Marketing and US Food and Drug Administration Clearance of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Enabled Software in and as Medical Devices: A Systematic Review

22Citations
Citations of this article
65Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Importance: The marketing of health care devices enabled for use with artificial intelligence (AI) or machine learning (ML) is regulated in the US by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is responsible for approving and regulating medical devices. Currently, there are no uniform guidelines set by the FDA to regulate AI- or ML-enabled medical devices, and discrepancies between FDA-approved indications for use and device marketing require articulation. Objective: To explore any discrepancy between marketing and 510(k) clearance of AI- or ML-enabled medical devices. Evidence Review: This systematic review was a manually conducted survey of 510(k) approval summaries and accompanying marketing materials of devices approved between November 2021 and March 2022, conducted between March and November 2022, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Analysis focused on the prevalence of discrepancies between marketing and certification material for AI/ML enabled medical devices. Findings: A total of 119 FDA 510(k) clearance summaries were analyzed in tandem with their respective marketing materials. The devices were taxonomized into 3 individual categories of adherent, contentious, and discrepant devices. A total of 15 devices (12.61%) were considered discrepant, 8 devices (6.72%) were considered contentious, and 96 devices (84.03%) were consistent between marketing and FDA 510(k) clearance summaries. Most devices were from the radiological approval committees (75 devices [82.35%]), with 62 of these devices (82.67%) adherent, 3 (4.00%) contentious, and 10 (13.33%) discrepant; followed by the cardiovascular device approval committee (23 devices [19.33%]), with 19 of these devices (82.61%) considered adherent, 2 contentious (8.70%) and 2 discrepant (8.70%). The difference between these 3 categories in cardiovascular and radiological devices was statistically significant (P

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Clark, P., Kim, J., & Aphinyanaphongs, Y. (2023). Marketing and US Food and Drug Administration Clearance of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Enabled Software in and as Medical Devices: A Systematic Review. JAMA Network Open, 6(7), E2321792. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.21792

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free