Navigating the Future: A Strategic Roadmap for AI-Enabled Neurotech/MedTech Device Registration and Market Access in the EU, US, and UK

The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into Neurotechnology and medical technology (MedTech) is poised to revolutionise healthcare, offering unprecedented diagnostic and therapeutic capabilities.

However, Navigating the Future, bringing these innovative AI-enabled medical devices to market across major jurisdictions; the European Union (EU), the United States (US), and the United Kingdom (UK); presents a complex regulatory landscape.

This report provides a comprehensive strategic roadmap, dissecting the intricate regulatory pathways, detailing the financial and temporal commitments, and highlighting critical risks alongside best practices for successful market registration.

The analysis underscores the necessity of a proactive, adaptive, and jurisdiction-specific regulatory strategy, emphasising the profound impact of evolving AI-specific guidances, the criticality of robust clinical evidence, and the dynamic nature of reimbursement models.

Navigating these multifaceted requirements effectively is paramount for ensuring patient safety, fostering innovation, and achieving sustainable market access for AI-enabled neurotech/MedTech devices.

Navigating the Future of the Regulatory Landscape

The advent of Artificial Intelligence (AI) marks a transformative era in healthcare, particularly within the Neurotechnology and MedTech sectors. AI-enabled medical devices promise to enhance diagnostic accuracy, personalise therapeutic interventions, and streamline patient management, thereby addressing significant unmet clinical needs.

This technological advancement, however, introduces novel complexities for regulatory bodies tasked with ensuring product safety, efficacy, and ethical deployment. Consequently, a deep understanding of the regulatory frameworks in key global markets; the European Union (EU), the United States (US), and the United Kingdom (UK)—is indispensable for developers aiming to successfully register and commercialise these innovative devices.

This strategic roadmap aims to provide a complete picture of the regulatory landscape for AI-enabled Neurotech/MedTech devices. It delves into the specific classification systems, recent AI-centric regulatory developments, evolving clinical evidence requirements, and the associated costs and timelines for market entry.

Furthermore, it examines the reimbursement landscape and outlines critical risk management strategies and best practices necessary for navigating this dynamic environment. The objective is to equip stakeholders with actionable intelligence for strategic decision-making in the development and commercialiSation of AI-enabled medical devices across these three major jurisdictions.

Comprehensive Regulatory Frameworks for AI-Enabled Medical Devices

The regulatory frameworks governing medical devices in the EU, US, and UK are designed to ensure patient safety and device performance. The integration of AI introduces unique challenges, prompting these jurisdictions to adapt their existing regulations and introduce new guidances tailored to the complexities of AI-enabled technologies.

2.1. European Union: EU MDR and the Evolving AI Act Landscape

The European Union Medical Device Regulation (EU MDR 2017/745) fundamentally reshaped the regulatory landscape for medical devices within the EU, replacing the previous Medical Devices Directive (MDD).¹ This regulation adopts a risk-based, lifecycle-centered approach, significantly expanding its scope to explicitly include software and mobile health applications.¹ Manufacturers are obligated to classify their devices meticulously according to Annex VIII of the EU MDR, which delineates 22 classification rules.¹ These rules consider the device's intended use, the duration and type of bodily contact, and its invasiveness, systematically assigning devices to Class I (low risk), Class IIa (moderate risk), Class IIb (medium-high risk), or Class III (high risk).¹ A critical initial step, device misclassification can lead to substantial delays, audit failures, or outright rejection of market access.¹

2.1.1. Detailed Device Classification under EU MDR (2017/745): Annex VIII Rules 1-22

Specific Focus: Rule 11 (Software) and Rule 22 (Active Therapeutic Devices with Diagnostic Functions)

Rule 11 was specifically introduced to address software, leading to a significant reclassification of most medical device software (MDSW) into higher-risk classes (Class IIa, IIb, or III) compared to the previous MDD.

This reclassification necessitates mandatory Notified Body involvement for conformity assessment. Software itself is considered an active device under the MDR.⁶ Software as a Medical Device (SaMD) is qualified if its intended purpose involves modifying or processing received medical data, providing specific clinical decisions rather than mere recommendations, or offering information that healthcare professionals utilize for medical decision-making.

• Class IIa Software: This category encompasses software that provides information for diagnostic or therapeutic decisions with a moderate impact, or monitors physiological processes. Examples include medicine dosage calculators and diagnostic software for mammography.

• Class IIb Software: This applies to software providing information for diagnostic or therapeutic decision-making that can have a significant impact, potentially leading to serious deterioration in health, requiring surgical intervention, or monitoring vital physiological parameters where variations could pose immediate danger to the patient. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) analysis software and applications used for radiotherapy treatment planning exemplify this class.

• Class III Software: This highest-risk class includes software intended to provide information used for diagnosis or therapeutic purposes that may cause death or irreversible deterioration of the user. Applications monitoring active implantable medical devices or insulin pump control software fall into this category.

The application of EU MDR Rule 11, specifically designed for software, frequently reclassifies Software as a Medical Device (SaMD) into higher risk categories, such as Class IIa, IIb, or Class III. This reclassification mandates the involvement of a Notified Body for conformity assessment, a requirement often absent for lower-risk software under previous directives.

