Artificial intelligence in medical device software and high-risk medical devices – a review of definitions, expert recommendations and regulatory initiatives

References

• McCarthy J, Minsky M, Rochester N, et al. A proposal for the dartmouth summer research project on artificial intelligence. August 1955. Available from: file:///C:/Users/wcgagf/Downloads/McCarthy,%20Minsky,%20Rochester,%20Shannon%20(1955)%20-%20A%20Proposal%20for%20the%20Dartmouth%20Summer%20Research%20Project%20on%20Artificial%20Intelligence.pdf (Accessed 2022 May 19.
   Google Scholar
• Bishop JM. Artificial intelligence is stupid and causal reasoning will not fix it. Front Psychol. 2021; 11: 2603. www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.513474.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faes L, Sim DA, van Smeden M, et al. Artificial intelligence and statistics: just the old wine in new wineskins? Front Digit Health. 2022;4:833912.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• International Medical Device Regulators Forum. Software as a Medical Device (SaMD) Working Group. “Software as a Medical Device”: possible framework for risk categorization and corresponding considerations. IMDRF/SaMD WG/N12FINAL. 2014. Available from: https://www.imdrf.org/documents/software-medical-device-possible-framework-risk-categorization-and-corresponding-considerations.
   Google Scholar
• Medical Device Coordination Group. MDCG 2019-11: Guidance on Qualification and Classification of Software in Regulation (EU) 2017/745 – MDR and Regulation (EU) 2017/746 – IVDR. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/health/system/files/2020-09/md_mdcg_2019_11_guidance_qualification_classification_software_en_0.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Samoili S, López Cobo M, Gómez E, et al. AI watch. Defining artificial iIntelligence. Towards an operational definition and taxonomy of artificial intelligence. EUR 30117 EN. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• ISO/IEC 22989:2022 Information technology - Artificial intelligence - Artificial intelligence concepts and terminology. Available from: https://www.iso.org/standard/74296.html
   Google Scholar
• Doshi-Velez F, Kim B Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning. 2017. ArXiV pre-print. Available from: https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.08608
   Google Scholar
• Rudin C. Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead |. Nature Mach Intell. 2019;1:206–215.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• IEEE Global Initiative on ethics of autonomous and intelligent systems. Ethically aligned design: a vision for prioritizing human well-being with autonomous and intelligent systems. First. IEEE. 2019; Available from: https://ethicsinaction.ieee.org/wp-content/uploads/ead1e.pdf
   Google Scholar
• High-Level Expert Group. European Commission, Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology. Ethics guidelines trustworthy AI, 2019. Available from: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2759/346720.
   Google Scholar
• Regulation (EU) 2017/745 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2017 on medical devices, amending Directive 2001/83/EC, Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 and Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 and repealing Council Directives 90/385/EEC and 93/42/EEC. Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32017R0745.
   Google Scholar
• Directive 2007/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 amending Council Directive 90/385/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to active implantable medical devices, Council Directive 93/42/EEC concerning medical devices and Directive 98/8/EC concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market. Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:247:0021:0055:en:PDF
   Google Scholar
• Medical Device Coordination Group. MDCG 2020-1: guidance on Clinical Evaluation (MDR)/Performance Evaluation (IVDR) of Medical Device Software. March 2020. Available from: https://health.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2020-09/md_mdcg_2020_1_guidance_clinic_eva_md_software_en_0.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Hwang TJ, Kesselheim AS, Vokinger KN. Lifecycle regulation of artificial intelligence– and machine learning–based software devices in medicine. JAMA. 2019;322(23):2285–2286.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muehlematter UJ, Daniore P, Vokinger KN. Approval of artificial intelligence and machine learning-based medical devices in the USA and Europe (2015–20): a comparative analysis. Lancet Digit Health. 2021;3(3):e195–e203.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Benjamens S, Dhunnoo P, Meskó B. The state of artificial intelligence-based FDA-approved medical devices and algorithms: an online database. Npj Digital Medicine. 2020;3(1):118.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Leeuwen KG, Schalekamp S, Rutten MJCM, et al. Artificial intelligence in radiology: 100 commercially available products and their scientific evidence. Eur Radiol. 2021;31:3797–3804.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu X, Faes L, Kale AU, et al. A comparison of deep learning performance against health-care professionals in detecting diseases from medical imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Digit Health. 2019;1:e271–e297.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ferrante Di Ruffano L, Takwoingi Y, Dinnes J, et al. Computer‐assisted diagnosis techniques (dermoscopy and spectroscopy‐based) for diagnosing skin cancer in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;12(CD013186). DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD013186
   Google Scholar
• Christodoulou E, Ma J, Collins GS, et al. A systematic review shows no performance benefit of machine learning over logistic regression for clinical prediction models. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;110:12–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nagendran M, Chen Y, Lovejoy CA, et al. Artificial intelligence versus clinicians: systematic review of design, reporting standards, and claims of deep learning studies. BMJ. 2020;368:m689.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wu E, Wu K, Daneshjou R, et al. How medical AI devices are evaluated: limitations and recommendations from an analysis of FDA approvals. Nat Med. 2021;27:582‒4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelly BS, Judge C, Bollard SM, et al. Radiology artificial intelligence: a systematic review and evaluation of methods (RAISE). Eur Radiol. 2022;32:7998‒8007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plana D, Shung DL, Grimshaw AA, et al. Randomized clinical trials of machine learning interventions in health care: a systematic review. JAMA Network Open. 2022;5(9):e2233946.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lyell D, Coiera E, Chen J, et al. How machine learning is embedded to support clinician decision making: an analysis of FDA-approved medical devices. BMJ Health Care Inform. 2021;28:e100301.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vasey B, Ursprung S, Beddoe B, et al. Association of clinician diagnostic performance with machine learning-based decision support systems: a systematic review. JAMA Network Open. 2021;4:e211276.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang C, Kors JA, Ioannou S, et al. Trends in the conduct and reporting of clinical prediction model development and validation: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2022;29:983–989.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wynants L, Van Calster B, Collins GS, et al. Prediction models for diagnosis and prognosis of covid-19: systematic review and critical appraisal. BMJ. 2020;369:m1328. Update in: BMJ. 2021 Feb 3;372:n236
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Commission. SC1-HCO-18-2020: developing methodological approaches for improved clinical investigation and evaluation of high-risk medical devices. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/opportunities/topic-details/sc1-hco-18-2020;callCode=H2020-SC1-BHC-2018-2020;freeTextSearchKeyword=;matchWholeText=true;typeCodes=1;statusCodes=31094501,31094502,31094503;programmePeriod=null;programCcm2Id=null;programDivisionCode=null;focusAreaCode=null;destination=null;mission=null;geographicalZonesCode=null;programmeDivisionProspect=null;startDateLte=null;startDateGte=null;crossCuttingPriorityCode=null;cpvCode=null;performanceOfDelivery=null;sortQuery=sortStatus;orderBy=asc;onlyTenders=false;topicListKey=callTopicSearchTableState (Accessed 2022 Jun 16
   Google Scholar
• Fraser AG, Nelissen RGHH, Kjærsgaard-Andersen P, et al. CORE-MD Investigators. Improved clinical investigation and evaluation of high-risk medical devices: the rationale and objectives of CORE-MD (Coordinating Research and Evidence for Medical Devices). Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes. 2022;8:249–258.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Medical Device Regulators Forum, SaMD Working Group. Software as a Medical Device (SaMD): Key Definitions. IMDRF/SaMD WG/N10FINAL:2013. Available from: https://www.imdrf.org/documents/software-medical-device-samd-key-definitions
   Google Scholar
• International Medical Device Regulators Forum, SaMD Working Group. Software as a medical device: clinical evaluation. IMDRF/SaMD WG/N41: 2017. Available from: https://www.imdrf.org/documents/software-medical-device-samd-clinical-evaluation.
   Google Scholar
• International Medical Device Regulators Forum, Working Group on Artificial Intelligence Medical Devices. machine learning-enabled medical devices—A subset of artificial intelligence-enabled medical devices: key terms and definitions. IMDRF/AIMD WG (PD1)/N67. Proposed document, 16 Sep 2021. Available from: https://www.imdrf.org/sites/default/files/2021-10/Machine%20Learning-enabled%20Medical%20Devices%20-%20A%20subset%20of%20Artificial%20Intelligence-enabled%20Medical%20Devices%20-%20Key%20Terms%20and%20Definitions.pdf
   Google Scholar
• High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence. A definition of AI: main capabilities and scientific disciplines. 2018. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/system/files/ged/ai_hleg_definition_of_ai_18_december_1.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Larson DB, Harvey H, Rubin DL, et al. Regulatory frameworks for development and evaluation of artificial intelligence-based diagnostic imaging algorithms: summary and recommendations. J Am Coll Radiol. 2021;18:413–424.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Commission. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) And amending certain union legislative acts. Brussels. 2021;21(4):COM(2021) 206 final 2021/0106 (COD).
   Google Scholar
• Lekadir K, Quaglio G, Tselioudis Garmendia A, et al. Artificial intelligence in healthcare. Applications, risks, and ethical and societal impacts. European Parliamentary Research Service - Scientific Foresight Unit (EPRS - STOA). PE 729.512 – June 2022. Available from: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2022/729512/EPRS_STU%282022%29729512_EN.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• International Standardisation Organisation/International Electrotechnical Commission (ISO/IEC). Joint Technical Committee 1/SC 42. Information technology — vocabulary. (2015). ISO/IEC 2382: 2015.(revision under review) Available from: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso-iec:2382:ed-1:v1:en
   Google Scholar
• ISO/IEC JTC 1 (on information technology)/Sub-committee 42 (on AI). Information technology — artificial intelligence — artificial intelligence concepts and terminology. 2022. 2022–07 ISO/IEC 22989:2022 Available from: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso-iec:22989:ed-1:v1:en
   Google Scholar
• ISO/IEC JTC 1 (on information technology)/Sub-committee 42 (on AI) IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBS). Artificial Intelligence Medical Devices Working Group (EMB/Stds Com/AIMDWG). Available from: https://sagroups.ieee.org/aimdwg/
   Google Scholar
• IEEE Recommended practice for the quality management of datasets for medical artificial intelligence. 2022 IEEE 2801-2022 Available from: https://standards.ieee.org/ieee/2801/7459/
   Google Scholar
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2017: The Digital Transformation. doi: 10.1787/9789264268821-en
   Google Scholar
• OECD. Council on Artificial Intelligence. OECD, Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence, OECD/LEGAL/0449. 2019. Available from: https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0449
   Google Scholar
• Expert OECD Group on Artificial Intelligence. Scoping the OECD AI principles: deliberations of the expert group on artificial intelligence at the OECD (AIGO). OECD digital economy Papers No. 291. OECD Publishing; Paris; 2019. doi: 10.1787/d62f618a-en
   Google Scholar
• OECD Committee on digital economy policy. OECD Framework for the classification of AI systems. (2022). OECD Digital Economy Papers, No. 323.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. Ethics and governance of artificial intelligence for health. WHO guidance. Geneva (2021) https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240029200.
