超越黑箱:通过 FDA 510(k) 途径实现放射人工智能/人工智能辅助医疗设备监管透明度的途径

Alaa T Youssef, David Fronk, John Nicholas Grimes, Lina Cheuy, David B. Larson
{"title":"超越黑箱:通过 FDA 510(k) 途径实现放射人工智能/人工智能辅助医疗设备监管透明度的途径","authors":"Alaa T Youssef, David Fronk, John Nicholas Grimes, Lina Cheuy, David B. Larson","doi":"10.1101/2024.07.12.24309602","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The majority of AI/M-enabled software as a medical device (SaMD) has been cleared through the FDA 510(k) pathway, but with limited transparency on algorithm development details. Because algorithm quality depends on the quality of the training data and algorithmic input, this study aimed to assess the availability of algorithm development details in the 510(k) summaries of AI/ML-enabled SaMD. Then, clinical and/or technical equivalence between predicate generations was assessed by mapping the predicate lineages of all cleared computer-assisted detection (CAD) devices, to ensure equivalence in diagnostic function. Methods: The FDA public database was searched for CAD devices cleared through the 510(k) pathway. Details on algorithmic input, including annotation instructions and definition of ground truth, were extracted from summary statements, product webpages, and relevant publications. These findings were cross-referenced with the American College of Radiology, Data Science Institute AI Central database. Predicate lineages were also manually mapped through product numbers included within the 510(k) summaries.\nResults: In total, 98 CAD devices had been cleared at the time of this study, with the majority being computer-assisted triage (CADt) devices (67/98). Notably, none of the cleared CAD devices provided image annotation instructions in their summaries, and only one provided access to its training data. Similarly, more than half of the devices did not disclose how the ground truth was defined. Only 13 CAD devices were reported in peer-reviewed publications, and only two were evaluated in prospective studies. Significant deviations in clinical function were seen between cleared devices and their claimed predicate. Conclusion: The lack of imaging annotation instructions and signicant mismatches in clinical function between predicate generations raise concerns about whether substantial equivalence in the 510(k) pathway truly equates to equivalent diagnostic function. Avenues for greater transparency are needed to enable independent evaluations of safety and performance and promote trust in AI/ML-enabled devices.","PeriodicalId":501386,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Health Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Beyond the Black Box: Avenues to Transparency in Regulating Radiological AI/ML-enabled SaMD via the FDA 510(k) Pathway\",\"authors\":\"Alaa T Youssef, David Fronk, John Nicholas Grimes, Lina Cheuy, David B. Larson\",\"doi\":\"10.1101/2024.07.12.24309602\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: The majority of AI/M-enabled software as a medical device (SaMD) has been cleared through the FDA 510(k) pathway, but with limited transparency on algorithm development details. Because algorithm quality depends on the quality of the training data and algorithmic input, this study aimed to assess the availability of algorithm development details in the 510(k) summaries of AI/ML-enabled SaMD. Then, clinical and/or technical equivalence between predicate generations was assessed by mapping the predicate lineages of all cleared computer-assisted detection (CAD) devices, to ensure equivalence in diagnostic function. Methods: The FDA public database was searched for CAD devices cleared through the 510(k) pathway. Details on algorithmic input, including annotation instructions and definition of ground truth, were extracted from summary statements, product webpages, and relevant publications. These findings were cross-referenced with the American College of Radiology, Data Science Institute AI Central database. Predicate lineages were also manually mapped through product numbers included within the 510(k) summaries.\\nResults: In total, 98 CAD devices had been cleared at the time of this study, with the majority being computer-assisted triage (CADt) devices (67/98). Notably, none of the cleared CAD devices provided image annotation instructions in their summaries, and only one provided access to its training data. Similarly, more than half of the devices did not disclose how the ground truth was defined. Only 13 CAD devices were reported in peer-reviewed publications, and only two were evaluated in prospective studies. Significant deviations in clinical function were seen between cleared devices and their claimed predicate. Conclusion: The lack of imaging annotation instructions and signicant mismatches in clinical function between predicate generations raise concerns about whether substantial equivalence in the 510(k) pathway truly equates to equivalent diagnostic function. Avenues for greater transparency are needed to enable independent evaluations of safety and performance and promote trust in AI/ML-enabled devices.