IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/hepoli/v153y2025ics0168851025000168.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Regulatory approaches towards AI Medical Devices: A comparative study of the United States, the European Union and China

Author

Listed:
  • Tang, Daolu
  • Xi, Xuezhi
  • Li, Yong
  • Hu, Meiling

Abstract

The swift progression of AI within the realm of medical devices has precipitated an imperative for stringent regulatory oversight. The United States, the European Union, and China stand as vanguard entities in the regulatory landscape for AI-enhanced medical devices, each delineating unique regulatory frameworks. The European Union is renowned for its avant-garde approach to AI legislation, placing a significant onus on data security. Conversely, the regulatory paradigm in the United States is characterized by its market adaptability and flexibility. Meanwhile, China adopts a comprehensive and process-oriented approach towards the regulation of AI in medical devices. A comparative analysis of regulatory mechanisms across the United States, the European Union, and China reveals that the articulation of coherent technical review standards, the critical points of AI regulation including the emphasis on data consistency evaluations, the integration of clinical trial data to an appropriate degree, and the implementation of forward-looking strategies for software modification control, etc.. Jurisdictions beyond these leading entities are advised to assimilate the regulatory insights from these frontrunners for a more balanced regulatory framework, tailor them to the unique exigencies of their respective locales, institute a definitive ethical framework, and astutely establish core evaluative benchmarks on algorithm interpretability, consistency, and clinical validity.

Suggested Citation

  • Tang, Daolu & Xi, Xuezhi & Li, Yong & Hu, Meiling, 2025. "Regulatory approaches towards AI Medical Devices: A comparative study of the United States, the European Union and China," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:153:y:2025:i:c:s0168851025000168
    DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2025.105260
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851025000168
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.healthpol.2025.105260?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:153:y:2025:i:c:s0168851025000168. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu or the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/healthpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.