Cited by 198Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationHealthcare RegulationSafety Systems Engineering in Autonomy

Regulatory Frameworks for Development and Evaluation of Artificial Intelligence–Based Diagnostic Imaging Algorithms: Summary and Recommendations

Open access
Larson, David B., Harvey, Hugh, Rubin, Daniel L., Irani, Neville, Tse, Justin R., Langlotz, Curtis P.·2021·Journal of the American College of Radiology

Abstract

Although artificial intelligence (AI)-based algorithms for diagnosis hold promise for improving care, their safety and effectiveness must be ensured to facilitate wide adoption. Several recently proposed regulatory frameworks provide a solid foundation but do not address a number of issues that may prevent algorithms from being fully trusted. In this article, we review the major regulatory frameworks for software as a medical device applications, identify major gaps, and propose additional strategies to improve the development and evaluation of diagnostic AI algorithms. We identify the following major shortcomings of the current regulatory frameworks: (1) conflation of the diagnostic task with the diagnostic algorithm, (2) superficial treatment of the diagnostic task definition, (3) no mechanism to directly compare similar algorithms, (4) insufficient characterization of safety and performance elements, (5) lack of resources to assess performance at each installed site, and (6) inherent conflicts of interest. We recommend the following additional measures: (1) separate the diagnostic task from the algorithm, (2) define performance elements beyond accuracy, (3) divide the evaluation process into discrete steps, (4) encourage assessment by a third-party evaluator, (5) incorporate these elements into the manufacturers' development process. Specifically, we recommend four phases of development and evaluation, analogous to those that have been applied to pharmaceuticals and proposed for software applications, to help ensure world-class performance of all algorithms at all installed sites. In the coming years, we anticipate the emergence of a substantial body of research dedicated to ensuring the accuracy, reliability, and safety of the algorithms.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jacr.2020.09.060

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [37]Ren J. Liu P.J. Fertig E. Snoek J. Poplin R. DePristo M.A. Dillon J.V. Lakshminarayanan B. Likelihood ratios for out-of-distribution detection. arXiv:1906.02845 Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.02845 Submitted June 7, 2019. Updated December 5, 2019. Accessed May 10, 2020 · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Larson, D. B., Harvey, H., Rubin, D. L., Irani, N., Tse, J. R., & Langlotz, C. P.
Affiliations
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
  • University College London (GB)
  • University of Kansas Medical Center (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Corresponding author
Larson, David B.
Venue
Journal of the American College of Radiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-03
Volume
18
Issue
3
Pages
413-424
ISSN
1546-1440 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3093602247
Cited by
198
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 38 · 2025: 51 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 20
FWCI
1.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American College of Radiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • International Business Machines Corporation
  • GE Healthcare
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Regulation
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Safety Systems Engineering in Autonomy
Keywords
artificial intelligence, diagnostic imaging algorithm, regulatory framework, software as a medical device, algorithm evaluation, performance characterization, third-party evaluation, conflicts of interest, medical device regulation
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Artificial Intelligence, Diagnostic Imaging, Software, Reproducibility of Results

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