Skip to content
Log in
Review

Artificial Intelligence in Pharmacovigilance: Guiding Principles from the CIOMS Working Group XIV.

G. N. Norén Julie Durand V. Kara Elizabeth MacEntee Pileggi H. Carroll S. Hill Manfred Hauben Taxiarchis Botsis Lembit Rägo Russ B. Altman Taxiarchis Botsis J. Dogné J. Amelio Luisa Barrios Andrew Bate Arvind Bellur Adrian Berridge H. Carroll Y. Cherkas Selin Cooper M. Diniz Doug Domalik P. Franco Julie Girod Neal Grabowski Manfred Hauben Thomas Henn V. Kara Dieter Kempf Kostadinos Kidos Denny Lorenz Elizabeth MacEntee Pileggi R. Patel John Reinhard Pietzsch Hans-Jörg Römming W. Straus James Whitehead Brian Buch Julie Durand Kirsten Egebjerg Juul Kendal Harrison Satoko Hirokawa-Voorburg Alexander Horst M. Jensen J. Kjær Benny Ling Monica Da Luz Carvalho Soares Yusuke Matsunaga Dirk Mentzer Manuela Messelhäußer Flávia Moreira Cruz Nicolas Perez Irene Scholz Thomas Stammschulte Phil Tregunno Roli Mathur Eva-Lisa Meldau G. N. Norén Stephen Rosenfeld Brian Yau St-CHICAGO Heaton S. Hill H. Le Louët Lembit Rägo Kateriina Rannula P. Tsintis
Aug 2026 · Drug Safety · 0 citations · 20 references
Medicine

TL;DR

An overview of the CIOMS XIV guidance on Artificial Intelligence in Pharmacovigilance presents seven guiding principles and illustrates how these principles may be applied in practice through selected use cases.

DOI PubMed Semantic Scholar
View source

Similar papers

Aug 2026

Using artificial intelligence in clinical practice: Royal Australasian College of Physicians position statement.

The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) has recently issued a position statement titled 'Using artificial intelligence in clinical practice', which provides a framework for the safe and ethical integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into physician practice. The statement outlines core principles for implementing, interacting with and monitoring AI tools to ensure they enhance rather than replace clinical judgement, protect patient safety and privacy and abide by ethical and regulatory standards. It identifies important benefits, such as increased administrative efficiency and improved support for clinical decision-making, while cautioning against risks such as algorithmic bias, data breaches and medicolegal liabilities. The statement also offers enabling strategies to overcome various barriers such as biased or inaccurate tools, professional and public resistance to the use of AI and adverse environmental impacts. The RACP advocates for physicians to engage in AI development and implementation using an agile human-in-the-loop approach that prioritises patient safety, clinical governance, professional training and collaboration with stakeholders.

Ian A. Scott, Christian White, Tim Shaw et al. · 0 citations
Review Open access Jul 2026

AI for Causality Assessment in Pharmacovigilance: Protocol for a Scoping Review

Background Pharmacovigilance aims to protect patient safety by identifying and managing adverse events associated with pharmaceuticals. Determining the causality of these adverse events is central at both the individual case and population levels; however, it is increasingly challenging as the volume and complexity of safety data grow. Although AI and related technologies have been proposed to support causality assessment, limited research has examined how these methods are used, their information and quality requirements, or how associated risks are addressed. Objective This scoping review aims to determine the available evidence on AI-based methods for causality assessment in pharmacovigilance. The primary objective is to characterize how these methods are applied or proposed with a focus on their functional roles, reported data inputs and information needs, and associated risks. Secondary objectives include comparing applications at the individual case and population levels; describing the types of AI-based techniques and automation tools used in causality assessment workflows; and summarizing reported data quality considerations and governance mechanisms, including risk management approaches. Methods Sources describing or proposing AI-based approaches, including data-driven models (machine learning, natural language processing, knowledge graphs, and causal inference) and knowledge- or rule-based systems implementing causal assessment logic, will be eligible. Searches will be conducted in PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, ProQuest, EBSCOhost, and Ichushi Web and will be restricted to English- and Japanese-language sources. Two reviewers will independently screen records and full-text articles, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. Data will be charted on use cases, information inputs, data quality dimensions, model characteristics, governance mechanisms, and identified risks. Synthesis will follow a reflexive thematic analysis approach and be reported in accordance with PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines informed by applicable PRISMA-S (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses literature search extension) elements. Results This protocol was registered in the Open Science Framework platform on December 23, 2025. The registration was subsequently updated on May 19, 2026, to reflect an extension to the data collection period. A preliminary database search was conducted in December 2025, retrieving a total of 760 records, of which the preliminary title and abstract screening identified 196 (25.8%) articles for full-text review. Database searches are scheduled for July 2026. Data charting is scheduled for August 2026, and synthesis is scheduled for September 2026. Findings are expected to be submitted for publication by the end of December 2026. Conclusions This review is expected to provide a structured map of AI-based applications for causality assessment in pharmacovigilance, clarify reported information inputs and data quality dimensions, and synthesize risk management and governance approaches. The findings are expected to inform methodological development, practical implementation, and the governance of AI-supported causality assessment. Trial Registration Open Science Framework 10.17605/OSF.IO/QVF5C; https://osf.io/qvf5c/overview International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/101691

Miki Ohta, Miki Ota, Miki Ohta · 0 citations
Review Open access Jul 2026

The AI Hospital Formulary: A Practical Governance Framework for Prescribing, Monitoring, and Deprescribing Artificial Intelligence in Hospitals

