Safely Introducing New Surgical Devices in Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery: An Argument for Use of the IDEAL Framework.

OBJECTIVE: To review the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) premarket regulatory and postmarket surveillance processes for 2 minimally invasive gynecologic surgery case studies-the laparoscopic power morcellator and the Essure permanent birth control device-and to introduce the IDEAL (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term) framework for safely introducing and monitoring minimally invasive gynecologic surgery devices. DATA SOURCES: News media publications, agency websites, legal articles, and scientific papers. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: Articles and papers were selected that described events leading to FDA approval of these devices and subsequent complications. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Based on current FDA premarket regulatory processes, 67% of devices do not currently require premarket review and only 1% are subject to clinical trial requirements. The IDEAL framework delineates 5 phases for safe introduction of medical devices: idea, development, exploration, assessment, and long-term study. CONCLUSION: The laparoscopic power morcellator and Essure cases illustrate possible shortcomings in our device approval system that could be improved upon using the IDEAL framework, which limits device use until safety and efficacy data have been established and recommends postmarket surveillance.

Identification of predicate creep under the 510(k) process: A case study of a robotic surgical device.

The FDA's 510(k) process for medical devices is based on "substantial equivalence" to devices clearedpre-1976 or legally marketed thereafter, known as predicate devices. In the last decade, several high-profile device recalls have drawn attention to this regulatory clearance process and researchers have raised questions about the validity of the 510(k) process as a broad clearance mechanism. One of the issues raised is the risk of predicate creep, a cycle of technology change through repeated clearance of devices based on predicates with slightly different technological characteristics, such as materials and power sources, or have indications for different anatomical sites. This paper proposes a new way to identify potential "predicate creep" through the use of product codes and regulatory classifications. We test this method by applying it to a case study of a Robotic Assisted Surgery (RAS) device, the Intuitive Surgical Da Vinci Si Surgical System. We find that there is evidence of predicate creep using our method, and discuss implications of this method for research and policy.

Shoulder arthroplasty device clearance: an ancestral network analysis.

BACKGROUND: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversees medical device regulation and oversight in the United States, and the majority of shoulder arthroplasty devices are cleared via the 510(k) pathway, in which a device demonstrates "substantial equivalence" to a previously cleared predicate. The purpose of this study was to determine an interconnected ancestral network of shoulder arthroplasty devices and determine equivalency ties to devices subsequently recalled by the FDA for design-related issues. METHODS: The FDA 510(k) database was used to identify all legally marketed shoulder arthroplasty devices from May 28, 1976, to July 1, 2021. Direct predicate information obtained via clearance summary documents associated with each device was used to generate an ancestral genealogy network for all shoulder arthroplasty devices cleared between July 1, 2020, and July 1, 2021. FDA design recalls were analyzed, and the number of descendant devices was calculated for each recalled device. RESULTS: An evaluation of all 476 510(k) premarket notification pathway-cleared shoulder devices since 1976 identified 0-313 descendant devices for each. Eighty of these devices (16.8%) have since been recalled, of which 10 recalls were directly related to implant design issues. Furthermore, among 29 of the most recently cleared devices (July 1, 2020-July 1, 2021), 16 (55.2%) claim predicates devices that have subsequently been withdrawn from the market because of design-related failures. CONCLUSIONS: Shoulder arthroplasty devices are linked together via an interconnected FDA 510(k) equivalency approval network dating back to 1976 despite substantive changes in material specifications and device design, many of which have since been recalled. Many of the cleared modern devices claim predicates based on subsequently recalled prostheses.

Artificial Intelligence in Breast Cancer Screening: Evaluation of FDA Device Regulation and Future Recommendations.

Importance: Contemporary approaches to artificial intelligence (AI) based on deep learning have generated interest in the application of AI to breast cancer screening (BCS). The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved several next-generation AI products indicated for BCS in recent years; however, questions regarding their accuracy, appropriate use, and clinical utility remain. Objectives: To describe the current FDA regulatory process for AI products, summarize the evidence used to support FDA clearance and approval of AI products indicated for BCS, consider the advantages and limitations of current regulatory approaches, and suggest ways to improve the current system. Evidence Review: Premarket notifications and other publicly available documents used for FDA clearance and approval of AI products indicated for BCS from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021. Findings: Nine AI products indicated for BCS for identification of suggestive lesions and mammogram triage were included. Most of the products had been cleared through the 510(k) pathway, and all clearances were based on previously collected retrospective data; 6 products used multicenter designs; 7 products used enriched data; and 4 lacked details on whether products were externally validated. Test performance measures, including sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve, were the main outcomes reported. Most of the devices used tissue biopsy as the criterion standard for BCS accuracy evaluation. Other clinical outcome measures, including cancer stage at diagnosis and interval cancer detection, were not reported for any of the devices. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this review suggest important gaps in reporting of data sources, data set type, validation approach, and clinical utility assessment. As AI-assisted reading becomes more widespread in BCS and other radiologic examinations, strengthened FDA evidentiary regulatory standards, development of postmarketing surveillance, a focus on clinically meaningful outcomes, and stakeholder engagement will be critical for ensuring the safety and efficacy of these products.

Orbital Implants Receiving Food and Drug Administration Premarket Notification.

PURPOSE: This perspective explores the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 510(k) program, occasionally referred to as premarket notification, which facilitates faster marketing of Class II medical devices, such as orbital implants by demonstrating "substantial equivalence" to previously approved devices. This allows for FDA clearance, rather than FDA approval of orbital implants via comparison to currently marketed implants rather than clinically proven safety standards. METHODS: Utilizing the FDA's publicly available 510(k) Premarket Notification database, we conducted a thorough search of FDA-cleared orbital implants dating back to the inception of the 510(k) process in 1976. RESULTS: We found that 29 orbital implants received 510(k) FDA clearance between 1987 and 2022. Four of the 29 implants were recalled. Only 9 of 29 implants had available data on their predicate or comparison devices; of these 9, 3 implants received clearance based on devices that were subsequently recalled. CONCLUSIONS: This investigation into premarket approval of orbital implants identifies a shortcoming in the FDA 510(k) approval process. Long-term implant-associated morbidity is difficult to predict during premarket analysis but is further complicated for 510(k) cleared implants since devices approved based on substantial equivalence to recalled devices may not be automatically recalled. Clinicians should be aware of the approval process for the devices they select, and review of the 510(k) process, especially as it applies to substantial equivalence to devices subsequently recalled is warranted.

Recalls of Moderate- and High-Risk Otolaryngologic Devices Approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, 2003-2019.

OBJECTIVE: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates the marketing of medical devices based on the premarket approval (PMA) or 510(k) pathway. We investigated the relationship among the regulatory pathway of otolaryngologic devices, the number of recalls, and the recall characteristics. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional analysis. SETTING: Publicly available FDA databases. METHODS: The FDA Ear, Nose, and Throat Devices Panel database was queried for 510(k) clearances and PMA approvals from 1976 to 2019. Device recalls from 2003 to 2019 were reviewed. Devices were then categorized by subspecialty, type, supporting evidence, and PMA supplement type. Logistic regression characterized the odds of recall for each device type and subspeciality. RESULTS: A total of 1061 (57.8%) 510(k) and 778 (42.3%) PMA device applications and modifications were approved. There were 120 (11.3%) recall events associated with 42 unique otolaryngologic devices cleared via the 510(k) pathway, as compared with 25 (3.2%) recall events for 5 unique PMA devices. 510(k) device approvals were more likely to be recalled than PMA device approvals (odds ratio, 3.67; 95% CI, 2.38-5.88; P < .0001). 510(k) surgical devices (odds ratio, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.1-4.4; P = .03) were more likely to be recalled than diagnostic devices. Devices designated for laryngology (70.0%) and general otolaryngology (25.0%) composed the majority of recalls. CONCLUSION: Otolaryngologic devices approved by the FDA via the 510(k) pathway exhibit a higher number of recalls than the PMA pathway. Given the balance between regulation and facilitating innovation, postmarket surveillance and ongoing regulatory improvements are critical to ensure optimal safety of medical devices.

Home-based devices in dermatology: a systematic review of safety and efficacy.

