Evaluation and Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Medical Devices for Clinical Decision Support
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) methods were first developed nearly seven decades ago. Only in recent years have they demonstrated their potential to improve clinical care at the bedside. AI systems are now capable of interpreting, predicting, and even generating important medical information. AI medical devices share many similarities with traditional medical devices but also diverge from them in important ways. Despite widespread optimism and enthusiasm surrounding the use of such devices to improve care processes, patient outcomes, and the healthcare experience for patients, caregivers, and clinicians alike, little evidence exists so far for their effectiveness in practice. Even less is known about the safety or equity of AI medical devices. As with any new technology, this exciting time is accompanied by appropriate questions regarding if, how much, when, and who such AI systems really help. Different stakeholders, ranging from patients to clinicians to industry device developers, may have divergent preferences or assessments of risk and benefits, warranting an informed public discussion to guide emerging regulatory efforts. This review summarizes the rapidly evolving recent efforts and evidence related to the regulation and evaluation of AI medical devices and highlights opportunities for future work to ensure their effectiveness, safety, and equity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.038 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it