   Google Scholar
• Food and Drug Administration, USA. Proposed regulatory framework for modifications to artificial intelligence /machine learning (AI/ML)-based software as a medical device (SaMD). 2019. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/files/medical%20devices/published/US-FDA-Artificial-Intelligence-and-Machine-Learning-Discussion-Paper.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Food & Drug Administration. Content of premarket submissions for device software functions - draft guidance for industry and food and drug administration staff November 4, 2021. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/153781/download
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Artificial Intelligence for Europe. COM/2018/237 final. Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2018%3A237%3AFIN
   Google Scholar
• Samoili S, López Cobo M, Delipetrev B, et al., AI Watch. Defining Artificial Intelligence 2.0. Towards an operational definition and taxonomy for the AI landscape, EUR 30873 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Schmitt L. Mapping global AI governance: a nascent regime in a fragmented landscape. AI and Ethics. 2022;2:303–314.
   Google Scholar
• Salthouse TA. Localizing age-related individual differences in a hierarchical structure. Intelligence. 2004;32:10.1016.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deary IJ, Penke L, Johnson W. The neuroscience of human intelligence differences. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2010;11:201–211.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Medicine Products Administration, People’s Republic of China. Technical guideline on AI-aided software. 1 July 2021 [in Mandarin] https://www.nmpa.gov.cn/xxgk/ggtg/qtggtg/20210708111147171.html (accessed 2022 Aug 4
   Google Scholar
• Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. Government response to consultation on the future regulation of medical devices in the United Kingdom, 26 June 2022. https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-the-future-regulation-of-medical-devices-in-the-united-kingdom
   Google Scholar
• Liu X, Rivera SC, Moher D. et al; SPIRIT-AI and CONSORT-AI Working Group. Reporting guidelines for clinical trial reports for interventions involving artificial intelligence: the CONSORT-AI Extension. BMJ. 2020;Vol. 370:m3164.
   Google Scholar
• Rivera SC, Liu X, Chan AW, et al. SPIRIT-AI and CONSORT-AI Working Group. Guidelines for clinical trial protocols for interventions involving artificial intelligence: the SPIRIT-AI Extension. BMJ. 2020;370:m3210.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vasey B, Nagendran M, Campbell B, et al. DECIDE-AI expert group. Reporting guideline for the early stage clinical evaluation of decision support systems driven by artificial intelligence: DECIDE-AI. BMJ. 2022;377:e070904.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Collins GS, Dhiman P, Andaur Navarro CL, et al. Protocol for development of a reporting guideline (TRIPOD-AI) and risk of bias tool (PROBAST-AI) for diagnostic and prognostic prediction model studies based on artificial intelligence. BMJ Open. 2021;11(7):e048008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sounderajah V, Ashrafian H, Golub RM, et al. STARD-AI steering committee. Developing a reporting guideline for artificial intelligence-centred diagnostic test accuracy studies: the STARD-AI protocol. BMJ Open. 2021;11(6):e047709.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kitaguchi D, Watanabe Y, Madani A, et al. Computer Vision in Computer Vision in Surgery International Collaborative. Artificial intelligence for computer vision in surgery: a call for developing reporting guidelines. Ann Surg. 2022;275:e609–e611.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwendicke F, Singh T, Lee JH, et al. IADR E-oral health network and the ITU WHO focus group AI for Health. Artificial intelligence in dental research: checklist for authors, reviewers, readers. J Dent. 2021;107:103610.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daneshjou R, Barata C, Betz-Stablein B, et al. Checklist for evaluation of image-based artificial intelligence reports in dermatology: CLEAR derm consensus guidelines from the international skin imaging collaboration artificial intelligence working group. JAMA Dermatol. 2022;158:90–96.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park Y, Jackson GP, Foreman MA, et al. Evaluating artificial intelligence in medicine: phases of clinical research. JAMIA Open. 2020;3:326–331.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sendak MP, D’Arcy J, Kashyap S, et al. A path for translation of machine learning products into healthcare delivery. EMJ Innov. 2020. DOI:10.33590/emjinnov/19-00172.
