Regulating Black-Box Medicine
Open accessAbstract
Data drive modern medicine. And our tools to analyze those data are growing ever more powerful. As health data are collected in greater and greater amounts, sophisticated algorithms based on those data can drive medical innovation, improve the process of care, and increase efficiency. Those algorithms, however, vary widely in quality. Some are accurate and powerful, while others may be riddled with errors or based on faulty science. When an opaque algorithm recommends an insulin dose to a diabetic patient, how do we know that dose is correct? Patients, providers, and insurers face substantial difficulties in identifying high-quality algorithms; they lack both expertise and proprietary information. How should we ensure that medical algorithms are safe and effective? Medical algorithms need regulatory oversight, but that oversight must be appropriately tailored. Unfortunately, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has suggested that it will regulate algorithms under its traditional framework, a relatively rigid system that is likely to stifle innovation and to block the development of more flexible, current algorithms. This Article draws upon ideas from the new governance movement to suggest a different path. FDA should pursue a more adaptive regulatory approach with requirements that developers disclose information underlying their algorithms. Disclosure would allow FDA oversight to be supplemented with evaluation by providers, hospitals, and insurers. This collaborative approach would supplement the agency’s review with ongoing real-world feedback from sophisticated market actors. Medical algorithms have tremendous potential, but ensuring that such potential is developed in high-quality ways demands a careful balancing between public and private oversight, and a role for FDA that mediates—but does not dominate—the rapidly developing industry.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
A principle that simply states that it is not acceptable to deploy AI systems without full explainability fails to recognise complex and important trade-offs.
“There are complex and important trade-offs involved here [15,22], and a principle that simply states that it is not acceptable to deploy AI systems without full explainability fails to recognise this.”
From The Role and Limits of Principles in AI Ethics: Towards a Focus on Tensions (2019) · cites this paper as [15]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
Cited by 64
- Authors
- Price, W.
- Affiliations
- University of Michigan (US)
- Corresponding author
- Price, W.
- ORCID
- Price, W.
- Venue
- Michigan Law Review
- Publisher
- University of Michigan Law Library
- Published
- 2017
- Volume
- 116
- Issue
- 116.3
- Pages
- 421
- ISSN
- 0026-2234 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-8557
- OpenAlex
- W2609714298
- Cited by
- 64
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 3
- FWCI
- 47.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Michigan Law Review (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- bepress Legal Repository (submittedVersion)
- SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
- PubMed
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Regulation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Keywords
- clinical algorithms, algorithm regulation, FDA oversight, adaptive regulation, algorithmic transparency, disclosure requirements, health data, artificial intelligence in healthcare, algorithmic bias
- MeSH terms
- Intersectoral Collaboration, Algorithms, Decision Making, Computer-Assisted, Decision Support Techniques, Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted, Humans, Product Surveillance, Postmarketing, Reagent Kits, Diagnostic, Software, United States, United States Food and Drug Administration, Telemedicine, Government Regulation, Patient Safety
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