This study proposes a five-phase evaluation framework for medical AI, supported by a dynamic evaluation architecture reflecting the nonlinear, iterative nature of AI systems, that provides researchers, clinical institutions, and regulators with an operational, scalable approach aligned with evolving regulatory expectations.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) has advanced rapidly across diagnostic, prognostic, and clinical decision-support applications, yet the pathway from laboratory performance to demonstrable clinical benefit remains fragmented and inconsistently defined. Existing evaluations rely heavily on retrospective testing and algorithm-centric metrics, while current guidelines emphasize reporting standards rather than specifying validation across stages of model maturity. This study proposes a five-phase evaluation framework for medical AI, supported by a dynamic evaluation architecture reflecting the nonlinear, iterative nature of AI systems. The framework integrates technical validation, operational robustness validation, controlled interaction validation, clinical evidence validation, and real-world integration validation, while incorporating phase-gating criteria and local and systemic fall-back triggers. These mechanisms enable re-entry into earlier phases based on drift, version updates, or safety signals, and accommodate parallel activities such as implementation research informing clinical trials. By systematically mapping multicenter external validation, shadow-mode testing, human–AI comparison and cooperation studies, randomized controlled trials, real-world evaluations, and adaptive designs into a coherent lifecycle pathway, the framework addresses persistent gaps between laboratory performance and clinical benefit. It provides researchers, clinical institutions, and regulators with an operational, scalable approach aligned with evolving regulatory expectations, supporting trustworthy, ethically aligned, and lifecycle-based evidence generation for medical AI systems.
Abstract Clinical artificial intelligence (AI) has advanced rapidly, with frontier large language models now matching or exceeding physician performance on simulated diagnostic reasoning and clinical decision-support tasks. Yet adoption has outpaced the evidence base: fewer than 5% of cleared U.S. Food and Drug Adminis...
John Emmett Worth, Anastasia Perez, David Wu et al.· BMJ digital health & AI· 1 citation
Clinical artificial intelligence (AI) has demonstrated performance across diagnostic, predictive, monitoring, and decision-support tasks, yet hospital adoption depends on whether that capability can produce sustainable value under local conditions. Informed by structured searches of PubMed/MEDLINE and Scopus, supplemen...
The central argument is that the value of clinical artificial intelligence is determined less by model accuracy in isolation than by the quality of the sociotechnical system into which a model is placed: governance, workflow integration, monitoring, and the preservation of meaningful human oversight.
Lucky Ilodigwe· International Journal of Med...· 1 citation
Emergency departments (EDs) operate under time pressure, diagnostic uncertainty, and cognitive overload. Artificial intelligence (AI)–driven clinical decision support systems (CDSS) promise to enhance diagnostic accuracy, risk stratification, and workflow efficiency. However, translation from algorithmic performance to...
Ritu Khandelwal, C. Gadkari, Aditya Pundkar et al.· International Journal of Eme...· 0 citations
Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used across the diagnostic pathway, from screening and disease detection to differential diagnosis, prognostic stratification, and treatment-response assessment. This narrative review examines predictive, generative, multi-modal, and agentic AI through a diagnostic-science l...
Abstract The deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) in clinical radiology has expanded rapidly worldwide, yet a persistent “ deployment gap ” remains between research performance and real-world clinical utility. The deployment gap refers to the erosion of AI performance when a model trained and validated in control...
V. Mahajan, Himanshu Makkar, Abhishek Gupta et al.· Indian Journal of Radiology...· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.