There is increasing demand for home-based devices for the treatment of dermatologic conditions and cosmesis. Commercially available devices include intense pulsed light, laser diodes, radiofrequency, light-emitting diodes, and ultraviolet B phototherapy. The objective of this report is to evaluate the current evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of home-based devices for the treatment of skin conditions. A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Cinahl was conducted on November 9, 2020 using PRISMA guidelines. Original research articles that investigated the efficacy and safety of home-based devices for dermatologic use were included. Bibliographies were screened for additional relevant articles. Strength of evidence was graded using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine guidelines. Clinical recommendations were then made based on the quality of the existing literature. After review, 37 clinical trials were included-19 were randomized controlled trials, 16 were case series, and 2 were non-randomized controlled trials. Ultimately, from our analysis, we recommend the home-based use of intense pulsed light for hair removal, laser diodes for androgenic alopecia, low power radiofrequency for rhytides and wrinkles, and light-emitting diodes for acne vulgaris. Trials investigating ultraviolet B phototherapy for psoriasis revealed mixed evidence for home treatments compared to clinic treatments. All devices had favorable safety profiles with few significant adverse events. Limitations to our review include a limited number of randomized controlled trials as well as a lack of data on the long-term efficacy and safety of each device.

Mulheres na gestão de tecnologias e engenharia clínica: o caso dos ventiladores pulmonares na Covid-19 / Women in technology management and clinical engineering: the case of pulmonary ventilators at Covid-19

RESUMO O risco iminente de desabastecimento de ventiladores pulmonares nos serviços de saúde acarretou diversas frentes de trabalho para disponibilizar o maior número possível desses equipamentos para o tratamento dos pacientes acometidos. O agravamento da crise sanitária colapsou serviços de saúde com busca isocrônica por leitos. Em meio ao colapso, foi detectada nova variante da linhagem Sars-CoV-2 e confirmado o primeiro caso de reinfecção. Entre os pontos críticos, foi destaque a escassez caótica de oxigênio e taxas de ocupação de leitos acima de 90%. Pretende-se relatar a participação das autoras nas iniciativas para o enfrentamento da pandemia de relevância internacional. Destacar a participação de mulheres em atividades que são cruciais para responder, em tempo oportuno, às demandas oriundas de emergências sanitárias. Por meio de método de pesquisa de abordagem descritiva e exploratória, buscou-se verificar o perfil das mulheres atuantes na gestão de tecnologias no enfrentamento da pandemia. Destaca-se a pesquisa recente da Associação Brasileira de Engenharia Clínica que verificou que apenas 19% dos associados respondentes eram mulheres, enquanto 81% eram do sexo masculino. Assim, divulgar e dar amplo conhecimento das ações de mulheres nessa área pode colaborar para o alcance da igualdade de gênero e empoderar todas as mulheres e meninas.

ABSTRACT The imminent risk of shortage of pulmonary ventilators in health services has resulted in several work fronts to maintain and make available the largest possible number of equipment available for the treatment of patients. The worsening of the health crisis has collapsed health services with an isochronic search for beds. Amid the collapse, a new variant of the Sars-CoV-2 strain was detected and the first case of reinfection was confirmed. Among the critical points was the chaotic oxygen scarcity and bed occupancy rates above 90%. We intend to report the participation of the authors in the initiatives to face the pandemic; highlight the participation of women in activities that are crucial to respond, in a timely manner, to the demands arising from health emergencies. Through a research method with a descriptive and exploratory approach, we sought to verify the profile of women working in the management of technologies in facing the pandemic. The recent survey by the Brazilian Association of Clinical Engineering stands out, which found that only 19% of the respondent associates were women. Thus, disseminating and giving broad knowledge of women´s actions in this area can collaborate in achieving gender equality and empower all women and girls.

Establishing a protocol for the compatibilities of closed-system transfer devices with multiple chemotherapy drugs under simulated clinical conditions.

Closed-system drug transfer devices (CSTDs) are used to prevent occupational exposure to hazardous drugs in health care providers. They are considered Class II medical devices by the US FDA and are cleared but not approved before marketing. While compatibility tests are conducted by CSTD manufacturers, the procuring institution needs to consider performing its own studies before buying these devices. Herein we tested the compatibility of the components of the Needleless® DualGuard CSTD system (vial access clips, vial access spikes, and administration adaptors) with 10 antineoplastic drugs, under simulated clinical conditions, including compounding and administration, and examined drug potency maintenance, plasticizer migration, and device functionality. All drugs maintained potency within 5%. Diisononyl phthalate leakage was observed from the administration adaptors for paclitaxel and concentrated etoposide solution. In addition, white particles were discovered in CSTDs storing busulfan solution and small cracks were observed on devices which stored melphalan. Thus, it was concluded that even in simulated clinical conditions, instead of extreme conditions, there are still concerns regarding the efficacy and safety of CSTD components. The methodology may be used to implement and detect possible interactions between antineoplastic agents and CSTD components before procurement.

