Artificial intelligence (AI) tools are rapidly reshaping ophthalmology by improving screening and diagnosis for diabetic retinopathy, age-related macular degeneration, glaucoma, and increasingly retina-based systemic risk assessment. This narrative review provides a comparative assessment of regulatory pathways governing ophthalmic AI and software as a medical device (SaMD) across the United States, European Union, United Kingdom, Australia, China, Japan, Canada, India, and selected emerging jurisdictions. We used a structured search of public regulator databases, guidance documents, manufacturer disclosures, and peer-reviewed literature to assemble a representative sample of marketed or authorized devices through August 2025; the device inventory is illustrative rather than exhaustive. Key differences persist in device classification, evidence expectations, change management for adaptive algorithms, and post-market oversight. Examples such as LumineticsCore, EyeArt, DrNoon for CVD, CLAiR, and EyeWisdom illustrate how risk-based approaches vary across jurisdictions. These inconsistencies can delay multi-region deployment and complicate implementation, supporting the need for lifecycle-focused and internationally aligned standards for safe, transparent, and equitable use of ophthalmic AI.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Grzybowski et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: