Review of proposed FDA regulation reveals the extent of financial ties to industry

15-Oct-2020 11:50 AM EDT, by University of Oxford

Newswise — The findings come from a cross-sectional study, published in BMJ Open, of the comments submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 'Proposed Regulatory Framework for Modifications to Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning (AI/ML)-Based Software as a Medical Device (SaMD)--Discussion Paper and Request for Feedback'.

Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) technologies have the potential to transform health care, continually incorporating insights from the vast amount of data generated every day during the delivery of health care. Many such devices must have regulatory approval or clearance before being available for clinical practice, and in the US that regulation falls to the FDA.

The suitability of traditional medical device regulatory pathways for AI/ML have been called into question because the nature of the technology means it is continually evolving and adapting to improve performance. Under the current framework it would mean that as devices evolved they would require further review and approval, which could be time consuming and may affect patient safety and interests. The FDA has therefore proposed a new regulatory framework for modifications to AI/ML and has asked for feedback from the public to refine the regulations.

"The process for developing regulations is, roughly, to get feedback from the public on its initial proposal, make changes and draft regulations or guidance, get more feedback, and eventually finalise," said James Smith, Postdoctoral Scientist at the Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford and lead author of the report. "Anyone can comment but at present there is no requirement, or even recommendation, to disclose any conflicts of interest. Also, the FDA states that it looks for 'good science' in comments but it is not a requirement to incorporate it. Our goal was to look at the extent and disclosure of financial ties to industry and the use of scientific evidence."

The team analysed all 125 publicly available comments on the FDA proposal between 2 April 2019 to 8 August 2019 and found that 79 (63%) comments came from parties with financial ties to industry in the sector. For a further 29% of comments the presence or absence of financial ties could not be confirmed. The vast majority of submitted comments (86%) did not cite any scientific literature, with only 4% citing a systematic review or meta-analysis.

James said: "What concerns us about these findings is that we don't have a good idea of the impact of these ties and whether they might lead to bias in this specific context. Whether these observations about prevalence of ties hold true in the development of other regulations, we don't yet know, but there is a growing body of evidence showing the influence of industry throughout the medical research enterprise, and this paper adds to that. I hope it will highlight the need for greater transparency."

Gary Collins, Professor of Medical Statistics and a co-author of the study, added: "We were also concerned by the lack of scientific evidence used in comments, and the dominance of industry over academic commenters, despite AI/ML being a very active area of research. But we hope our findings will bring the FDA proposal to the attention of academics and encourage more of them to participate in the next round of feedback on the framework, and other regulatory frameworks, where academic input could be valuable."

###

SEE ORIGINAL STUDY

Filters close

Showing results

110 of 5628
Released: 20-Oct-2020 5:10 PM EDT
Viral post claiming Dr. Anthony Fauci was indicted is entirely false
Newswise

A Facebook post from May that is newly gaining traction says that Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the leading voice of experts in the coronavirus pandemic, has been indicted for treason. This claim is entirely false. Despite President Donald Trump calling him a "disaster," Fauci has not been indicted. There is no news coverage to support this claim, nor any original, credible documents or sources to corroborate it.

Released: 20-Oct-2020 2:45 PM EDT
Trump Mocked Biden for Saying He'll ‘Listen to the Scientists’
Newswise

U.S. President Donald Trump emphasized his stark contrast to his opponent Joe Biden in dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic when he mocked Biden for saying he'll "listen to scientists."

Released: 20-Oct-2020 11:45 AM EDT
Efficacy, politics influence public trust in COVID-19 vaccine
Cornell University

If an initial COVID-19 vaccine is about as effective as a flu shot, uptake by the American public may fall far short of the 70% level needed to achieve herd immunity, new Cornell research suggests.

Released: 20-Oct-2020 10:00 AM EDT
State officials confident in election security despite voter concerns
University of Michigan

Election Day is two weeks away and confidence in election security is still wavering among voters. State election officials and clerks are confident in the process, as absentee ballots have been mailed in record numbers nationwide.

Newswise: NYU’s Center on International Cooperation and Center for Global Affairs to Launch New UN Senior Leadership Appointments Dashboard
Released: 20-Oct-2020 8:35 AM EDT
NYU’s Center on International Cooperation and Center for Global Affairs to Launch New UN Senior Leadership Appointments Dashboard
New York University

NYU's Center on International Cooperation and the Center for Global Affairs, part of NYU’s School of Professional Studies, are launching an online dashboard aimed at tracking diversity at the leadership level for the United Nations.

Released: 20-Oct-2020 8:00 AM EDT
Study reveals why some blame Asian Americans for COVID-19
Ohio State University

A blend of racial prejudice, poor coping and partisan media viewing were found in Americans who stigmatized people of Asian descent during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a new study.

Released: 19-Oct-2020 3:05 PM EDT
Experts haven’t changed their estimates for COVID-19 immunity duration, despite Trump's claim
Newswise

We rate this claim as mostly false. Infectious disease experts did not shift from saying immunity was lifelong to saying it lasted only a few months for partisan reasons. Experts haven’t changed their estimates for immunity duration, which remains unknown. Most agree that it is not a "life-time".


Showing results

110 of 5628

close
1.22658