Regulatory Approval Is Not Enough: Gaps in Trustworthy AI Reporting in FDA-Cleared Medical Devices
Mirrored from arXiv — Machine Learning for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.
Computer Science > Computers and Society
arXiv:2608.12360 (cs)
[Submitted on 4 Jul 2026]
Title:Regulatory Approval Is Not Enough: Gaps in Trustworthy AI Reporting in FDA-Cleared Medical Devices
Authors:Ahmed M Salih, Oliver Díaz, Alejandro Guzman, Noah Marquez Vara, Fotios Avgoustidis, Rituraj Singh, Saman Barakat, Zahra Raisi-Estabragh, Karim Lekadir
View a PDF of the paper titled Regulatory Approval Is Not Enough: Gaps in Trustworthy AI Reporting in FDA-Cleared Medical Devices, by Ahmed M Salih and 8 other authors
View PDF
HTML (experimental)
Abstract:Background: AI/ML-enabled medical devices are increasingly deployed in healthcare under evolving regulatory frameworks. As these systems become more integrated into clinical decision-making, there is growing expectation that they demonstrate key dimensions of trustworthy AI to support clinician, patient, and public trust. Whether publicly available regulatory documentation provides sufficient evidence to independently assess the trustworthiness of cleared AI systems remains unclear. Methods: We analysed FDA AI/ML-enabled medical device summary reports published between 2021 and 2025. Reports underwent automated keyword screening followed by multi-stage manual consensus review to identify documented evidence for the six FUTURE-AI principles: Fairness, Universality, Traceability, Usability, Robustness, and Explainability. Descriptive, temporal, and clinical-domain analyses were performed. Multivariable logistic regression assessed whether year of clearance or clinical domain predicted higher reporting transparency, defined as evidence reported for three or more principles. Results: Of 1,105 FDA summary reports screened, 519 were included. Trustworthy AI reporting was limited and uneven. Nearly one quarter (24.7%) provided no evidence for any principle, and none documented evidence across all six. Robustness was most frequently reported (57.6%), while Traceability (8.3%) and Explainability (3.5%) were the most pronounced gaps. Neither year of clearance (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.88-1.19) nor clinical domain (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.46-1.15) predicted higher reporting transparency. Interpretation: Substantial, persistent trustworthy AI reporting gaps exist in FDA documentation. Regulatory approval alone should not be considered a proxy for trustworthiness. Standardised, audit-ready reporting across the AI lifecycle is needed to support independent assessment and responsible adoption of healthcare AI.
| Subjects: | Computers and Society (cs.CY); Machine Learning (cs.LG) |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2608.12360 [cs.CY] |
| (or arXiv:2608.12360v1 [cs.CY] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.12360
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
|
Full-text links:
Access Paper:
- View PDF
- HTML (experimental)
- TeX Source
View a PDF of the paper titled Regulatory Approval Is Not Enough: Gaps in Trustworthy AI Reporting in FDA-Cleared Medical Devices, by Ahmed M Salih and 8 other authors
References & Citations
Loading...
Bookmark
Bibliographic Tools
Code, Data, Media
Demos
Related Papers
About arXivLabs
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
alphaXiv Toggle
alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)
Links to Code Toggle
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub Toggle
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
GotitPub Toggle
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Huggingface Toggle
Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)
ScienceCast Toggle
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)
Demos
Replicate Toggle
Replicate (What is Replicate?)
Spaces Toggle
Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)
Spaces Toggle
TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)
Recommenders and Search Tools
Link to Influence Flower
Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
Core recommender toggle
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
More from arXiv — Machine Learning
-
SLM-Conditioned Hierarchical Relation Routing for Labeled Property Graph Learning
Aug 28
-
NeuronFuzz: Safety Neuron Guided Fuzzing for LLM Safety Evaluation
Aug 28
-
Pruning Binarized Neural Networks: A Dedicated Framework and Globally Weighted Algorithms
Aug 28
-
Muon with Finite Newton-Schulz: The Smoothing Benefit in Nonsmooth Nonconvex Optimization
Aug 28
Discussion (0)
Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.
Sign in →No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.