Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42616721›Full record

ReviewPLOS digital health2026

1,357 AI medical devices cleared, 3 actually tested on patient outcomes.

Rawan Abulibdeh, Sebastián Andrés Cajas Ordóñez, Leo Anthony Celi, Rahul Gorijavolu, Nura Izath, Torleif Markussen Lunde

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Rawan AbulibdehDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Sebastián Andrés Cajas OrdóñezMIT Critical Data, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0579-6178
Leo Anthony CeliLaboratory for Computational Physiology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Rahul GorijavoluSchool of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Nura IzathMbarara University of Science and Technology Data Science Research Hub (MUDSReH), Mbarara, Uganda.
Torleif Markussen LundeVestlandets Innovasjonsselskap, Postboks, Bergen, Norway.

Funding

Bridge2AI: Patient-Focused Collaborative Hospital Repository Uniting Standards (CHoRUS) for Equitable AIOT2OD032701 · OD · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI BIHORAC, AZRA, CLERMONT, GILLES · 2022 to 2025
$24.6M
MUST Data Science Research Hub (MUDSReH) - Democratized Trusted Research Environment (dTRE)U54TW012043 · FIC · MBARARA UNIVERSITY/SCIENCE/ TECHNOLOGY · PI Leo Anthony G Celi, Jessica Elizabeth Haberer · 2021 to 2026
$6.9M
CTSA Predoctoral T32 at Johns HopkinsT32TR004928 · NCATS · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Meredith Ann Atkinson · 2024 to 2026
$1.6M
FIC NIH HHS U54 TW012043NCATS NIH HHS T32 TR004928NIH HHS OT2 OD032701
6 · The paper itself

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

PMID42616721
PMCPMC13489462

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.