Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 May;65(3):e21-e29.
doi: 10.1111/ajd.14222. Epub 2024 Feb 28.

Minimum labelling requirements for dermatology artificial intelligence-based Software as Medical Device (SaMD): A consensus statement

Affiliations

Minimum labelling requirements for dermatology artificial intelligence-based Software as Medical Device (SaMD): A consensus statement

Åsa Ingvar et al. Australas J Dermatol. 2024 May.

Abstract

Background/objectives: Artificial intelligence (AI) holds remarkable potential to improve care delivery in dermatology. End users (health professionals and general public) of AI-based Software as Medical Devices (SaMD) require relevant labelling information to ensure that these devices can be used appropriately. Currently, there are no clear minimum labelling requirements for dermatology AI-based SaMDs.

Methods: Common labelling recommendations for AI-based SaMD identified in a recent literature review were evaluated by an Australian expert panel in digital health and dermatology via a modified Delphi consensus process. A nine-point Likert scale was used to indicate importance of 10 items, and voting was conducted to determine the specific characteristics to include for some items. Consensus was achieved when more than 75% of the experts agreed that inclusion of information was necessary.

Results: There was robust consensus supporting inclusion of all proposed items as minimum labelling requirements; indication for use, intended user, training and test data sets, algorithm design, image processing techniques, clinical validation, performance metrics, limitations, updates and adverse events. Nearly all suggested characteristics of the labelling items received endorsement, except for some characteristics related to performance metrics. Moreover, there was consensus that uniform labelling criteria should apply across all AI categories and risk classes set out by the Therapeutic Goods Administration.

Conclusions: This study provides critical evidence for setting labelling standards by the Therapeutic Goods Administration to safeguard patients, health professionals, consumers, industry, and regulatory bodies from AI-based dermatology SaMDs that do not currently provide adequate information about how they were developed and tested.

Keywords: Delphi consensus; artificial intelligence; dermatology; labelling; medical device.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

REFERENCES

    1. Rajpurkar P, Lungren MP. The current and future state of AI interpretation of medical images. N Engl J Med. 2023;388(21):1981–1990.
    1. Kelly BS, Judge C, Bollard SM, Clifford SM, Healy GM, Aziz A, et al. Radiology artificial intelligence: a systematic review and evaluation of methods (RAISE). Eur Radiol. 2022;32(11):7998–8007.
    1. Daneshjou R, Smith MP, Sun MD, Rotemberg V, Zou J. Lack of transparency and potential bias in artificial intelligence data sets and algorithms: a scoping review. JAMA Dermatol. 2021;157(11):1362–1369.
    1. Caffery LJ, Janda M, Miller R, Abbott LM, Arnold C, Caccetta T, et al. Informing a position statement on the use of artificial intelligence in dermatology in Australia. Australas J Dermatol. 2023;64(1):e11–e20.
    1. Maron RC, Haggenmuller S, von Kalle C, Utikal JS, Meier F, Gellrich FF, et al. Robustness of convolutional neural networks in recognition of pigmented skin lesions. Eur J Cancer. 2021;145:81–91.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources