Cookies on this website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Continue' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

A review of public comments on a proposed FDA regulatory framework, for modifications to artificial intelligence and machine learning-based software as a medical device, has found that 63% came from parties with financial ties to industry, and that the majority, 86% did not cite any scientific evidence.

Building with signage US Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration

The findings come from a cross-sectional study, published in BMJ Open, of the comments submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ‘Proposed Regulatory Framework for Modifications to Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning (AI/ML)-Based Software as a Medical Device (SaMD)—Discussion Paper and Request for Feedback’. 

Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) technologies have the potential to transform health care, continually incorporating insights from the vast amount of data generated every day during the delivery of health care. Many such devices must have regulatory approval or clearance before being available for clinical practice, and in the US that regulation falls to the FDA.

The suitability of traditional medical device regulatory pathways for AI/ML have been called into question because the nature of the technology means it is continually evolving and adapting to improve performance. Under the current framework it would mean that as devices evolved they would require further review and approval, which could be time consuming and may affect patient safety and interests. The FDA has therefore proposed a new regulatory framework for modifications to AI/ML and has asked for feedback from the public to refine the regulations.

“The process for developing regulations is, roughly, to get feedback from the public on its initial proposal, make changes and draft regulations or guidance, get more feedback, and eventually finalise,” said James Smith, Postdoctoral Scientist at the Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford and lead author of the report. “Anyone can comment but at present there is no requirement, or even recommendation, to disclose any conflicts of interest. Also, the FDA states that it looks for ‘good science’ in comments but it is not a requirement to incorporate it. Our goal was to look at the extent and disclosure of financial ties to industry and the use of scientific evidence.”

The team analysed all 125 publicly available comments on the FDA proposal between 2 April 2019 to 8 August 2019 and found that 79 (63%) comments came from parties with financial ties to industry in the sector. For a further 29% of comments the presence or absence of financial ties could not be confirmed. The vast majority of submitted comments (86%) did not cite any scientific literature, with only 4% citing a systematic review or meta-analysis.

The full story is available on the Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences website

Similar stories

Eoghan Mulholland receives prestigious Lee Placito Research Fellowship

Awards and Appointments General

Dr Eoghan Mulholland has received the prestigious Lee Placito Research Fellowship in Gastrointestinal Cancer. Eoghan will use this 3-year position to research cell interactions in colorectal cancers.

Eleven Oxford professors honoured by the Academy of Medical Sciences

Awards and Appointments General

The Academy of Medical Sciences has elected 11 University of Oxford biomedical and health scientists to its fellowship.

3,400 different medicines used globally to treat COVID-19

Coronavirus COVID-19 General Research

Insufficient data, and misleading recommendations led to significant early heterogeneity in global COVID-19 patient management, according to recent BMJ study.

Children and Adolescents’ Mental Health: One Year On

Coronavirus COVID-19 General Research

Parents and carers reported that behavioural, emotional and attentional difficulties in their children changed considerably throughout the past year, increasing in times of national lockdown and decreasing as restrictions eased and schools reopened, according to the latest Co-SPACE (COVID-19 Supporting Parents, Adolescents, and Children in Epidemics) study, led by experts at the University of Oxford.

Tackling climate concerns through sustainable healthcare

General

A new initiative by Oxford Medical Students and faculty is accelerating the learning of sustainable healthcare at Oxford.

Future-Proofing Mental Health

General Research

UK academics are calling for targets for mental health research in order to meet the healthcare challenges of the next decade. Published today in Journal of Mental Health, researchers set out four overarching goals that will speed up implementation of mental health research and give a clear direction for researchers and funders to focus their efforts when it comes to better understanding the treatment of mental health.