   Google Scholar
• McCradden MD, Stephenson EA, Anderson JA. Clinical research underlies ethical integration of healthcare artificial intelligence. Nat Med. 2020;26:1325–1326.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higgins D, Madai VI. From bit to bedside: a practical framework for artificial intelligence product development in healthcare. Adv Intell Sys. 2020;2(10):2000052.
   Google Scholar
• Sengupta PP, Shrestha S, Berthon B, et al. Proposed Requirements for Cardiovascular Imaging-Related Machine Learning Evaluation (PRIME): a checklist: reviewed by the American College of Cardiology Healthcare Innovation Council. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2020;13:2017–2035.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lekadir K, Osuala R, Gallin C, et al. FUTURE-AI: guiding principles and consensus recommendations for trustworthy artificial intelligence in medical imaging. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2109.09658.pdf (accessed 2022 Aug 18).
   Google Scholar
• Norgeot B, Quer G, Beaulieu-Jones BK, et al. Minimum information about clinical artificial intelligence modeling: the MI-CLAIM checklist. Nat Med. 2020;26:1320–1324.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hernandez-Boussard T, Bozkurt S, Ioannidis JPA, et al. MINIMAR (MINimum Information for Medical AI Reporting): developing reporting standards for artificial intelligence in health care. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020;27:2011–2015.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sendak MP, Gao M, Brajer N, et al. Presenting machine learning model information to clinical end users with model facts labels. NPJ Digit Med. 2020;3:41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olczak J, Pavlopoulos J, Prijs J, et al. Presenting artificial intelligence, deep learning, and machine learning studies to clinicians and healthcare stakeholders: an introductory reference with a guideline and a Clinical AI Research (CAIR) checklist proposal. Acta Orthop. 2021;92:513–525.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mongan J, Moy L, Kahn CE Jr. Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM): a Guide for Authors and Reviewers. Radiol Artif Intell. 2020;2:e200029.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vollmer S, Mateen BA, Bohner G, et al. Machine learning and artificial intelligence research for patient benefit: 20 critical questions on transparency, replicability, ethics, and effectiveness. BMJ. 2020;368(l):6927.
   Google Scholar
• Scott I, Carter S, Coiera E. Clinician checklist for assessing suitability of machine learning applications in healthcare. BMJ Health & Care Informatics. 2021;28:e100251.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Petzold A, Albrecht P, Balcer L, et al. IMSVISUAL, ERN-EYE Consortium. Artificial intelligence extension of the OSCAR-IB criteria. Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2021;8:1528–1542.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• EQUATOR Network. Available from: https://www.ndorms.ox.ac.uk/research/research-groups/equator-network
   Google Scholar
• Shelmerdine SC, Arthurs OJ, Denniston A, et al. Review of study reporting guidelines for clinical studies using artificial intelligence in healthcare. BMJ Health Care Inform. 2021;28:e100385.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Skivington K, Matthews L, Simpson SA, et al. A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of medical research council guidance. BMJ. 2021;374:n2061.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCulloch P, Altman DG, Campbell WB, et al. No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet. 2009;374:1105–1112.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirst A, Philippou Y, Blazeby J, et al. No surgical innovation without evaluation: evolution and further development of the IDEAL framework and recommendations. Ann Surg. 2019;269:211–220.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sedrakyan A, Campbell B, Merino JG, et al. IDEAL-D: a rational framework for evaluating and regulating the use of medical devices. BMJ. 2016;353:i2372.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johner C, Molnar C, Purde A, et al. Guideline for AI for medical products. Available from: https://github.com/johner-institut/ai-guideline/blob/master/Guideline-AI-Medical-Devices_EN.md
   Google Scholar
• Heil BJ, Hoffman MM, Markowetz F, et al. Reproducibility standards for machine learning in the life sciences. Nat Methods. 2021;18:1132–1135.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luo W, Phung D, Tran T, et al. Guidelines for developing and reporting machine learning predictive models in biomedical research: a Multidisciplinary View. J Med Internet Res. 2016;18(12):e323.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matschinske J, Alcaraz N, Benis A, et al. The AIMe registry for artificial intelligence in biomedical research. Nat Methods. 2021;18:1128–1131.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aggarwal R, Sounderajah V, Martin G, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of deep learning in medical imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis. NPJ Digit Med. 2021;4:65.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/1182 of 16 July 2021 on the harmonised standards for medical devices drafted in support of Regulation (EU) 2017/745 of the European Parliament and of the Council. C/2021/5210. OJ L 256: 100–102. Available from: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec_impl/2021/1182/oj
   Google Scholar
• European Court of Justice. Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 October 2016. James Elliott construction limited v Irish asphalt limited (Case C613/14). ECLI:EU:C:2016:821. https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=D54C832F0D6E8B4AAAC47ECD004A5733?text=&docid=184891&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1528615
   Google Scholar
• Zielke T. Is artificial intelligence ready for standardization? In: Yilmaz M, Niemann J, Clarke P, et al., editors. Systems, software and services process improvement. EuroSPI 2020. Communications in computer and information science. 2020;1251:259–274. Springer: Cham.