Facilitating the Approval Process of Anti-Infective Technologies and Advancing Them to the Market: Insights from an FDA Workshop on Orthopaedic Device-Related Infections.

ABSTRACT: Orthopaedic device-related infection is one of the most devastating complications in orthopaedic and trauma surgery. With increasing life expectancies as well as the lifelong risk of bacterial seeding on an implant, the prevention and treatment of device-related infection remains an important area for research and development. To facilitate information exchange and enhance collaboration among various stakeholders in the orthopaedic community, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) organized an inaugural workshop on orthopaedic device-related infections, exploring the regulatory challenges that are faced when proceeding from the bench level to marketing and clinical implementation of new infection-control devices and products. This article summarizes the perspectives of scientists, clinicians, and industry partners on the current regulatory approval process for orthopaedic anti-infective technologies as well as the proposed strategies to overcome these regulatory challenges.

Scientific research and product development in the United States to address injuries from a radiation public health emergency.

The USA has experienced one large-scale nuclear incident in its history. Lessons learned during the Three-Mile Island nuclear accident provided government planners with insight into property damage resulting from a low-level release of radiation, and an awareness concerning how to prepare for future occurrences. However, if there is an incident resulting from detonation of an improvised nuclear device or state-sponsored device/weapon, resulting casualties and the need for medical treatment could overwhelm the nation's public health system. After the Cold War ended, government investments in radiation preparedness declined; however, the attacks on 9/11 led to re-establishment of research programs to plan for the possibility of a nuclear incident. Funding began in earnest in 2004, to address unmet research needs for radiation biomarkers, devices and products to triage and treat potentially large numbers of injured civilians. There are many biodosimetry approaches and medical countermeasures (MCMs) under study and in advanced development, including those to address radiation-induced injuries to organ systems including bone marrow, the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, lungs, skin, vasculature and kidneys. Biomarkers of interest in determining level of radiation exposure and susceptibility of injury include cytogenetic changes, 'omics' technologies and other approaches. Four drugs have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of acute radiation syndrome (ARS), with other licensures being sought; however, there are still no cleared devices to identify radiation-exposed individuals in need of treatment. Although many breakthroughs have been made in the efforts to expand availability of medical products, there is still work to be done.

Prospective Follow-up Report on Anterior Vertebral Body Tethering for Idiopathic Scoliosis: Interim Results from an FDA IDE Study.

BACKGROUND: Anterior vertebral body tethering (aVBT) has emerged as a novel treatment option for patients with idiopathic scoliosis. We present the results from the first U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) study on aVBT. METHODS: In this prospective review of a retrospective data set, eligible patients underwent aVBT at a single center from August 2011 to July 2015. Inclusion criteria included skeletally immature patients with Lenke type-1A or 1B curves between 30° and 65°. Clinical and radiographic parameters were collected, with the latter measured by an independent reviewer. RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients (49 girls and 8 boys), with a mean age (and standard deviation) of 12.4 ± 1.3 years (range, 10.1 to 15.0 years), were enrolled in the study. The patients had a mean of 7.5 ± 0.6 levels tethered, the mean operative time was 223 ± 79 minutes, and the mean estimated blood loss was 106 ± 86 mL. The patients were followed for an average of 55.2 ± 12.5 months and had a mean Risser grade of 4.2 ± 0.9 at the time of the latest follow-up. The main thoracic Cobb angle was a mean of 40.4° ± 6.8° preoperatively and was corrected to 18.7° ± 13.4° at the most recent follow-up. In the sagittal plane, T5-T12 kyphosis measured 15.5° ± 10.0° preoperatively, 17.0° ± 10.1° postoperatively, and 19.6° ± 12.7° at the most recent follow-up. Eighty percent of patients had curves of <30° at the most recent follow-up. The most recent Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) scores averaged 4.5 ± 0.4, and scores on the self-image questionnaire averaged 4.4 ± 0.7. No major neurologic or pulmonary complications occurred. Seven (12.3%) of 57 patients had a revision: 5 were done for overcorrection and 2, for adding-on. CONCLUSIONS: Anterior VBT is a promising technique that has emerged as a treatment option for patients with immature idiopathic scoliosis. We present the results from the first FDA-approved IDE study on aVBT, which formed the basis for the eventual Humanitarian Device Exemption approval. The findings affirm the safety and efficacy of this technique and suggest opportunities for improvement, particularly with respect to reoperation rates. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Risk of Recall Among Medical Devices Undergoing US Food and Drug Administration 510(k) Clearance and Premarket Approval, 2008-2017.

Importance: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) uses 510(k) clearance and premarket approval (PMA) pathways to ensure device safety before marketing. Premarket approval evaluates high-risk medical devices and requires clinical trials, whereas 510(k) clearance evaluates moderate-risk devices and relies on benchtop (nonclinical and biomechanical) and descriptive data. Existing literature suggests that the clinical trials required by PMA are associated with reduced risk of recall compared with devices granted 510(k) clearance. Several investigators have found weaknesses in pivotal PMA trials, raising safety concerns. Furthermore, methodological factors may have led to a previous underestimation of recall risk for devices with PMA. Objectives: To compare risk of recall and high-risk recall between devices that received 510(k) clearance and those that received PMA and to compare the risk of recall between devices for medical specialties. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study compared devices with 510(k) clearance vs those with PMA that reached the market between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2017. Two- to 12-year follow-up was obtained from the FDA's 510(k) and PMA medical device database. Orthopedic surgery was chosen arbitrarily as the reference category for analysis between specialties because no baseline exists. Statistical analysis was performed from February 1 to November 1, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: The FDA issues recalls for safety concerns. These recalls are stratified into class I, II, and III, with class I representing high-risk issues for serious harm or death. The main outcome was the hazard ratio of any recall and class I recall between devices with PMA and those with 510(k) clearance. The secondary outcome was the recall hazard ratio between specialties with respect to the reference category. A single Cox proportional hazards regression model evaluating the association of medical specialty and FDA approval pathway with the risk of recall was performed. Results: During the study period, 28 246 devices received 510(k) clearance and 310 devices (10.7%) received PMA; 3012 devices (10.7%) with 510(k) clearance and 84 devices (27.1%) with PMA were recalled. A total of 216 devices (0.8%) with 510(k) clearance and 16 devices (5.2%) with PMA had class I recalls. Devices with PMA compared with those with 510(k) clearance had a hazard ratio for recall of 2.74 (95% CI, 2.19-3.44; P < .001) and a hazard ratio for high-risk recall of 7.30 (95% CI, 4.39-12.13; P < .001). Only radiologic devices were associated with an increased risk of recall (hazard ratio, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.32-1.87; P < .001), whereas 6 specialties were assocated with a decreased risk compared with the orthopedic reference category: general and plastic surgery, otolaryngology, obstetrics and gynecology, physical medicine, hematology, and general hospital. Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that high-risk medical devices approved via PMA are associated with a greater risk of recall than previously reported. Most recalls are for devices with 510(k) clearance, also raising safety concerns. Strengthening postmarketing surveillance strategies and pivotal trials may improve device safety.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's role in improving radiation dose management for medical X-ray imaging devices.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been concerned with minimizing the unnecessary radiation exposure of people for half a century. Manufacturers of medical X-ray imaging devices are important partners in this effort. Medical X-ray imaging devices are regulated by FDA under both its electronic product regulations andits medical device regulations. FDA also publishes guidance documents that represent FDA's current thinking on a topic and provide a suggested or recommended approach to meet the requirements of a regulation or statute. FDA encourages manufacturers to develop medical devices that conform to voluntary consensus standards. Use of these standards is a central element of FDA's system to ensure that all medical devices marketed in the U.S. meet safety and effectiveness requirements. FDA staff participate actively in the development and maintenance of these standards, often advancing or introducing new safety and dose management requirements. Use of voluntary consensus standards reduces the amount of time necessary to evaluate a premarket submission and reduces the burden on manufacturers. FDA interacts with industry and other stakeholders through meetings with industry groups, public meetings, public communications, and through the development of voluntary consensus standards. In these interactions, FDA staff introduce new concepts for improving the safety of these devices and provide support for similar initiatives from professional organizations. FDA works with all stakeholders to achieve its mission of protecting and promoting the public health.