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly entering hospital practice through diagnostic, predictive, workflow, operational, and generative applications. Hospitals often govern these systems as procurement or information-technology projects rather than as clinical–organizational interventions requiring indication, evaluation, monitoring, accountability, and withdrawal. Objective: To refine the concept of an “AI Hospital Formulary” as an operational, proportional, and accountable framework for the safe, equitable, and sustainable adoption of hospital AI. Design and Methods: This is a perspective article using a structured, non-systematic narrative synthesis and conceptual framework development. Targeted literature and policy sources were identified through purposive searches and citation chaining through 20 July 2026. The synthesis compares the formulary with existing oversight approaches, maps its lifecycle gates to regulatory and risk management duties, and applies the framework to a worked example based on published evaluations of the Epic Sepsis Model. The EQUATOR reporting-guideline selection tool was consulted, and SANRA was used to strengthen the narrative synthesis component. Framework: The revised framework combines a hospital-wide AI register, a standardized formulary monograph, six lifecycle gates, proportional review pathways, governance-of-governance safeguards, cloud and data-sovereignty controls, continuous monitoring of technical and behavioral feedback loops, and explicit renewal or deprescribing criteria. The worked example shows how version-specific evidence can lead to local validation, controlled implementation, restriction, suspension, or renewal rather than automatic adoption. Conclusions: Hospitals should not merely purchase, install, and update AI systems. They should prescribe, monitor, audit, renew, restrict, and, when necessary, deprescribe them. The AI Hospital Formulary is proposed as a complementary institutional layer that converts external standards and existing governance approaches into documented portfolio decisions at the hospital level.

F. Epelde · 0 citations
Review Open access Aug 2026

Regulatory Research Priorities for AI Use in the Medicine Lifecycle: A European Perspective with Global Relevance

Regulatory bodies play a central role in providing guidance that enables safe and effective use of artificial intelligence tools in medicine development and evaluation. Regulators can also act as catalysts for regulatory science research. To inform these efforts, a European‐wide survey was conducted to solicit stakeholder perspectives on the priority areas for regulatory science research related to the use of artificial intelligence in the medicine lifecycle. Twenty‐eight regulatory science research questions were developed covering seven thematic domains: (1) research integrity and intellectual property; (2) accuracy and reliability of AI tools; (3) data governance, confidentiality, and consent; (4) regulation and oversight; (5) ethics, fairness, and bias prevention; (6) resources and support for AI use; and (7) impact on jobs and skills. Within each domain, stakeholders ranked four research challenges. A total of 273 responses were collected from regulators, pharmaceutical industry professionals, patients and consumers, academics, and healthcare professionals. Rankings of research challenges frequently converged across stakeholder groups and levels of AI experience. The top‐ranked research questions within each domain were weighted according to the overall importance ranking of each domain to identify a list of 10 priority areas of research. The majority of the 10 priority areas fell within the domains of “Accuracy and reliability of AI tools,” “Data governance, confidentiality, and consent,” and “Ethics, fairness, and bias prevention.” This list aims to support researchers and research funding bodies in addressing knowledge gaps on artificial intelligence in the medicines lifecycle.

Luis C Pinheiro, Amanda C Langston, M. Orre et al. · 0 citations
Review Jul 2026

Reframing artificial intelligence governance in global health: from compliance to collaborative stewardship

This Viewpoint argues that prevailing ethics-based and compliance-oriented approaches to artificial intelligence (AI) in health are insufficient for the dynamic, context-dependent realities of contemporary AI systems. It proposes a shift toward collaborative stewardship, a model that emphasizes shared responsibility, continuous learning and meaningful stakeholder participation across the full lifecycle of AI in health. The analysis draws on a structured synthesis of peer-reviewed studies, major international policy documents and interdisciplinary scholarship published between 2021 and 2025. Using this evidence base, the paper introduces the C-STEER framework, which outlines practical components of collaborative stewardship and maps them to key stages of the AI lifecycle. The synthesis reveals that static ethical principles and top-down regulatory models frequently fail to account for real-world variability, equity concerns and the evolving behavior of systems. Governance approaches that combine legal, technical, organizational and participatory mechanisms, supported by continuous monitoring and local adaptation, are better positioned to build trust, enhance accountability and promote equitable outcomes. By defining collaborative stewardship and presenting the C-STEER framework, this Viewpoint moves beyond compliance-driven governance and offers a practical, context-responsive model for responsible AI integration in health systems.

M. Sokhanvar · 0 citations
Review Open access Aug 2026

A MULTIDIMENSIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN HEALTHCARE GOVERNANCE

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used to support healthcare governance by improving planning, resource allocation, policy development, and organizational decision-making. However, existing approaches to AI evaluation remain largely focused on technical performance and clinical effectiveness, providing limited guidance for assessing AI systems used in healthcare management and public administration. This study aims to develop a multidimensional framework for evaluating the effectiveness of AI in healthcare governance. The study is based on a narrative review and synthesis of contemporary scientific literature, international guidelines, health technology assessment frameworks, and AI governance recommendations. The proposed framework integrates six complementary evaluation dimensions: technical, clinical, organizational, economic, governance, and ethical. For each dimension, key evaluation objectives and recommended indicators are identified based on evidence from international methodological frameworks and recent research. The framework is intended to support healthcare managers, policymakers, researchers, and healthcare organizations in conducting comprehensive assessments of AI systems throughout their lifecycle. Unlike existing approaches that typically evaluate individual aspects of AI implementation, the proposed framework combines multiple evaluation perspectives into a unified model specifically tailored to healthcare governance. The findings contribute to the development of standardized approaches for evaluating AI-enabled decision support systems and may facilitate more evidence-informed adoption of AI technologies in healthcare management.

Yurii Cherleniuk · 0 citations