The consequence of this elevated classification is a more stringent regulatory pathway, demanding extensive technical documentation, rigorous clinical evidence, and prolonged assessment periods. This regulatory progression reflects a deliberate strategy to ensure patient safety, particularly given the complex nature and potential for unforeseen risks associated with AI algorithms.

Therefore, manufacturers developing AI-enabled medical devices for the European market must proactively account for these increased demands, which directly affect strategic planning, development budgets, and time-to-market.

Rule 22 specifically addresses active therapeutic devices with an integrated or incorporated diagnostic function that significantly determines patient management. Such devices are classified as Class III. Examples include automated external defibrillators (AEDs) or closed-loop systems that continuously monitor biological conditions in real-time and subsequently adjust therapy to maintain or achieve a particular physiological state.⁸ 

The ability of AI to integrate real-time data analysis (diagnostic function) with automated intervention (therapeutic function) means that many innovative AI-enabled Neurotech/MedTech devices will inherently fall under Rule 22. This pushes them into the most stringent Class III pathway, necessitating the most rigorous conformity assessments, including mandatory clinical investigations and the highest Notified Body fees, significantly impacting development costs and timelines.

2.1.2. Impact of the EU AI Act (2024) on Medical Device Classification and High-Risk AI Systems

The European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689) represents a pioneering legislative framework for regulating AI, with profound implications for the medical device industry. This Act employs a risk-based approach to categorise AI systems, and medical AI devices are predominantly classified under the "high-risk" category. This designation subjects them to comprehensive risk management systems, rigorous conformity assessments, detailed documentation requirements, and ongoing monitoring and reporting obligations.

AI medical devices will require a new certification under the AI Act, in addition to their existing CE certification under MDR/IVDR.¹⁰ While most Notified Bodies are expected to be authorised to certify devices under both the AI Act and MDR/IVDR concurrently, delays in their availability are anticipated, mirroring the challenges encountered during the initial MDR implementation.¹⁰ Furthermore, providers of high-risk AI systems will be required to register themselves and their systems in the EU AI database once it becomes available, a process akin to the EUDAMED system.¹⁰

The EU AI Act entered into force on August 2, 2024. While most provisions apply by August 2, 2026, high-risk systems that are part of safety components or medical devices must comply by August 2, 2027. This introduces new notification obligations, additional conformity assessments, and complex compliance and verification testing for AI medical device providers.

There is an increased emphasis on human oversight, ensuring data quality (input data relevance), conducting data protection impact assessments, maintaining automatically generated logs for record-keeping, ensuring transparency (communication to users), and providing detailed instructions for use outlining capabilities, limitations, and mechanisms. System monitoring for incidents and the identification of additional risks related to health, safety, or fundamental rights are also critical.

The introduction of a new certification requirement under the EU AI Act, in addition to existing MDR/IVDR CE marking, coupled with the predominant classification of medical AI devices as "high-risk," creates a significant dual compliance burden.¹⁰ 

This dual requirement, combined with the anticipated bottleneck in Notified Body capacity, similar to the challenges observed during MDR implementation, is likely to result in increased costs and prolonged market entry timelines for AI-enabled medical devices in the EU.

Consequently, manufacturers must integrate AI Act compliance into their Quality Management Systems (QMS) and regulatory strategies immediately, well in advance of the August 2027 deadline for high-risk medical devices, to mitigate the risk of significant delays. This also necessitates early engagement with Notified Bodies to ascertain their readiness and capacity for dual certification.

2.1.3. Notified Body Requirements, Fee Structures, and Technical Review Timelines

Notified Body (NB) involvement is a mandatory prerequisite for Class IIa, IIb, and Class III medical devices under the EU MDR. For Class I devices, NB involvement is only required if the device is sterile, has a measuring function, or is a reusable surgical instrument.

Fee Structures: Notified Body certification costs exhibit variability based on device classification, complexity, and the specific NB chosen. The general cost range for Class IIb and Class III devices is estimated between €20,000 and €100,000 or more. A more granular breakdown of estimated costs includes:

• Initial application and review fees: €5,000 – €15,000.

• Conformity assessment fees (encompassing technical file assessment, product testing, and clinical data evaluation): €10,000 – €50,000.

• Audit and on-site inspection costs (for Class IIa, IIb, and III QMS compliance with ISO 13485): €15,000 – €40,000 per audit.

• Certification issuance fees: €3,000 – €10,000.

• Annual surveillance fees: These are recurring costs, ranging from €10,000 – €30,000 for Class I (sterile/measuring, IIa) devices, €20,000 – €50,000 for Class IIb, and €40,000 – €100,000+ for Class III devices.Manufacturers are strongly advised to request detailed quotations from multiple NBs to enable a meaningful cost comparison.

Technical Review Timelines: While specific timelines for Class IIa/IIb technical review are not explicitly detailed in the provided information , the overall conformity assessment process under EU MDR can range from 6 to 18 months depending on the device class and complexity [Query Prompt]. Some sources indicate typical durations of 9 to 24 months, and potentially longer.¹² One Notified Body's published information suggests a pre-application phase of 50 working days and an assessment phase of 105 working days, culminating in approximately 8 months to obtain certification.

Clinical Evaluation Requirements: Clinical evaluation is not a static task but an ongoing process that spans the entire product lifecycle, necessitating a comprehensive Clinical Evaluation Plan (CEP) and a Clinical Evaluation Report (CER). This process involves a thorough literature review, collection of clinical data (including new clinical investigations if required), systematic data analysis, and continuous post-market surveillance (PMS). The MDR imposes significantly stricter demands on clinical evidence compared to its predecessor, the MDD.

Given the substantial costs and variable timelines associated with Notified Body involvement, coupled with the anticipated delays due to the EU AI Act, strategic selection of a Notified Body is not merely an administrative step but a critical business decision.

Manufacturers must proactively engage with multiple NBs, compare quotations, and carefully assess their capacity and expertise, particularly for AI-enabled devices, to effectively mitigate financial and timeline risks. This strategic approach implies that companies should initiate discussions with NBs early in the development cycle, ideally before significant investment in clinical trials, to gain a clear understanding of specific NB requirements and potential bottlenecks, ensuring alignment with their overarching market access strategy.

2.2. United States: FDA's Adaptive Regulatory Approach

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) employs a risk-based classification system for medical devices, categorising them into three classes (Class I, II, and III). These classifications dictate the level of regulatory control required to ensure the device's safety and effectiveness.¹⁴

2.2.1. Device Classification System: Class I, II, and III Definitions and Control Mechanisms

• Class I (Low Risk): These devices pose the lowest potential risk and are subject only to "General Controls," which include requirements for registration, record-keeping, and adherence to Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP).¹⁴ Most Class I devices are exempt from premarket notification (510(k)) and typically do not necessitate clinical data for approval.¹⁴ Examples include bandages, tongue depressors, and manual stethoscopes.¹⁵ This pathway offers the quickest route to market.¹⁵

• Class II (Moderate Risk): Devices in this category are associated with moderate risk and are subject to both General Controls and "Special Controls." Special Controls may include performance standards, post-market surveillance requirements, patient registries, and specific labeling guidelines.¹⁴ Most Class II devices require a 510(k) premarket notification, demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, and may require clinical data depending on the device type.¹⁴ Powered wheelchairs, infusion pumps, and surgical drapes are common examples.¹⁵ This pathway typically involves a moderate time to market.¹⁵

• Class III (Highest Risk): This class encompasses devices that generally sustain or support life, are implanted, or present a potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury.¹⁴ Class III devices are subject to General Controls and require Premarket Approval (PMA) from the FDA.¹⁴ The PMA process is the most intensive marketing application, typically involving extensive clinical trials to rigorously prove safety and effectiveness.¹⁵ This pathway represents the longest time to market.¹⁵ Examples include implantable pacemakers, breast implants, and cochlear implants.¹⁵

The inherent novelty and complexity of many AI-enabled medical devices often lead to their classification as Class II or Class III, particularly those with diagnostic or therapeutic functions that directly impact patient health.¹⁵ The 510(k) pathway, common for Class II devices, relies on demonstrating "substantial equivalence" to a predicate device.¹⁴ 

However, AI-enabled devices, especially those incorporating novel algorithms or adaptive learning capabilities, frequently lack clear, directly equivalent predicate devices.²² 

This absence of a suitable predicate can necessitate pursuing the De Novo or even PMA pathways, which are significantly more resource-intensive and time-consuming.¹⁵ This situation shifts the regulatory burden from demonstrating equivalence to proving de novo safety and effectiveness, a considerably higher bar.

Consequently, manufacturers of AI-enabled medical devices for the US market should conduct a thorough predicate analysis early in development. If a clear predicate is absent or if the AI introduces novel risks, preparation for De Novo or PMA submissions, which require more extensive clinical data and significantly longer review times, becomes essential.

2.2.2. Evolution of AI/ML Guidance: January 2025 Draft Guidance on Lifecycle Management and Marketing Submissions

On January 7, 2025, the FDA published a pivotal draft guidance titled "Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Device Software Functions: Lifecycle Management and Marketing Submission Recommendations". This document provides recommendations for the content of marketing submissions, such as 510(k) premarket notifications and premarket approval applications, for devices that incorporate AI-enabled device software functions (AI-DSFs). An AI-DSF is defined as a "device software function that implements one or more 'AI models,'" where a "model" is a "mathematical construct that generates a reference or prediction based on new input data".

The guidance emphasises a Total Product Life Cycle (TPLC) approach, encompassing the design, development, deployment, and maintenance phases of AI-enabled devices. It is primarily relevant to machine learning, particularly deep learning and neural networks. The document also addresses post-market concerns, such as performance monitoring and data drift, actively encouraging manufacturers to consider the inclusion of Predetermined Change Control Plans (PCCP) in their submissions.

The FDA's proactive adaptation of its regulatory framework to the unique, dynamic, and often iterative nature of AI/ML is evident in this guidance, signaling a move beyond static approval models. The emphasis on TPLC and PCCPs reflects a shift towards continuous oversight and pre-authorized modifications, acknowledging that AI algorithms can evolve post-market.²⁵ 

This represents a forward-thinking approach to manage the inherent "black box" nature and adaptive learning challenges of AI. Therefore, manufacturers should design their AI-enabled devices with a TPLC mindset from the outset, incorporating robust data governance, version control, and a clear strategy for post-market algorithm updates (e.g., through PCCPs) to align with FDA's evolving expectations and streamline future modifications.

2.2.3. Strategic Pathways: Breakthrough Device Program Statistics and Benefits

The Breakthrough Devices Program offers an expedited pathway for medical devices that provide more effective treatment or diagnosis of life-threatening or irreversibly debilitating conditions.²⁸ This program grants manufacturers priority access to the FDA, facilitating direct and rapid dialogue with senior reviewers, and potentially accelerating Medicare coverage through the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' (CMS) new Transitional Coverage for Emerging Technologies (TCET) process.²⁸

As of September 30, 2024, the FDA has granted 1,041 Breakthrough Device designations, with 128 of these devices successfully reaching the U.S. market. This indicates an approval rate of approximately 12% from designation to market. The program offers variable review acceleration depending on the submission pathway: PMA submissions typically experience a 6-12 month faster review,

De Novo requests 8-15 months, while 510(k) submissions see minimal acceleration due to their already shorter standard review times.²⁸ A significant benefit of the program is the FDA's guidance, which helps prevent delays.²⁸

To qualify for Breakthrough Device designation, a device must represent breakthrough technology, have no approved alternatives, offer significant advantages over existing options, or address critical unmet medical needs.²⁸ Eligibility was expanded in 2023 to include devices addressing healthcare disparities, non-addictive pain management products, and addiction treatments.²⁸

For AI-enabled devices addressing high unmet needs or offering truly innovative solutions, pursuing Breakthrough Device designation is a critical strategic move. The program offers significant acceleration, particularly for PMA and De Novo pathways, and provides direct FDA engagement.²⁸ While the overall approval rate from designation is 12%, the program's primary benefit lies in enhancing regulatory efficiency and reducing uncertainty.

This transforms potential regulatory obstacles into competitive advantages through prioritised review and direct FDA feedback. Consequently, companies developing high-impact AI-enabled medical devices should assess their eligibility for this program early in development. A successful designation can significantly de-risk the regulatory pathway, attract investment, and accelerate market access, even if the device ultimately requires a PMA or De Novo submission.

2.2.4. MDUFA V Fee Structure (FY 2025): 510(k), PMA, and De Novo Submissions

The Medical Device User Fee Amendments (MDUFA) program authorizes the FDA to collect fees from medical device manufacturers for reviewing premarket submissions.³⁰ These fees are crucial for funding the FDA's regulatory activities and ensuring that medical devices approved or cleared for the market meet safety and efficacy standards.³⁰

FY 2025 Fees (October 1, 2024, through September 30, 2025):

• 510(k) Premarket Notification: The standard fee is $24,335, with a reduced fee of $6,084 for small businesses.

• Premarket Approval (PMA) Application: The standard fee is $540,783, with a small business fee of $135,196.

• De Novo Classification Request: The standard fee is $162,235, with a small business fee of $40,559.

• Annual Establishment Registration Fee: This is a separate fee of $9,280.

To qualify for reduced fees, small businesses must demonstrate that their gross receipts or sales (including those of any affiliates) are $100 million or less for the most recent tax year.³⁰ Small Business Determination (SBD) requests must be submitted electronically via the CDRH portal and renewed annually.³⁰

The MDUFA fee structure inherently creates a significant financial barrier for innovative AI-enabled medical devices, particularly for startups or smaller companies that cannot leverage the 510(k) pathway. PMA fees are substantially higher than 510(k) fees.

Given that novel AI devices are more likely to require PMA or De Novo pathways due to a lack of predicates ¹⁵, the upfront investment becomes considerable. Even with small business reductions, the absolute cost for PMA/De Novo remains substantial. This cost disparity can disproportionately impact the market entry of cutting-edge AI technologies, potentially favoring larger, established companies or those with substantial venture funding.

Consequently, companies developing novel AI-enabled devices must secure substantial funding to cover these regulatory fees, in addition to R&D and clinical trial costs. Financial planning should explicitly account for these higher submission fees, and small businesses should proactively pursue SBD status to minimize these burdens.

2.2.5. Predetermined Change Control Plans (PCCP) for AI Device Modifications

The FDA has finalized guidance for Predetermined Change Control Plans (PCCPs) specifically for AI-Enabled Device Software Functions (AI-DSF).³³ A PCCP is a mechanism established under the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act (FDORA) to streamline post-market changes to medical devices.³³ It allows manufacturers to include a plan for certain types of device modifications as part of their pre-market submission.³³ 

If the FDA agrees to the PCCP, these changes can be implemented without requiring a new marketing submission, which is particularly beneficial for AI-enabled devices designed to evolve over time.³³

PCCPs are deemed appropriate for Premarket Approval (PMA), De Novo, and 510(k) (Traditional and Abbreviated) submission types.³³ A PCCP must include three key elements:

1. Modification Description: This section details the planned modifications and their performance specifications.³³

2. Modification Protocol: This describes the methods for developing, verifying, validating, and implementing the modifications, including data management practices, re-training practices, performance evaluation protocols, and update procedures.³³

3. Impact Assessment: This documents the benefits and risks of implementing the AI-DSF and the mitigations for identified risks, comparing the modified device version with the unmodified version and discussing the cumulative impact of all modifications.³³

The FDA recommends public disclosure of PCCP details, such as planned modifications, testing methods, and validation activities, to promote transparency.³³ It is crucial to note that modifications deviating from an authorized PCCP without prior market authorization can render the device "adulterated and misbranded," potentially leading to FDA enforcement action.³³

The emergence of AI algorithms, particularly those with continuous learning capabilities, inherently introduces dynamic and evolving post-market performance.²² Traditional regulatory frameworks, designed for static devices, often struggle with frequent modifications, typically requiring new submissions for every change.³⁴ PCCPs directly address this challenge by allowing pre-authorization of future modifications, thereby streamlining post-market updates for AI-DSFs.³³ 

This flexibility, however, entails a significant upfront regulatory burden, demanding a highly robust and transparent development and validation plan for anticipated future changes.³³ Therefore, developers of adaptive AI medical devices should strongly consider integrating PCCPs into their initial regulatory strategy.

While demanding, this proactive approach can significantly reduce future regulatory friction, accelerate the deployment of algorithm updates, and maintain device performance and safety throughout its lifecycle, ultimately providing a competitive advantage.

2.3. United Kingdom: MHRA's Post-Brexit "Pro-Innovation" Stance

Brexit has significantly reshaped the regulatory requirements for medical devices in the UK.³⁷ The UKCA (UK Conformity Assessed) marking is now the mandatory product marking for goods placed on the Great Britain (England, Wales, Scotland) market.³⁹

2.3.1. Post-Brexit Regulatory Landscape: UKCA Marking vs. CE Marking for Northern Ireland

The UKCA marking is not recognized in the EU, EEA, or Northern Ireland markets.³⁹ 

For Northern Ireland, CE marking remains a requirement due to the Northern Ireland Protocol.³⁷ If a UK Approved Body undertakes mandatory third-party conformity assessment for devices destined for Northern Ireland, the UKNI indication must also be affixed alongside the CE marking.³⁹

Transition Periods: The UK government has implemented extended acceptance periods for CE marked devices in Great Britain:

• Devices compliant with the EU MDD/AIMDD with a valid CE marking can be placed on the Great Britain market until the sooner of certificate expiry or June 30, 2028.³⁹

• In vitro diagnostic medical devices (IVDs) compliant with the EU IVDD can be placed on the Great Britain market until the sooner of certificate expiry or June 30, 2030.³⁹

• General medical devices, including custom-made devices, compliant with the EU MDR and IVDs compliant with the EU IVDR can be placed on the Great Britain market until June 30, 2030.³⁹New medical devices entering the UK market after July 1, 2024, must possess UKCA certification from a UK Approved Body.³⁷ 

  
  

The post-Brexit regulatory landscape has created a fragmented market for medical devices, particularly for AI-enabled devices, necessitating manufacturers to manage dual compliance pathways and potentially increased administrative and certification burdens to access the entire UK market and the EU.³⁷ This complexity can lead to higher operational costs and strategic decisions regarding which markets to prioritize if resources are limited.

Consequently, companies targeting both the EU and UK markets must develop a robust dual-certification strategy from the outset, ensuring their documentation and labeling incorporate both CE and UKCA marks where applicable. Strategic decisions regarding supply chain management and the appointment of authorized representatives in both jurisdictions are crucial to avoid market access disruptions.

2.3.2. MHRA's AI Strategy (April 2024) and its "Pro-innovation" Principles

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) published its AI strategy in April 2024, outlining its approach to regulating AI in healthcare products. This strategy was a direct response to the UK Government's request for regulators to implement the AI Regulation White Paper.

The MHRA's strategy commits to adopting five key principles of "pro-innovation" regulation: safety, security and robustness; appropriate transparency and explainability; fairness; accountability and governance; and contestability and redress.

Unlike the EU AI Act, the UK's approach relies on sector-specific regulation rather than a broad, overarching legislative framework. The MHRA intends to regulate AI as Software as a Medical Device (SaMD), aligning its future definitions and regulatory approaches with those endorsed by the International Medical Device Regulators Forum (IMDRF).

A significant impact of this strategy on classification is the expectation that many AI products currently falling under Class I will be upgraded to higher risk classes under the new UK regime, thereby requiring independent conformity assessments instead of self-certification.

The MHRA encourages manufacturers to adopt ISO/IEC TR 24027:2021 for assessing bias and IMDRF N65 for clinical studies.⁴³ Furthermore, it intends to formalize guidance on Predetermined Change Control Plans (PCCPs) to ensure traceability and accountability for AI performance.

The MHRA's "pro-innovation" approach and "legislatively light" framework for AIaMD, coupled with its active engagement in regulatory sandboxes like the AI Airlock, positions the UK as an agile and responsive environment for AI-enabled medical devices.⁴³ 

This contrasts with the EU's more comprehensive and potentially burdensome AI Act. The UK's principles-based and internationally aligned approach aims to foster quicker market access while maintaining safety through increased scrutiny for higher-risk AI. This suggests that for AI-enabled medical devices, the UK might offer a potentially faster and less prescriptive regulatory pathway compared to the EU, especially for novel technologies that do not fit neatly into existing classifications.

Manufacturers should leverage MHRA's openness to dialogue and actively track the evolving guidance to optimize their UK market entry strategy.

2.3.3. Anticipated AIaMD Guidance (Spring 2025) and the AI Airlock Program (Regulatory Sandbox)

The MHRA plans to publish new guidance by Spring 2025, specifically focusing on cybersecurity for software and AI as medical devices, and on applying human factors to AI-enabled medical devices. Guidance on good practice in machine learning is also anticipated.

