Cited by 53Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingAI in cancer detection

The current status and future of FDA-approved artificial intelligence tools in chest radiology in the United States

Milam, M.E., Koo, C.W.·2023·Clinical Radiology

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming more widespread within radiology. Capabilities that AI algorithms currently provide include detection, segmentation, classification, and quantification of pathological findings. Artificial intelligence software have created challenges for the traditional United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval process for medical devices given their abilities to evolve over time with incremental data input. Currently, there are 190 FDA-approved radiology AI-based software devices, 42 of which pertain specifically to thoracic radiology. The majority of these algorithms are approved for the detection and/or analysis of pulmonary nodules, for monitoring placement of endotracheal tubes and indwelling catheters, for detection of emergent findings, and for assessment of pulmonary parenchyma; however, as technology evolves, there are many other potential applications that can be explored. For example, evaluation of non-idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis interstitial lung diseases, synthesis of imaging, clinical and/or laboratory data to yield comprehensive diagnoses, and survival or prognosis prediction of certain pathologies. With increasing physician and developer engagement, transparency and frequent communication between developers and regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, AI medical devices will be able to provide a critical supplement to patient management and ultimately enhance physicians' ability to improve patient care.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.crad.2022.08.135

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Recent work has provided insights into subsets of devices, but a comprehensive characterization of FDA-authorized AI-enabled devices is currently lacking.

    “Recent work has provided insights into subsets of devices6–11, but a comprehensive characterization of FDA-authorized AI-enabled devices is currently lacking.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Milam, M. E., & Koo, C. W.
Affiliations
Mayo Clinic (US)
Corresponding author
Koo, C.W.
Venue
Clinical Radiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-02
Volume
78
Issue
2
Pages
115-122
ISSN
0009-9260 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4297537833
Cited by
53
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 8 · 2020: 1
FWCI
0.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Radiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
Keywords
artificial intelligence, FDA regulation, thoracic radiology, chest radiography, lung nodule detection, endotracheal intubation, interstitial lung disease, pulmonary fibrosis, AI medical devices, regulatory approval
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Artificial Intelligence, Humans, Radiology, Radiography, Thoracic, United States, United States Food and Drug Administration

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review