   Google Scholar
• ISO 13485: 2016. Medical devices — quality management systems — requirements for regulatory purposes. Available from: https://www.iso.org/standard/59752.html
   Google Scholar
• ISO 14155:2020. Clinical investigation of medical devices for human subjects — good clinical practice. Available from: https://www.iso.org/standard/71690.html
   Google Scholar
• ISO 14971:2019. Medical devices — application of risk management to medical devices. Available from: https://www.iso.org/standard/72704.html
   Google Scholar
• ETSI. Standardization request in support of safe & trustworthy artificial intelligence. Available from: https://www.etsi.org/newsroom/blogs/entry/standardization-request-in-support-of-safe-trustworthy-artificial-intelligence
   Google Scholar
• Nativi S, De Nigris S. AI standardisation landscape: state of play and link to the EC proposal for an AI regulatory framework, EUR 30772 EN. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Joint Research Centre, European Commission. Science for policy brief: how can Europe become a global leader in AI in health? 26 January 2021. https://ai-watch.ec.europa.eu/publications/science-policy-brief-how-can-europe-become-global-leader-ai-health_en
   Google Scholar
• Righi R, Lopez Cobo M, Samoili S, et al. Science for policy brief. EU in the global artificial intelligence landscape. Eur Commission, 2021, JRC125613.
   Google Scholar
• OCEANIS. Global AI standards repository. Available from: https://ethicsstandards.org/repository/#:~:text=The%20Global%20AI%20Standards%20Repository,compilation%20of%20user%20submitted%20entries
   Google Scholar
• AI Watch. Joint Research Centre, European Commission, Seville. Available from: https://ai-watch.ec.europa.eu/publications_en
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency (EMA). Regulatory science, research needs (2021) Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/regulatory-procedural-guideline/ema-regulatory-science-2025-strategic-reflection_en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• EMA with HMA (Heads of Medicines Agencies). Accelerating clinical trials in the EU (ACT EU) (2022). Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/accelerating-clinical-trials-eu-act-eu-better-clinical-trials-address-patients-needs
   Google Scholar
• Koene A, Clifton C, Hatada Y, et al. A governance framework for algorithmic accountability and transparency. European Parliament Directorate General for Parliamentary Research Services, Scientific Foresight Unit (STOA). PE 624.262 April 2019. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2019/624262/EPRS_STU(2019)624262_EN.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• OECD.AI Policy Observatory. Available from: https://oecd.ai/en/
   Google Scholar
• Council of Europe Ad Hoc Committee on AI (CAHAI). Available from: https://www.coe.int/en/web/artificial-intelligence/cahai
   Google Scholar
• Committee on Artificial Intelligence (CAI). Available from: https://www.coe.int/en/web/artificial-intelligence/cai
   Google Scholar
• Council of Europe. Steering Committee for Human Rights in the fields of Biomedicine and Health (CDBIO). Available from: https://www.coe.int/en/web/artificial-intelligence
   Google Scholar
• Mittelstadt B. The impact of artificial intelligence on the doctor-patient relationship. Report commissioned by the steering committee for human rights in the fields of biomedicine and health. Council of Europe, 2021. Available from: https://www.coe.int/en/web/bioethics/report-impact-of-ai-on-the-doctor-patient-relationship
   Google Scholar
• CEN-CENELEC Joint Technical Committee 21 ‘Artificial intelligence.’ Available from: https://www.cencenelec.eu/areas-of-work/cen-cenelec-topics/artificial-intelligence/
   Google Scholar
• CEN-CENELEC Work Programme 2022. Available from: https://www.cencenelec.eu/media/CEN-CENELEC/News/Publications/2022/cen-cenelec_work_programme2022.pdf
   Google Scholar
• WHO/ITU-T Focus Group on Artificial Intelligence for Health (FG-AI4H). Available from: https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/focusgroups/ai4h/Documents/FG-AI4H-ToR.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Working Groups include Regulatory considerations on AI for health, and Clinical evaluation of AI for health. Available from: https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/focusgroups/ai4h/Pages/default.aspx
   Google Scholar
• International Standardization Organisation ISO. ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 42 Artificial Intelligence. Available from: https://www.iso.org/committee/6794475.html
   Google Scholar
• International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). 62/411/NP: testing of Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning-enabled Medical Devices. Available from: https://www.iec.ch/dyn/www/f?p=103:23:612016022541470::::FSP_ORG_ID,FSP_LANG_ID:1245,25
   Google Scholar
• International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). Artificial intelligence/machine learning-enabled medical device – performance evaluation process. Available from: https://www.iec.ch/ords/f?p=103:38:7211217005198::::FSP_ORG_ID,FSP_APEX_PAGE,FSP_PROJECT_ID:1245,23,107066
   Google Scholar
• IEEE P2673 Intelligence Augmentation for Medical Imaging Working Group. Available from: https://sagroups.ieee.org/2673/
   Google Scholar
• EMBS Artificial Intelligence Medical Devices Working Group. Available from: https://sagroups.ieee.org/aimdwg/
   Google Scholar
• IEEE 2801-2022. Recommended practice for the quality management of datasets for medical artificial intelligence. 2022 Available from: https://standards.ieee.org/ieee/2801/7459/
   Google Scholar
• IEEE 2801-2022. Recommended practice for the quality management of datasets for medical artificial intelligence. 2022. Available from: https://sagroups.ieee.org/aimdwg/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2018/12/P2801-PAR.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Artificial Intelligence Medical Devices Working Group. Standard for the performance and safety evaluation of artificial intelligence based medical device: terminology. Available from: https://sagroups.ieee.org/aimdwg/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2018/12/P2802-PAR.pdf
   Google Scholar
• New IEEE standard (IEEE P2802) Available from: https://development.standards.ieee.org/myproject-web/public/view.html#pardetail/6755
   Google Scholar
• Wiegand T, Lee N, Pujari S, et al. Whitepaper for the ITU/WHO Focus Group on Artificial Intelligence for Health. Available from: https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/focusgroups/ai4h/Documents/FG-AI4H_Whitepaper.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Wenzel MA, Wiegand T Towards international standards for the evaluation of artificial intelligence for health. 2019 ITU Kaleidoscope: ICT for Health: networks, Standards and Innovation (ITU K), 2019: 1–10. doi: 10.23919/ITUK48006.2019.8996131.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. Terms of reference of the MDCG Working Group on New Technologies. Available from: https://health.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2020-09/md_tor_wg7_nt_en_0.pdf