The MHRA AI Airlock program, launched in Spring 2024, functions as a regulatory sandbox for AI as a Medical Device (AIaMD) products. Its primary objective is to enhance the MHRA's understanding of AIaMD and accelerate the development of solutions to novel regulatory challenges associated with these devices.⁴⁷ 

The program involves real-world products and brings together expertise from within the MHRA, UK Approved Bodies, and the NHS.⁴⁷ The pilot cohort, which ran until April 2025, focused on critical challenge areas such as monitoring AI performance, managing AI hallucinations, evaluating explainability versus clinical utility, and validating Large Language Models (LLMs). Phase 2 of the AI Airlock was announced for the 2025-2026 financial year, with applications opening from June 23, 2025, to July 14, 2025.

The AI Airlock program signifies a proactive, iterative, and learning-based regulatory approach by the MHRA. Instead of awaiting comprehensive legislation, the agency is actively engaging with cutting-edge AI technologies in a controlled environment to understand their unique risks and develop fit-for-purpose guidance.

This "learn-by-doing" strategy positions the UK to rapidly adapt its regulatory framework to the fast-evolving AI landscape. Consequently, companies developing highly innovative or complex AI-enabled medical devices, particularly those leveraging LLMs or adaptive learning, should consider participating in programs like the AI Airlock.

This offers a unique opportunity for direct engagement with regulators, early identification of regulatory challenges, and potentially influencing future guidance, thereby de-risking their market entry.

A futuristic medical room with people awaiting for clinical trial patients

Clinical Investigation and Evidence Requirements for AI-Enabled Devices

The generation of robust clinical evidence is a cornerstone of regulatory approval for medical devices. For AI-enabled devices, this process is further complicated by the unique characteristics of AI, necessitating adaptive approaches to clinical investigation and evidence thresholds.

3.1. Pre-Market Clinical Evidence Generation

3.1.1. FDA's Approach: Non-Significant Risk (NSR) vs. Significant Risk (SR) Device Studies, IDE and IRB Requirements

The FDA categorizes investigational device studies into three types: Significant Risk (SR), Non-Significant Risk (NSR), and those exempt from Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) requirements.

• Significant Risk (SR) Devices: An investigational device is classified as SR if it is intended as an implant, for use in supporting or sustaining human life, or of substantial importance in diagnosing or treating disease, and poses a potential for serious risk to the health, safety, or welfare of a subject. SR studies mandate an IDE application approved by the FDA before the study can commence. All SR studies are considered to involve more than minimal risk and require full Institutional Review Board (IRB) review.

• Non-Significant Risk (NSR) Devices: These are devices that do not meet the definition of an SR device. NSR studies follow abbreviated IDE requirements (21 CFR 812.2(b)) and do not necessitate an IDE application approved by the FDA. The IRB's determination of NSR status is crucial, as the IRB acts as the FDA's surrogate for review and approval of such studies. An NSR study can begin as soon as the IRB approves it.⁵¹

• 
  

Sponsors bear the initial responsibility for determining the risk level and presenting this determination to the IRB. However, the FDA retains the ultimate decision-making authority and can overrule an IRB's determination. The distinction between SR and NSR significantly impacts the regulatory pathway for clinical investigations, dictating the need for an FDA IDE. Misclassification of device risk can lead to substantial delays and increased costs.⁴ 

Given the inherent complexity and potential for unforeseen risks with AI, there is a higher likelihood of an AI device being classified as SR, or an IRB disagreeing with an NSR determination, thereby triggering the more stringent IDE pathway. Proactive engagement with the FDA through Q-submissions for risk determination can prevent costly delays.

Therefore, manufacturers should prioritize a thorough risk assessment for their AI-enabled device early in the development process, consulting with regulatory experts and potentially engaging the FDA for a formal risk determination. This proactive step can prevent significant project timeline and budget overruns by ensuring the correct clinical investigation pathway is followed from the outset.

3.1.2. International Standards: ISO 14155:2020 Compliance for Clinical Investigations

ISO 14155:2020 outlines the requirements for Good Clinical Practice (GCP) in the clinical investigation of medical devices.⁵⁵ Its objectives include safeguarding the rights, safety, and well-being of human subjects, ensuring the credibility of clinical trial results, confirming the scientific conduct of the study, and specifying the responsibilities of ethics committees, regulatory authorities, sponsors, and investigators.⁵⁵ 

Compliance with ISO 14155:2020 is considered essential for overall trial success and facilitates adherence to EU MDR requirements.⁵⁵ The standard significantly reinforces risk management throughout the clinical investigation process, incorporating the principles of ISO 14971:2019.⁵⁶ It mandates the predefinition of risk acceptability thresholds and the conduct of risk assessment whenever these thresholds are reached or exceeded.⁵⁶

Adherence to ISO 14155:2020 is not merely a compliance checkbox for a single jurisdiction but a strategic investment that supports clinical evidence generation across multiple major markets (EU, and potentially UK and US indirectly). It provides a globally recognized framework for robust clinical investigations, reducing the need for redundant studies and streamlining multi-jurisdictional submissions.

Consequently, manufacturers should embed ISO 14155:2020 principles into their clinical development programs from the earliest stages. This ensures that clinical data generated is of high quality, ethically sound, and acceptable to diverse regulatory bodies, thereby optimizing resource allocation and accelerating global market access for AI-enabled medical devices.

3.1.3. Ethical Imperatives: Good Clinical Practice (GCP) Compliance

Good Clinical Practice (GCP) stands as an international ethical and scientific quality standard for the design, conduct, recording, and reporting of clinical trials. Its fundamental purpose is to protect the rights, safety, and well-being of trial participants and to ensure the credibility of the data collected.

Core elements of GCP compliance include obtaining informed consent, ensuring independent review by IRBs or ethics committees, minimizing risks, adhering strictly to the study protocol, maintaining accurate data integrity and record-keeping, clearly defining investigator responsibilities, and continuously monitoring participant safety. Failure to comply with GCP can lead to data integrity issues, severe regulatory repercussions, and significant delays in market approval.

For AI-enabled medical devices, GCP compliance extends beyond traditional clinical trial conduct to encompass the ethical development and deployment of the AI itself. AI-specific risks, such as algorithm bias stemming from unrepresentative training data, cybersecurity vulnerabilities affecting data integrity and privacy, and challenges in transparency and explainability, directly intersect with GCP's ethical considerations.²² 

Regulatory bodies like the FDA, MHRA, and EMA are increasingly focusing on these AI-specific ethical and safety concerns. Therefore, addressing algorithm bias and ensuring data privacy and transparency are not merely "good practices" but fundamental ethical imperatives that directly impact the credibility and acceptability of clinical evidence under GCP. Companies must integrate "AI ethics by design" into their development lifecycle, proactively addressing potential biases in data and algorithms, implementing robust cybersecurity measures, and ensuring explainability.

This ethical foundation is crucial for successful GCP compliance, building trust with patients and regulators, and ultimately securing market approval.

3.2. Evolving Clinical Evidence Thresholds

3.2.1. EU MDR: Enhanced Clinical Evaluation Requirements for Class III and Implantable Devices

The EU MDR has significantly enhanced clinical evaluation requirements, particularly for Class III and implantable devices.⁴⁸ Manufacturers are mandated to conduct thorough clinical studies, providing robust clinical data derived from systematically conducted investigations.⁴⁸ The MDR replaced the MDD's Essential Requirements with more extensive and specific Annex I General Safety and Performance Requirements (GSPRs), thereby increasing the evidence burden on manufacturers.⁶³

The rules on equivalence have been substantially overhauled, making it considerably more challenging for manufacturers to claim equivalence to existing devices.⁶³ This often necessitates new clinical investigations, especially for Class III and implantable devices, where a clinical investigation is normally mandatory.⁶³ Furthermore, the MDR mandates enhanced Post-Market Clinical Follow-up (PMCF) requirements, with the outputs of these activities explicitly required to be included in the Clinical Evaluation Report (CER).⁶³

The confluence of AI's inherent risk profile and the MDR's stringent clinical evidence requirements creates a "clinical data imperative" for high-risk AI-enabled medical devices in the EU. Many AI-enabled devices, particularly those with therapeutic or critical diagnostic functions, are classified as Class IIb or Class III under MDR Rule 11 and Rule 22. For these high-risk devices, clinical investigations are "normally mandatory," and equivalence claims are much harder to justify.⁶³ 

This means manufacturers cannot rely on equivalence and must plan for extensive, dedicated clinical investigations, which significantly increases development costs and timelines. Consequently, companies developing high-risk AI-enabled medical devices for the EU market must integrate comprehensive clinical investigation planning and budgeting into their early-stage development, recognizing that this will be a major determinant of market access and success.

3.2.2. US FDA: Acceptance of Real-World Evidence (RWE) and Use of External Control Arms

The FDA has a long-standing history of utilizing Real-World Data (RWD) and Real-World Evidence (RWE) to monitor the post-market safety of approved drugs.⁴⁹ Advances in the availability and analysis of RWD have significantly increased the potential for generating robust RWE to support FDA regulatory decisions.⁴⁹ 

RWE is defined as "clinical evidence about the usage and potential benefits or risks of a medical product derived from analysis of RWD".⁴⁹ Sources of RWD include electronic health records, medical claims data, patient registries, and data gathered from digital health technologies.⁴⁹ I

n December 2023, the FDA issued draft guidance to clarify how RWD is evaluated to determine if it can form valid scientific evidence (RWE) for regulatory decision-making for medical devices.⁴² RWE can be leveraged for various purposes, including generating hypotheses, constructing performance goals, and generating primary clinical evidence to support marketing applications.⁴²

External Control Arms: The FDA issued draft guidance in February 2023 on "Considerations for the Design and Conduct of Externally Controlled Trials for Drug and Biological Products".⁶⁷ While primarily focused on drugs and biologics, this guidance discusses the use of external patient-level data (historical or concurrent controls) to support safety and efficacy, particularly in scenarios where randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are not feasible.⁶⁷ The FDA, however, emphasizes concerns regarding potential bias and the comparability of groups in such trials.⁷

For AI-enabled medical devices, RWE is not merely a post-market surveillance requirement but a strategic asset. RWE provides critical insights into long-term performance, off-label usage, and side effects across diverse real-world populations, aspects that traditional clinical trials may not fully capture.⁷³ 

Furthermore, RWE can support expanded indications and potentially reduce post-market study burdens.⁷³ Its ability to capture real-world performance and adapt to diverse patient populations makes it invaluable for refining algorithms, expanding indications, and demonstrating value to regulators and payers post-approval.

