ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Lifecycle answerability for artificial intelligence-enabled medical device software: a regulatory science perspective.
Article in Frontiers in 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled medical device software is increasingly expected to learn, update, explain, retrieve information, draft records, and support clinical reasoning across changing care environments. Regulatory science has responded with lifecycle-oriented tools, including software-as-a-medical-device risk categorization, quality management systems, medical device software lifecycle processes, risk management, post-market monitoring, and predetermined change control plans. These tools are necessary, but they do not by themselves specify who must respond when field experience shows that an AI-supported clinical decision, workflow, validation claim, or planned update no longer fits clinical reality. Documented deployments of sepsis early-warning software in critical care-an external validation that overturned a widely deployed model's performance claims, the manufacturer's subsequent model replacement, and a prospective multi-site study linking alert response latency to sepsis mortality-show that such field signals are common, consequential, and unevenly answered. We propose lifecycle answerability as a regulatory science construct for AI-enabled medical device software. It specifies standing, addressee, reason-giving, temporal trigger, and revision pathway. We provisionally define the credible field signal that triggers these obligations, differentiate the construct from established algorithmic accountability frameworks, apply it in parallel to sepsis early warning and large language model documentation, and examine what is distinctive about answerability obligations in critically ill populations. Future work should test answerability through deployment case reviews, post-market signal audits, escalation pathway simulations, and implementation studies. Lifecycle answerability complements existing lifecycle governance by specifying the institutional response architecture through which credible field signals become institutionally actionable across the software lifecycle.
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.