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency. EMA Regulatory science to 2025. Strategic reflection. 2020. Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/regulatory-procedural-guideline/ema-regulatory-science-2025-strategic-reflection_en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency. Accelerating clinical trials in the EU (ACT EU) - Delivering an EU clinical trials transformation initiative. 2022. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/regulatory-procedural-guideline/accelerating-clinical-trials-eu-act-eu-delivering-eu-clinical-trials-transformation-initiative_en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• ICMRA Informal Innovation Network. Horizon Scanning Assessment Report – artificial Intelligence. 6 August 2021. Available from: https://www.icmra.info/drupal/sites/default/files/2021-08/horizon_scanning_report_artificial_intelligence.pdf
   Google Scholar
• European Parliament, Panel for the Future of Science and Technology (STOA). Centre for Artificial Intelligence (C4AI). Available from: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/stoa/en/centre-for-AI
   Google Scholar
• Lopez Solano J, Martin A, de Souza S, et al. Governing data and artificial intelligence for all. Models for sustainable and just data governance. European Parliamentary Research Service - Scientific Foresight Unit (EPRS - STOA). PE 729.533. July 2022. Available from: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2022/729533/EPRS_STU(2022)729533_EN.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Gómez-González E, Artificial GE. Intelligence in medicine and healthcare: applications, availability and societal impact, EUR 30197 EN. AI Watch. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2020. Available from: https://idus.us.es/bitstream/handle/11441/105744/jrc120214_ai_in_medicine_and_healthcare_report-aiwatch_v50.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
   Google Scholar
• De Nigris S, Craglia M, Nepelski D, et al. AI Watch: AI uptake in health and healthcare 2020, EUR 30478 EN. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2020. doi: 10.2760/948860
   Google Scholar
• High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence. The assessment list for trustworthy artificial intelligence (ALTAI) for self assessment. 17 July 2020. https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=68342.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. State of implementation of the OECD AI principles. Insights from national AI policies. OECD Digital Economy Papers, June 2021: No. 311. Available from: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/1cd40c44-en.pdf?expires=1660206152&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=D3BBC087730E06114B8883D76B8B965F
   Google Scholar
• OECD. Mandate of the Working Party on Artificial Intelligence Governance. Available from: https://oecdgroups.oecd.org/Bodies/AdvancedSearch.aspx?Title=artificial+intelligence&Match=false
   Google Scholar
• Council of Europe. How to regulate the development of artificial intelligence? Kleijssen J. Available from: https://www.coe.int/en/web/artificial-intelligence/director-jan-kleijssen
   Google Scholar
• Council of Europe. Ad Hoc Committee on Artificial Intelligence (CAHAI). Possible elements of a legal framework on artificial intelligence, based on the Council of Europe’s standards on human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Strasbourg, 3 December 2021. CAHAI(2021)09rev. Available from: https://rm.coe.int/cahai-2021-09rev-elements/1680a6d90d
   Google Scholar
• Council of Europe. Recommendation CM/Rec(2020)1 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the human rights impacts of algorithmic systems (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 April 2020). Available from: https://search.coe.int/cm/pages/result_details.aspx?objectid=09000016809e1154
   Google Scholar
• Access Now. Mapping regulatory proposals for artificial intelligence in Europe. (2018) Available from: https://www.accessnow.org/cms/assets/uploads/2018/11/mapping_regulatory_proposals_for_AI_in_EU.pdf (accessed 2022 Jul 31
   Google Scholar
• OECD. National AI policies & strategies. Available from: https://oecd.ai/en/dashboards/overview
   Google Scholar
• Jorge Ricart R, Van Roy V, Rossetti F, et al. AI Watch - National strategies on artificial intelligence: a European perspective, 2022. Vol. EUR 31083 EN. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2022
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Evidence standards framework for digital health technologies. 09 August 2022. https://www.nice.org.uk/corporate/ecd7
   Google Scholar
• British Standards Institution (BSI). BS AAMI 34971 Guidance on the Application of ISO 14971 to artificial intelligence and machine learning. Available from: https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/projects/2020-02770#/section
   Google Scholar
• US Food & Drug Administration, Health Canada, Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. good machine learning practice for medical device development: guidingPrinciples. October 2021. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/153486/download.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Food & Drug Administration. Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning (AI/ML)-Based Software as a Medical Device (SaMD) action plan. January 2021. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/145022/download
   Google Scholar
• McNair D, Price WN. In: Health care AI: law, regulation, and policy. In: artificial intelligence in health care: the hope, the hype, the promise, the peril (Chapter 7). MS M, ST I, Ahmed M, et al.,editors.Washington DC:National Academy of Medicine; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Australian Government, Department of Health. Therapeutic Goods Administration. Regulatory changes for software based medical devices. Version 1.2, August 2021. https://www.tga.gov.au/sites/default/files/regulatory-changes-software-based-medical-devices.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Australian Government, Department of Health. Therapeutic Goods Administration. Clinical decision support software. Scope and examples Version 1.1, October 2021. https://www.tga.gov.au/sites/default/files/clinical-decision-support-software.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Wu F, Lu C, Zhu M, et al. Towards a new generation of artificial intelligence in China. Nat Mach Intell. 2020;2(6):312–316.
