Scaling medical device regulatory science using large language models
Rattachement africain : us. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) have led to a surge in AI/ML-enabled medical devices, posing new challenges for regulators because best practices for developing, testing, and monitoring these devices are still emerging. Consequently, there is a critical need for up-to-date data analyses of the regulatory landscape to inform policy-making. However, such analyses have historically relied upon manual annotation efforts because regulatory documents are unstructured, complex, multi-modal, and filled with jargon. Efforts to automate annotation using simple natural language processing methods have achieved limited success, as they lack the reasoning needed to interpret regulatory materials. Recent progress in large language models (LLMs) presents an unprecedented opportunity to unlock information embedded in regulatory documents. This work conducts the first wide-ranging validation study of LLMs for scaling data analyses in the field of medical device regulatory science. Evaluating LLM outputs using expert manual annotations and "LLM-as-a-judge," we find that LLMs can accurately extract attributes spanning pre- and post-market settings, with accuracy rates often reaching 80% or higher. We then demonstrate how LLMs can scale up analyses in three applications: (1) monitoring device validation practices, (2) coding medical device reports, and (3) identifying potential risk factors for post-market adverse events.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Scaling medical device regulatory science using large language models
- Date Crossref
- 05/02/2026
- Éditeur
- Springer Science and Business Media LLC
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.