\",\"PeriodicalId\":501386,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"medRxiv - Health Policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"medRxiv - Health Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.07.12.24309602\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Health Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.07.12.24309602","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:大多数人工智能/人工智能软件作为医疗设备(SaMD)已通过FDA 510(k)途径获得批准,但算法开发细节的透明度有限。由于算法质量取决于训练数据和算法输入的质量,本研究旨在评估人工智能/ML 支持的 SaMD 的 510(k) 摘要中算法开发细节的可用性。然后,通过绘制所有已获批准的计算机辅助检测(CAD)设备的谓词谱系来评估谓词代之间的临床和/或技术等效性,以确保诊断功能的等效性。方法:在 FDA 公共数据库中搜索通过 510(k) 途径获得批准的 CAD 设备。从摘要声明、产品网页和相关出版物中提取了算法输入的详细信息,包括注释说明和基本事实的定义。这些结果与美国放射学会数据科学研究所人工智能中心数据库进行了交叉比对。此外,还通过 510(k) 摘要中包含的产品编号手动绘制了谓词系谱:研究期间,共有 98 台 CAD 设备获得批准,其中大部分是计算机辅助分流 (CADt) 设备(67/98)。值得注意的是,所有通过审核的计算机辅助分流设备都没有在其摘要中提供图像注释说明,只有一台设备提供了训练数据。同样,半数以上的设备没有披露如何定义基本真相。只有 13 种 CAD 设备在同行评审的出版物中进行了报道,只有两种设备在前瞻性研究中进行了评估。在临床功能方面,已清除的设备与其声称的原型之间存在明显偏差。结论:缺乏成像注释说明以及同类产品之间临床功能的显著不匹配,令人担忧 510(k) 途径中的实质等效是否真正等同于等效诊断功能。需要通过提高透明度的途径,对安全性和性能进行独立评估,提高人们对人工智能/移动医疗设备的信任度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Beyond the Black Box: Avenues to Transparency in Regulating Radiological AI/ML-enabled SaMD via the FDA 510(k) Pathway
Background: The majority of AI/M-enabled software as a medical device (SaMD) has been cleared through the FDA 510(k) pathway, but with limited transparency on algorithm development details. Because algorithm quality depends on the quality of the training data and algorithmic input, this study aimed to assess the availability of algorithm development details in the 510(k) summaries of AI/ML-enabled SaMD. Then, clinical and/or technical equivalence between predicate generations was assessed by mapping the predicate lineages of all cleared computer-assisted detection (CAD) devices, to ensure equivalence in diagnostic function. Methods: The FDA public database was searched for CAD devices cleared through the 510(k) pathway. Details on algorithmic input, including annotation instructions and definition of ground truth, were extracted from summary statements, product webpages, and relevant publications. These findings were cross-referenced with the American College of Radiology, Data Science Institute AI Central database. Predicate lineages were also manually mapped through product numbers included within the 510(k) summaries. Results: In total, 98 CAD devices had been cleared at the time of this study, with the majority being computer-assisted triage (CADt) devices (67/98). Notably, none of the cleared CAD devices provided image annotation instructions in their summaries, and only one provided access to its training data. Similarly, more than half of the devices did not disclose how the ground truth was defined. Only 13 CAD devices were reported in peer-reviewed publications, and only two were evaluated in prospective studies. Significant deviations in clinical function were seen between cleared devices and their claimed predicate. Conclusion: The lack of imaging annotation instructions and signicant mismatches in clinical function between predicate generations raise concerns about whether substantial equivalence in the 510(k) pathway truly equates to equivalent diagnostic function. Avenues for greater transparency are needed to enable independent evaluations of safety and performance and promote trust in AI/ML-enabled devices.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
"WE CAN ALL CONTRIBUTE IN OUR OWN WAY" : KNOWLEDGE MOBILIZATION TOOLS TO PROMOTE BEST PRACTICES IN UNIVERSAL ACCESSIBILITY Geospatial Analysis of the Association between Medicaid Ex-pansion, Minimum Wage Policies, and Alzheimer's Disease Dementia Prevalence in the United States The clinical and cost-effectiveness of interventions for preventing continence issues resulting from birth trauma: a rapid review Supporting women, girls and people who menstruate to participate in physical activity - Rapid evidence summary Performance of the Washington Group Questions in Measuring Blindness and Deafness
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1