Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42712384›Full record

ReviewBMJ digital health & AI2026

Analysis of the challenges in ensuring robust and effective clinical evaluation of AI-based digital medical devices.

Sandrine Boulet, Vincent Thévenet, Judith Abecassis, Corinne Collignon, Bruno Giraudeau, Edouard Lhomme, François Petit, Raphaël Porcher, Laura Richert, Florence Saillour and 5 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ digital health & AI, 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

15 authors.

Sandrine BouletUMR1346, HeKA, Inserm, Inria, Université Paris Cité, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0001-9863-5466
Vincent ThévenetBordeaux Population Health Research Center, U1219, Université de Bordeaux, Inserm, Bordeaux, France.
Judith AbecassisSODA, Inria, Saclay, France.
Corinne CollignonHaute Autorité de Santé, Saint-Denis, France.
Bruno GiraudeauSPHERE U1246, Université de Tours, Université de Nantes, Inserm, Tours, France.
Edouard LhommeBordeaux Population Health Research Center, U1219, Université de Bordeaux, Inserm, Bordeaux, France.
François PetitCenter for Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), Université Paris Cité and Université Sorbonne Paris Nord, Inserm, INRAE, Paris, France.
Raphaël PorcherCenter for Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), Université Paris Cité and Université Sorbonne Paris Nord, Inserm, INRAE, Paris, France.
Laura RichertBordeaux Population Health Research Center, U1219, Université de Bordeaux, Inserm, Bordeaux, France.
Florence SaillourBordeaux Population Health Research Center, U1219, Université de Bordeaux, Inserm, Bordeaux, France.
Moreno UrsinoUMR1346, HeKA, Inserm, Inria, Université Paris Cité, Paris, France.
Gaël VaroquauxSODA, Inria, Saclay, France.
Vincent VercamerDigital Health Delegation, French Ministry of Health, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0001-8143-5900
Sarah Zohar *UMR1346, HeKA, Inserm, Inria, Université Paris Cité, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0002-8429-2340
Rodolphe Thiébaut *Bordeaux Population Health Research Center, U1219, Université de Bordeaux, Inserm, Bordeaux, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The rapid evolution of algorithms over time, the validity of the digital criteria used for evaluation and the organisational impact are examples of issues that are both diverse and more specific to digital medical devices (DMDs) than drugs. Furthermore, some DMDs that use artificial intelligence (AI) have the feature of being developed using continuous learning systems, in which the algorithms learn from all the data they use. Despite these unique features, their clinical evaluation often follows existing frameworks designed for drugs. Nevertheless, the specific features of AI-based DMDs call for an adapted clinical evaluation approach and raise new methodological questions. We propose a narrative review of these characteristics and the challenges they could imply for the evaluation of DMDs. Hence, the definition of users and intended use, the choice of datasets for analytical and clinical validation, the specification of outcomes of interest, the use of real-world data studies in addition to randomised clinical trials, and the choice of an appropriate comparator are key elements that can influence the design, analysis and generalisability of the clinical assessment.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceData Interpretation, StatisticalData ScienceMachine LearningPublic Health

Identifiers

PMID42712384
PMCPMC13528383

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.