Skip to content
Review Open access

1,357 AI medical devices cleared, 3 actually tested on patient outcomes

R. Abulibdeh Sebastián Andrés Cajas Ordóñez L. Celi R. Gorijavolu Nura Izath Torleif Markussen Lunde
Aug 2026 · PLOS Digital Health · Vol 5, pp. e0001597 · 1 citation · ⚡ 1 influential · 58 references
Medicine

TL;DR

The finding that only 0.2% of cleared AI devices have undergone evaluation for patient-centered outcomes reveals a profound validation gap and points to the need for evidence standards capable of keeping pace with the speed of regulatory clearance.

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) tools are entering clinical practice at unprecedented speed. 1,357 AI/ML-enabled medical devices have received U.S. FDA clearance or approval, yet their impact on patient outcomes remains largely untested. We conducted a systematic analysis of all FDA-cleared AI/ML-enabled medical devices through December 5, 2025 using the FDA device database and the ACR Data Science Institute catalogue, with linked searches of ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed to identify registered trials and publications. Of 1,357 cleared AI devices, only 34 (2.5%) were linked to registered prospective trials, 12 (0.9%) posted results, 12 (0.9%) had peer-reviewed publications, and only 3 (0.2%) evaluated patient-centered outcomes such as mortality, morbidity, or readmissions. Most studies (62%) employed observational designs with small, homogenous cohorts, limited subgroup analyses, and frequent exclusion of vulnerable populations. Structural barriers (including misaligned financial incentives, reliance on predicate-based regulatory pathways, and logistical challenges of multi-center trials) discourage rigorous evaluation. Internationally, FDA clearance often functions as a gateway for global deployment, raising ethical concerns when under-validated tools are introduced into low- and middle-income countries without contextual validation or safeguards. Regulatory approval has outpaced clinical validation, creating an ecosystem where innovation advances without accountability. The finding that only 0.2% of cleared devices have undergone evaluation for patient-centered outcomes reveals a profound validation gap and points to the need for evidence standards capable of keeping pace with the speed of regulatory clearance. Readiness should no longer be defined by FDA clearance alone, but by demonstrated, durable, and equitable benefit to patients.

Read PDF

Similar papers

Review Open access Sep 2026

From Regulatory Authorization to Clinical Accountability: A Control Preventability Framework for Healthcare AI

A Control–Preventability Principle is proposed that allocates accountability according to control, foreseeability, preventability, and meaningful oversight capacity across developers, deploying institutions, and clinicians, with accountability following control over preventable risk rather than merely the physical loca...

Tony T. Williams, Amna Jatoi, Sazain Malik et al. · 0 citations
Review Sep 2026

Growth and Structure of the FDA-Authorized Radiology AI Landscape, 1998-2025.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES There are over one thousand FDA-authorized radiology artificial intelligence (AI) devices, but prior analyses have addressed single device subtypes or single regulatory dimensions rather than the entire cohort. We characterized these devices by function, clinical application, manufacturer segme...

Sid Dogra, Jason Wei, Stella K. Kang · 0 citations
Open access Aug 2026

Clinical Specialty Expansion of AI-Enabled and Machine Learning–Enabled Medical Devices Authorized by the US Food and Drug Administration From 1995 to 2025: Longitudinal Content Analysis

Abstract Background The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has authorized AI-enabled and machine learning (ML)–enabled medical devices since 1995 and maintains a public registry of these authorizations. Prior analyses report that radiology dominates this landscape, but whether that concentration has persisted, inten...

Youn-Soo Lee, Bo-Young Youn · 1 citation
Review Open access Sep 2026

State of clinical AI in 2026

Abstract Clinical artificial intelligence (AI) has advanced rapidly, with frontier large language models now matching or exceeding physician performance on simulated diagnostic reasoning and clinical decision-support tasks. Yet adoption has outpaced the evidence base: fewer than 5% of cleared U.S. Food and Drug Adminis...

John Emmett Worth, Anastasia Perez, David Wu et al. · 1 citation
Review Open access Sep 2026

AI-enabled clinical trials

M. Raynaud, N. Trayanova, R. Mannon et al. · 0 citations
Review Open access Aug 2026

Delays between CE mark and FDA regulatory approval of AI-enabled software for radiology

Artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled radiology software requires regulatory authorisation before marketing in Europe (EU) and the United States, but cross-jurisdictional approval sequencing remains poorly characterised. We analysed 239 AI-enabled radiology software devices with CE marking and/or FDA clearance from...

Yijun Ren, D. Windecker, I. Shiri et al. · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.