John C Lin, Bhav Jain, Jay M Iyer, Ishan Rola, Anusha R Srinivasan, Chaerim Kang, Heta Patel, Ravi B Parikh
{"title":"fda批准的人工智能医疗设备的收益-风险报告。","authors":"John C Lin, Bhav Jain, Jay M Iyer, Ishan Rola, Anusha R Srinivasan, Chaerim Kang, Heta Patel, Ravi B Parikh","doi":"10.1001/jamahealthforum.2025.3351","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Devices enabled by artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) are increasingly used in clinical settings, but there are concerns regarding benefit-risk assessment and surveillance by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To characterize pre- and postmarket efficacy, safety, and risk assessment reporting for FDA-cleared AI/ML devices.</p><p><strong>Design and setting: </strong>This was a cross-sectional study using linked data from FDA decision summaries and approvals databases, the FDA Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience Database, and the FDA Medical Device Recalls Database for all AI/ML devices cleared by the FDA from September 1995 to July 2023. Data were analyzed from October to November 2024.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>AI/ML reporting of study design, data availability, efficacy, safety, bias assessments, adverse events, device recalls, and risk classification.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The analysis included data for all 691 AI/ML devices that received FDA clearance through 2023, with 254 (36.8%) cleared in or after 2021. Device summaries often failed to report study designs (323 [46.7%]), training sample size (368 [53.3%]), and/or demographic information (660 [95.5%]). Only 6 devices (1.6%) reported data from randomized clinical trials and 53 (7.7%) from prospective studies. Few premarket summaries contained data published in peer-reviewed journals (272 [39.4%]) or provided statistical or clinical performance, including sensitivity (166 [24.0%]), specificity (152 [22.0%]), and/or patient outcomes (3 [<1%]). Some devices reported safety assessments (195 [28.2%]), adherence to international safety standards (344 [49.8%]), and/or risks to health (42 [6.1%]). In all, 489 adverse events were reported involving 36 (5.2%) devices, including 458 malfunctions, 30 injuries, and 1 death. A total of 40 devices (5.8%) were recalled 113 times, primarily due to software issues.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>This cross-sectional study suggests that despite increasing clearance of AI/ML devices, standardized efficacy, safety, and risk assessment by the FDA are lacking. Dedicated regulatory pathways and postmarket surveillance of AI/ML safety events may address these challenges.</p>","PeriodicalId":53180,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Health Forum","volume":"6 9","pages":"e253351"},"PeriodicalIF":11.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12475944/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Benefit-Risk Reporting for FDA-Cleared Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Medical Devices.\",\"authors\":\"John C Lin, Bhav Jain, Jay M Iyer, Ishan Rola, Anusha R Srinivasan, Chaerim Kang, Heta Patel, Ravi B Parikh\",\"doi\":\"10.1001/jamahealthforum.2025.3351\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Devices enabled by artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) are increasingly used in clinical settings, but there are concerns regarding benefit-risk assessment and surveillance by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To characterize pre- and postmarket efficacy, safety, and risk assessment reporting for FDA-cleared AI/ML devices.</p><p><strong>Design and setting: </strong>This was a cross-sectional study using linked data from FDA decision summaries and approvals databases, the FDA Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience Database, and the FDA Medical Device Recalls Database for all AI/ML devices cleared by the FDA from September 1995 to July 2023. Data were analyzed from October to November 2024.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>AI/ML reporting of study design, data availability, efficacy, safety, bias assessments, adverse events, device recalls, and risk classification.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The analysis included data for all 691 AI/ML devices that received FDA clearance through 2023, with 254 (36.8%) cleared in or after 2021. Device summaries often failed to report study designs (323 [46.7%]), training sample size (368 [53.3%]), and/or demographic information (660 [95.5%]). Only 6 devices (1.6%) reported data from randomized clinical trials and 53 (7.7%) from prospective studies. Few premarket summaries contained data published in peer-reviewed journals (272 [39.4%]) or provided statistical or clinical performance, including sensitivity (166 [24.0%]), specificity (152 [22.0%]), and/or patient outcomes (3 [<1%]). Some devices reported safety assessments (195 [28.2%]), adherence to international safety standards (344 [49.8%]), and/or risks to health (42 [6.1%]). In all, 489 adverse events were reported involving 36 (5.2%) devices, including 458 malfunctions, 30 injuries, and 1 death. A total of 40 devices (5.8%) were recalled 113 times, primarily due to software issues.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>This cross-sectional study suggests that despite increasing clearance of AI/ML devices, standardized efficacy, safety, and risk assessment by the FDA are lacking. Dedicated regulatory pathways and postmarket surveillance of AI/ML safety events may address these challenges.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":53180,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JAMA Health Forum\",\"volume\":\"6 9\",\"pages\":\"e253351\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":11.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12475944/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JAMA Health Forum\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2025.3351\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMA Health Forum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2025.3351","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Benefit-Risk Reporting for FDA-Cleared Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Medical Devices.
Importance: Devices enabled by artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) are increasingly used in clinical settings, but there are concerns regarding benefit-risk assessment and surveillance by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Objective: To characterize pre- and postmarket efficacy, safety, and risk assessment reporting for FDA-cleared AI/ML devices.
Design and setting: This was a cross-sectional study using linked data from FDA decision summaries and approvals databases, the FDA Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience Database, and the FDA Medical Device Recalls Database for all AI/ML devices cleared by the FDA from September 1995 to July 2023. Data were analyzed from October to November 2024.
Main outcomes and measures: AI/ML reporting of study design, data availability, efficacy, safety, bias assessments, adverse events, device recalls, and risk classification.
Results: The analysis included data for all 691 AI/ML devices that received FDA clearance through 2023, with 254 (36.8%) cleared in or after 2021. Device summaries often failed to report study designs (323 [46.7%]), training sample size (368 [53.3%]), and/or demographic information (660 [95.5%]). Only 6 devices (1.6%) reported data from randomized clinical trials and 53 (7.7%) from prospective studies. Few premarket summaries contained data published in peer-reviewed journals (272 [39.4%]) or provided statistical or clinical performance, including sensitivity (166 [24.0%]), specificity (152 [22.0%]), and/or patient outcomes (3 [<1%]). Some devices reported safety assessments (195 [28.2%]), adherence to international safety standards (344 [49.8%]), and/or risks to health (42 [6.1%]). In all, 489 adverse events were reported involving 36 (5.2%) devices, including 458 malfunctions, 30 injuries, and 1 death. A total of 40 devices (5.8%) were recalled 113 times, primarily due to software issues.
Conclusions and relevance: This cross-sectional study suggests that despite increasing clearance of AI/ML devices, standardized efficacy, safety, and risk assessment by the FDA are lacking. Dedicated regulatory pathways and postmarket surveillance of AI/ML safety events may address these challenges.
期刊介绍:
JAMA Health Forum is an international, peer-reviewed, online, open access journal that addresses health policy and strategies affecting medicine, health, and health care. The journal publishes original research, evidence-based reports, and opinion about national and global health policy. It covers innovative approaches to health care delivery and health care economics, access, quality, safety, equity, and reform.
In addition to publishing articles, JAMA Health Forum also features commentary from health policy leaders on the JAMA Forum. It covers news briefs on major reports released by government agencies, foundations, health policy think tanks, and other policy-focused organizations.
JAMA Health Forum is a member of the JAMA Network, which is a consortium of peer-reviewed, general medical and specialty publications. The journal presents curated health policy content from across the JAMA Network, including journals such as JAMA and JAMA Internal Medicine.