Skip to Main Content
Contribute Try STAT+ Today

Artificial intelligence is the fastest-growing frontier in medicine, but it is also among the most lawless. U.S. regulators have approved more than 160 medical AI products in recent years based on widely divergent amounts of clinical data and without requiring manufacturers to publicly document testing on patients of different genders, races, and geographies, a STAT investigation has found.

The result is a dearth of information on whether AI products will improve care or trigger unintended consequences, such as an increase in incorrect diagnoses, unnecessary treatment, or an exacerbation of racial disparities.

Unlock this article by subscribing to STAT+ and enjoy your first 30 days free!


What is it?

STAT+ is STAT's premium subscription service for in-depth biotech, pharma, policy, and life science coverage and analysis. Our award-winning team covers news on Wall Street, policy developments in Washington, early science breakthroughs and clinical trial results, and health care disruption in Silicon Valley and beyond.

What's included?

  • Daily reporting and analysis
  • The most comprehensive industry coverage from a powerhouse team of reporters
  • Subscriber-only newsletters
  • Daily newsletters to brief you on the most important industry news of the day
  • STAT+ Conversations
  • Weekly opportunities to engage with our reporters and leading industry experts in live video conversations
  • Exclusive industry events
  • Premium access to subscriber-only networking events around the country
  • The best reporters in the industry
  • The most trusted and well-connected newsroom in the health care industry
  • And much more
  • Exclusive interviews with industry leaders, profiles, and premium tools, like our CRISPR Trackr.
  • In some ways it seems that the applications are so different from each other that it doesn’t make sense to group them all together based on being based on ai.

    Anyways, the FDA should probably at the very least require disclosure of the amount of validation data used to approve, even if they don’t want to raise the bar on new fast and loose innovations. It looks like most of these would be targeted at providers (since most relate to imaging in some way) who can exercise some judgement about when to use.

Comments are closed.