Artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML)-based in vitro diagnostic software is increasingly authorized for clinical use in digital pathology and hematology morphology. However, it remains unclear how often performance evidence is publicly available. We performed a systematic landscape analysis identifying 77 CE-marked or FDA-authorized AI/ML-based IVD software devices from 29 manufacturers, including 68 digital pathology and 9 hematology morphology devices, identified through a multi-source search of FDA databases, EUDAMED, PubMed, Google Scholar, manufacturer portfolios, and clinical conference proceedings. Publicly available device-specific performance evidence was identified for 30 devices (39%), while 47 devices (61%) had no identified publicly available performance evidence. Evidence availability was higher among devices with dual EU and USA authorization than EU-only devices (8/8, 100% vs 22/69, 32%; p < 0.001), and among hematology morphology devices than digital pathology devices (7/9, 78% vs 23/68, 34%; p = 0.02). In total, 15 distinct performance metrics were reported, covering discrimination, agreement, correlation, and prognostic categories. However, their use varied across publications, limiting direct cross-device comparison. While performance evaluation results do not require publication, our findings indicate a gap between evidence availability and regulatory authorization, alongside heterogeneous use of metrics. These factors may undermine confidence in innovative medical devices and hinder informed clinical adoption.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mondal et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: