Artificial intelligence in medical device software and high-risk medical devices - a review of definitions, expert recommendations and regulatory initiatives

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleContributedpeer-review

Contributors

  • Alan G Fraser - , Cardiff Metropolitan University (Author)
  • Elisabetta Biasin - , KU Leuven (Author)
  • Bart Bijnens - , Pakistan Institute of Engineering and Applied Sciences (Author)
  • Nico Bruining - , Thoraxcenter (Author)
  • Enrico G Caiani - , Polytechnic University of Milan (Author)
  • Koen Cobbaert - , Philips Research (MiPlaza) and Philips Innovation Services, Eindhoven (Author)
  • Rhodri H Davies - , Heythrop College, University of London (Author)
  • Stephen H Gilbert - , Else Kröner Fresenius Center for Digital Health (Author)
  • Leo Hovestadt - , Elekta AB (Author)
  • Erik Kamenjasevic - , KU Leuven (Author)
  • Zuzanna Kwade - , Dedalus HealthCare GmbH (Author)
  • Gearóid McGauran - , Health Products Regulatory Authority (Author)
  • Gearóid O'Connor - , Health Products Regulatory Authority (Author)
  • Baptiste Vasey - , Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (Author)
  • Frank E Rademakers - , KU Leuven (Author)

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Artificial intelligence (AI) encompasses a wide range of algorithms with risks when used to support decisions about diagnosis or treatment, so professional and regulatory bodies are recommending how they should be managed.

AREAS COVERED: AI systems may qualify as standalone medical device software (MDSW) or be embedded within a medical device. Within the European Union (EU) AI software must undergo a conformity assessment procedure to be approved as a medical device. The draft EU Regulation on AI proposes rules that will apply across industry sectors, while for devices the Medical Device Regulation also applies. In the CORE-MD project (Coordinating Research and Evidence for Medical Devices), we have surveyed definitions and summarize initiatives made by professional consensus groups, regulators, and standardization bodies.

EXPERT OPINION: The level of clinical evidence required should be determined according to each application and to legal and methodological factors that contribute to risk, including accountability, transparency, and interpretability. EU guidance for MDSW based on international recommendations does not yet describe the clinical evidence needed for medical AI software. Regulators, notified bodies, manufacturers, clinicians and patients would all benefit from common standards for the clinical evaluation of high-risk AI applications and transparency of their evidence and performance.

Details

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)467-491
Number of pages25
JournalExpert review of medical devices
Volume20
Issue number6
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2023
Peer-reviewedYes

External IDs

Scopus 85158971289
ORCID /0000-0002-1997-1689/work/169175777

Keywords

Keywords

  • Algorithms, Artificial Intelligence, European Union, Humans, Software, Surveys and Questionnaires

Library keywords