Cited by 223Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareHealthcare Regulation

Regulation of predictive analytics in medicine

Open access
Parikh, Ravi B., Obermeyer, Ziad, Navathe, Amol S.·2019·Science

Abstract

Algorithms must meet regulatory standards of clinical benefit

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 · 10.1126/science.aaw0029

Cites

8 of 8 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?

  • As AI-based devices are not in line with traditional medical practices, the ambiguity about the safety and efficacy of AI models in healthcare are still strong reasons that facilitate users' risks.

    “As AI-based devices are not in line with traditional medical practices, the ambiguity about the safety and efficacy of AI models in healthcare are still strong reasons that facilitate users’ risks [51].”
  • Lacking jurisprudence from the European General Data Protection Regulation and the new Medical Device Regulation leads to several regulatory and legal uncertainties for AI applications in radiology.

    “lacking jurisprudence from the European General Data Protection Regulation and the new Medical Device Regulation (MDR), which will come into effect in May 2020, leads to several regulatory and legal uncertainties for AI applications in radiology [32, 33].”

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. [5]Dancey JE; Biomarkers Task Force of the NCI Investigational Drug Steering Committee, Clin. Cancer Res 16, 1745(2010).20215558

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Parikh, R. B., Obermeyer, Z., & Navathe, A. S.
Affiliations
  • Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics (US)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • Philadelphia VA Medical Center (US)
Venue
Science
Published
2019-02-22
Volume
363
Issue
6429
Pages
810-812
ISSN
  • 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
  • 1095-9203
OpenAlex
W2915444077
Cited by
223
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 45 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 21
FWCI
8.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
  • Pennsylvania Department of Health
  • National Institutes of Health (DP5OD012161)
  • U.S. Food and Drug Administration
  • National Cancer Institute (T32CA009615)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Regulation
Keywords
predictive analytics, algorithm regulation, clinical benefit, artificial intelligence in healthcare, regulatory standards, clinical decision support
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Artificial Intelligence, Decision Support Techniques, Humans, United States, United States Food and Drug Administration, Evidence-Based Medicine, Benchmarking

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