ReviewPLOS digital health2026
1,357 AI medical devices cleared, 3 actually tested on patient outcomes.
Review in PLOS digital health, 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
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) tools are entering clinical practice at unprecedented speed. 1,357 AI/ML-enabled medical devices have received U.S. FDA clearance or approval, yet their impact on patient outcomes remains largely untested. We conducted a systematic analysis of all FDA-cleared AI/ML-enabled medical devices through December 5, 2025 using the FDA device database and the ACR Data Science Institute catalogue, with linked searches of ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed to identify registered trials and publications. Of 1,357 cleared AI devices, only 34 (2.5%) were linked to registered prospective trials, 12 (0.9%) posted results, 12 (0.9%) had peer-reviewed publications, and only 3 (0.2%) evaluated patient-centered outcomes such as mortality, morbidity, or readmissions. Most studies (62%) employed observational designs with small, homogenous cohorts, limited subgroup analyses, and frequent exclusion of vulnerable populations. Structural barriers (including misaligned financial incentives, reliance on predicate-based regulatory pathways, and logistical challenges of multi-center trials) discourage rigorous evaluation. Internationally, FDA clearance often functions as a gateway for global deployment, raising ethical concerns when under-validated tools are introduced into low- and middle-income countries without contextual validation or safeguards. Regulatory approval has outpaced clinical validation, creating an ecosystem where innovation advances without accountability. The finding that only 0.2% of cleared devices have undergone evaluation for patient-centered outcomes reveals a profound validation gap and points to the need for evidence standards capable of keeping pace with the speed of regulatory clearance. Readiness should no longer be defined by FDA clearance alone, but by demonstrated, durable, and equitable benefit to patients.
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.