   Google Scholar
• Ning SX, Wu H AI, machine learning and big data laws and regulations 2022, China. GLI Global Legal Insights. Available from: https://www.globallegalinsights.com/practice-areas/ai-machine-learning-and-big-data-laws-and-regulations/china
   Google Scholar
• Fraser AG, Butchart EG, Szymański P, et al., The need for transparency of clinical evidence for medical devices in Europe. Lancet. 2018;392(10146): 521–530.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents. Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32001R1049
   Google Scholar
• Madiega T Artificial intelligence act. European Parliamentary Research Service briefing, PE 698.792 – January 2022. Available from: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2021/698792/EPRS_BRI(2021)698792_EN.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Biasin E, Kamenjasevic E. Cybersecurity of medical devices: new challenges arising from the AI Act and NIS 2 Directive proposals. International Cybersecurity Law Review. 2022;3(1):163–180.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016. on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation). Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679
   Google Scholar
• European Data Protection Board. EDPB Document on response to the request from the European Commission for clarifications on the consistent application of the GDPR, focusing on health research. 2 February 2021. Available from: https://edpb.europa.eu/sites/default/files/files/file1/edpb_replyec_questionnaireresearch_final.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Regulation (EU) 2022/868 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2022 on European data governance and amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 (Data Governance Act). Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32022R0868
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Health data space. COM(2022) 197 final. 2022. Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52022PC0197
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on harmonised rules on fair access to and use of data (Data Act). COM(2022) 68 final. 2020 Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2022%3A68%3AFIN
   Google Scholar
• Biasin E The data act will concern ehealth apps and medical devices. KU Leuven CiTiP Blog. 2022. Available from: https://www.law.kuleuven.be/citip/blog/the-data-act-will-concern-ehealth-apps-and-medical-devices/
   Google Scholar
• European Parliament resolution of 20 October 2020 on intellectual property rights for the development of artificial intelligence technologies (2020/2015(INI)). TA-9-2020-0277_EN. Available from: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2020-0277_EN.html
   Google Scholar
• Zaichuk M. IP Protection of Artificial Intelligence in Europe: tailor-made solutions required. April 2020. Available from: https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2020/04/ip-protection-of-artificial-intelligence-in-europe
   Google Scholar
• Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products. OJ L210: 29-33. Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A31985L0374
   Google Scholar
• European Court of Justice. Judgement of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 February 2017. Elisabeth Schmitt v TÜV Rheinland LGA Products GmbH. Case C‑219/15. ECLI:EU:C:2017:1z
   Google Scholar
• European Court of Justice. Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of. 5 March 2015. In: Boston Scientific Medizintechnik GmbH v AOK Sachsen-Anhalt – die Gesundheitskasse and Betriebskrankenkasse RWE. Joined Cases C-503/13 and C-504/13. ECLI:EU:C:2015. Vol. 148.
   Google Scholar
• European Parliament. Artificial intelligence and civil liability. Study requested by the JURI committee 2020. Available from: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/621926/IPOL_STU(2020)621926_EN.pdf
   Google Scholar
• European Parliament. Liability for artificial intelligence and other emerging digital technologies. Report from the expert group on liability and new technologies (2019). Available from: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2014_2019/plmrep/COMMITTEES/JURI/DV/2020/01-09/AI-report_EN.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee. Report on the safety and liability implications of Artificial Intelligence, the Internet of Things and Robotics. Brussels, 19.2.2020. COM/2020/64 final. Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?qid=1593079180383&uri=CELEX%3A52020DC0064
   Google Scholar
• Twigg-Flesner C. Guiding principles for updating the product liability directive for the digital age. ELI (European Law Institute) Innovation Paper Series, 2021. Available from: https://europeanlawinstitute.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/p_eli/Publications/ELI_Guiding_Principles_for_Updating_the_PLD_for_the_Digital_Age.pdf
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on adapting non-contractual civil liability rules to artificial intelligence (AI Liability Directive). Brussels. 2022;28(9):COM(2022) 496 final 2022/0303 (COD). Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/proposal-directive-adapting-non-contractual-civil-liability-rules-artificial-intelligence_en
   Google Scholar
• Biasin E, Kamenjasevic E. Cybersecurity of medical devices: regulatory challenges in the European Union. In: Cohen IG, Minssen T, Price WN, et al, editors. The future of medical device regulation: innovation and protection. Chapter 4, pp 51-62. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Medical Device Coordination Group. MDCG 2019-16: Guidance on cybersecurity for medical devices. December 2019. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/41863
   Google Scholar
• Directive (EU) 2016/1148 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2016 concerning measures for a high common level of security of network and information systems across the Union. OJ L 194. 2016;19(7):1–30.