Results of the First U.S. FDA-Approved Hip Resurfacing Device at 10-Year Follow-up.

BACKGROUND: The BIRMINGHAM HIP Resurfacing (BHR) system is a metal-on-metal hip implant system approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2006. The approval required a multicenter, prospective, post-market-approval study. Our purpose is to report the current results at 10 years of follow-up. METHODS: Between October 2006 and December 2009, 280 primary BHR procedures were performed at 5 sites. Outcome measures included Kaplan-Meier survivorship, reasons for revision, radiographic component stability and osteolysis, Harris hip scores, and metal levels including cobalt and chromium. The mean age at the time of the procedure was 51.3 ± 7.1 years, 74% (206) of 280 BHRs were implanted in male patients, the mean body mass index was 27.8 ± 4.4 kg/m2, and 95% (265) of 280 hips had a primary diagnosis of osteoarthritis. The mean follow-up among all 280 hips was 9.0 ± 2.5 years. Prior to 10-year follow-up, 20 hips were revised and 5 patients representing 5 hips had died. Among the remaining 255 hips, 218 (85%) met the minimum follow-up of 10 years. RESULTS: The 10-year survival free from all-cause component revision was 92.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 89.8% to 96.1%) for all hips and 96.0% (95% CI, 93.1% to 98.9%) among male patients <65 years old at the time of the procedure. Reasons for revision included femoral loosening (n = 5), femoral neck fracture (n = 3), pseudotumor (n = 3), osteolysis (n = 2), and acetabular loosening (n = 1), as well as 6 revisions for a combination of pain, noise, or metal levels. Among unrevised hips, the median Harris hip score improved from preoperatively (59) to 1 year postoperatively (99; p < 0.001) and remained stable through 10 years postoperatively (99; p = 0.08). Radiographically, 5% (10) of 218 unrevised hips had osteolysis with no component migration. Median metal levels had increased at 1 year postoperatively (cobalt: from 0.12 ppb preoperatively to 1.5 ppb at 1 year postoperatively, p < 0.001; chromium: from 0.6 ppb preoperatively to 1.7 ppb at 1 year postoperatively, p < 0.001), then remained stable through 5 years before slightly decreasing at 10 years postoperatively (cobalt: 1.3 ppb, p < 0.001; chromium: 1.4 ppb, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This prospective, multicenter, post-market-approval study demonstrated that the BHR implant system is safe and effective through 10 years of follow-up, particularly among young male patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Key Principles of Clinical Validation, Device Approval, and Insurance Coverage Decisions of Artificial Intelligence.

Artificial intelligence (AI) will likely affect various fields of medicine. This article aims to explain the fundamental principles of clinical validation, device approval, and insurance coverage decisions of AI algorithms for medical diagnosis and prediction. Discrimination accuracy of AI algorithms is often evaluated with the Dice similarity coefficient, sensitivity, specificity, and traditional or free-response receiver operating characteristic curves. Calibration accuracy should also be assessed, especially for algorithms that provide probabilities to users. As current AI algorithms have limited generalizability to real-world practice, clinical validation of AI should put it to proper external testing and assisting roles. External testing could adopt diagnostic case-control or diagnostic cohort designs. A diagnostic case-control study evaluates the technical validity/accuracy of AI while the latter tests the clinical validity/accuracy of AI in samples representing target patients in real-world clinical scenarios. Ultimate clinical validation of AI requires evaluations of its impact on patient outcomes, referred to as clinical utility, and for which randomized clinical trials are ideal. Device approval of AI is typically granted with proof of technical validity/accuracy and thus does not intend to directly indicate if AI is beneficial for patient care or if it improves patient outcomes. Neither can it categorically address the issue of limited generalizability of AI. After achieving device approval, it is up to medical professionals to determine if the approved AI algorithms are beneficial for real-world patient care. Insurance coverage decisions generally require a demonstration of clinical utility that the use of AI has improved patient outcomes.