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

Labelling proteins through the diet gives new insights into how collagen-rich tissues change as we age

A new study, published in eLife, uses advanced tissue analysis technology to show how the incorporation of new proteins changes in bone and cartilage with age.

Drug could help diabetic hearts recover after heart attack - Oxford research

Researchers at the University of Oxford have identified a drug that could ultimately help improve heart function in people with diabetes who have heart attacks.

Largest ever global study of tuberculosis identifies genetic causes of drug resistance

Using cutting-edge genomic sequencing techniques, researchers at the University of Oxford have identified almost all the genomic variation that gives people resistance to 13 of the most common tuberculosis (TB) drug treatments.

Peter Horby receives prestigious award for outstanding service to public health

The Faculty of Public Health (FPH) has awarded its prestigious Alwyn Smith Prize to Professor Sir Peter Horby (Nuffield Department of Medicine) for 2020/2021 in recognition of his outstanding service to public health as a global leader in epidemic science.

Six new Fellowships announced as part of Oxford-Bristol Myers Squibb Fellowships Programme

The Oxford - Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) Fellowships Programme continued to demonstrate significant progress over the last year, despite the challenges associated with the global pandemic, including restricted lab access and work from home guidance. Today, we are pleased to announce six new Oxford-BMS Fellowships for 2021.

Researchers set out steps to address mental health effects of the pandemic on young people

Researchers have outlined 14 steps that schools, mental health services and policymakers can take to help children and young people whose mental health has been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.