   Google Scholar
• Regulation (EU) 2019/881 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on ENISA (the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity) and on information and communications technology cybersecurity certification and repealing Regulation (EU) No 526/2013 (Cybersecurity Act). OJ L 151. 2019;7(6):15–69. http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2019/881/oj
   Google Scholar
• In: Directive 2014/53/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market of radio equipment and repealing Directive 1999/5/EC. Official Journal of the European Union, L 153, 22 May 2014; 57:62-104. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:L:2014:153:TOC
   Google Scholar
• Jobin A, Ienca M, Vayena E. The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nat Mach Intell. 2019;1:389–399.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen G. Informed consent and medical artificial intelligence: what to tell the patient? Georgetown Law J. 2020;108:1425–1469.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khan SM, Liu X, Nath S, et al. A global review of publicly available datasets for ophthalmological imaging: barriers to access, usability, and generalisability. Lancet Digit Health. 2021;3:e51–e66.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lipton ZC. The mythos of model interpretability: in machine learning, the concept of interpretability is both important and slippery. Queue. 2018;16:31–57.
   Google Scholar
• Brown TB, Mann B, Ryder N, et al. Language models are few-shot learners. in advances in neural information processing systems. Curran Associates Inc. 2020;33:1877–1901.
   Google Scholar
• Breiman L. Random forests. Mach Learn. 2001;45:5–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lundberg SM, Lee S-I. A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. in advances in neural information processing systems. Curran Associates Inc. 2017;30:4768–4777.
   Google Scholar
• Gill CJ, Sabin L, Schmid CH. Why clinicians are natural bayesians. BMJ. 2005;330:1080–1083.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilkinson J, Arnold KF, Murray EJ, et al. Time to reality check the promises of machine learning-powered precision medicine. Lancet Digit Health. 2020;2:e677–e680.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Babic B, Gerke S, Evgeniou T, et al. Beware explanations from AI in health care. Science. 2021;373:284–286.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kroll JA. The fallacy of inscrutability. Phil.Trans.R.Soc. 2018; A376: 20180084.
   Google Scholar
• Markus AF, Kors JA, Rijnbeek PR. The role of explainability in creating trustworthy artificial intelligence for health care: a comprehensive survey of the terminology, design choices, and evaluation strategies. J Biomed Inform. 2021;113:103655.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U.S. Food & Drug Administration. Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning (AI/ML)-Enabled Medical Devices. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/software-medical-device-samd/artificial-intelligence-and-machine-learning-aiml-enabled-medical-devices
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Food & Drug Administration. Clinical decision support software guidance for industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff. Document issued on September 28, 2022. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/109618/download
   Google Scholar
• Australian Government, Therapeutic Goods Administration. Exemption for certain clinical decision support software. Guidance on the exemption criteria. Version 1.0, August 2022. Available from: https://www.tga.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-08/exemption-for-certain-clinical-decision-support-software.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Wiens J, Saria S, Sendak M, et al. Do no harm: a roadmap for responsible machine learning for health care. Nat Med. 2019;25:1337–1340.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U.S. 21st century cures act. Public Law 114–255—DEC. 13, 2016. Available from: https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ255/PLAW-114publ255.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Gerke S, Babic B, Evgeniou T, et al. The need for a system view to regulate artificial intelligence/machine learning-based software as medical device. NPJ Digit Med. 2020;3:53.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harada T, Shimizu T, Kaji Y, et al. A perspective from a case conference on comparing the diagnostic process: human diagnostic thinking vs. artificial intelligence (AI) decision support tools. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020; 17: 6110.
   Google Scholar
• Challen R, Denny J, Pitt M, et al. Artificial intelligence, bias and clinical safety. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019;28:231–237.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Unsworth H, Wolfram V, Dillon B, et al. NICE Artificial intelligence evidence standards working group. Building an evidence standards framework for artificial intelligence-enabled digital health technologies. Lancet Digit Health. 2022;4:e216–e217.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• van Smeden M, Heinze G, Van Calster B, et al. Critical appraisal of artificial intelligence-based prediction models for cardiovascular disease. Eur Heart J. 2022;43:2921–2930.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dombrink I, Lubbers BR, Simulescu L, et al. Critical implications of IVDR for innovation in diagnostics: input from the BioMed Alliance diagnostics task force. Hemasphere. 2022;6:e724.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar