Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. 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

Oxford spinout trials revolutionary bioelectronic implant to treat incontinence

The first participants in a clinical trial of a bioelectrical therapy to treat incontinence have received their “smart” bioelectronic implants.

COVID-19 is a leading cause of death in children and young people in the US

A new study led by researchers at the University of Oxford’s Department of Computer Science has found that, between 2021 and 2022, COVID-19 was a leading cause of death in children and young people in the United States, ranking eighth overall. The results demonstrate that pharmaceutical and public health interventions should continue to be applied to limit the spread of the coronavirus and protect again severe disease in this age group.

Three or more concussions linked with worse brain function in later life

Experiencing three or more concussions is linked with worsened brain function in later life, according to new research.

New blood test could save lives of heart attack victims

Researchers in the Department of Physiology, Anatomy and Genetics (DPAG) have developed a blood test that measures stress hormone levels after heart attacks. The test – costing just £10 – could ensure patients receive timely life-saving treatment.

COVID-19 increased public trust in science, new survey shows

A survey of over 2000 British adults has found that public trust in science, particularly genetics, increased significantly during the pandemic. However, those with extremely negative attitudes towards science tend to have high self-belief in their own understanding despite low textbook knowledge.

Gero Miesenböck awarded 2023 Japan Prize

Congratulations to Professor Gero Miesenböck, Department of Physiology, Anatomy and Genetics (DPAG), who has been awarded the 2023 Japan Prize in the field of Life Sciences, together with Professor Karl Deisseroth, for pioneering work in the field of optogenetics.