing data provenance, preprocessing, model implementation, and reproducible analysis workflows.
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.