This is particularly relevant for adaptive AI, where continuous learning necessitates continuous real-world validation. Therefore, manufacturers should design their AI-enabled devices and data collection strategies to generate high-quality RWD from the outset. This includes integrating digital health technologies for data collection and establishing robust post-market surveillance systems that can transform RWD into regulatory-grade RWE, thereby supporting lifecycle management and market expansion.

3.2.3. UK MHRA: Alignment with International Standards and Regulatory Flexibility

The MHRA is actively engaged in international efforts to harmonize AI regulation, holding full membership in the IMDRF and co-chairing its AI/ML Working Group.⁷⁴ This commitment extends to trilateral working relationships with the FDA and Health Canada, which have led to the joint publication of principles on Good Machine Learning Practice (GMLP), Predetermined Change Control Plans (PCCPs), and transparency in machine learning medical devices.

The UK aims for an AIaMD regulatory framework that is "legislatively light" and maximizes the role of standards and guidance, building upon existing SaMD regulations.⁷⁴ The MHRA supports innovative mechanisms for accelerated access, with a notable emphasis on generating more evidence after deployment.⁷⁴ 

To this end, the agency is strengthening post-market surveillance (PMS) through legislative reform (effective June 2025), which will increase obligations for data gathering in the post-market phase. The Innovative Devices Access Pathway (IDAP) pilot, launched in September 2023, is another initiative designed to accelerate innovative medical technologies that address unmet clinical needs.⁷⁴

The MHRA's explicit "pro-innovation" approach and its pursuit of a "legislatively light" framework for AIaMD, coupled with the active use of regulatory sandboxes like the AI Airlock, positions the UK as a flexible and responsive environment for AI-enabled medical devices. This approach potentially allows for earlier market access compared to more prescriptive regimes, provided that robust post-market evidence generation and surveillance mechanisms are firmly in place.

This makes the UK an attractive "testbed" or early market for novel AI technologies, where real-world data can be collected to inform broader regulatory strategies. Therefore, companies with innovative AI-enabled devices, especially those seeking to gather extensive real-world evidence post-market, should consider the UK as a primary or early market entry point. Leveraging programs like the AI Airlock and aligning with MHRA's evolving PMS requirements can provide a strategic advantage for rapid iteration and evidence generation.

Final Thoughts

Cost Analysis and Timeline Expectations for Market Entry

Understanding the financial and temporal commitments associated with regulatory approval is crucial for strategic planning. These factors vary significantly across jurisdictions and device classifications.

4.1. Direct Regulatory Costs

4.1.1. Comparative Analysis of FDA, EU Notified Body, and MHRA Fees

FDA Fees (Fiscal Year 2025):

• 510(k) Premarket Notification: Standard fee: $24,335; Small Business fee: $6,084.

• Premarket Approval (PMA) Application: Standard fee: $540,783; Small Business fee: $135,196.

• De Novo Classification Request: Standard fee: $162,235; Small Business fee: $40,559.

• Annual Establishment Registration Fee: $9,280.

EU Notified Body Fees:

• A general range for Class IIb and Class III devices is between €20,000 and €100,000+.

• Initial application and review fees: €5,000 – €15,000.

• Conformity assessment fees: €10,000 – €50,000.

• Audit and on-site inspection costs: €15,000 – €40,000 per audit.

• Certification issuance fees: €3,000 – €10,000.

• Annual surveillance fees: Range from €10,000 – €30,000 for Class I (sterile/measuring, IIa) devices, €20,000 – €50,000 for Class IIb, and €40,000 – €100,000+ for Class III devices.

MHRA Fees (as of April 2023/2024 updates):

• Medical Device & IVD New Registration: £240.

• Clinical Investigation Notification (Class I, IIa, IIb non-implantable): £7,472.

• Clinical Investigation Notification (Class IIb implantable, Class III, active implantable): £15,627.

• New service for regulatory advice meetings: £987 per hour per meeting.²³

• The MHRA decided against an annual registration fee, maintaining a one-off fee (which will rise to £261 after indexation).²³

The combined effect of higher classification for AI devices and the associated regulatory fees and clinical trial costs creates a disproportionately high financial barrier for bringing novel AI-enabled medical devices to market. This is particularly true for Class III/PMA devices, where the upfront investment is substantial and continuous annual fees apply. Consequently, companies must conduct a detailed financial feasibility analysis early in development, factoring in these escalated regulatory and clinical costs across target jurisdictions. This necessitates robust funding strategies, potentially including venture capital or strategic partnerships, to sustain the lengthy and expensive approval processes for AI-driven innovations.

4.1.2. Estimated Clinical Trial Costs across Jurisdictions

Clinical trial costs for medical devices can vary significantly by region. A medical device clinical trial in the United States or Western Europe can cost between $5 million and $10 million. In contrast, the cost of the same trial conducted in Eastern Europe will be considerably lower, and in countries like India, China, or Korea, it may be as little as 1/10th of the cost in Western markets. The query prompt mentions a range of €50,000-€500,000, which likely pertains to specific phases or smaller-scale studies rather than full pivotal trials.

Manufacturers can strategically leverage lower clinical trial costs in certain geographies (e.g., Eastern Europe, Asia) while still generating data acceptable for major markets (EU, US, UK). Regulatory bodies generally accept clinical data from international trials, provided they adhere to international standards such as Good Clinical Practice (GCP) and ISO 14155. This geographic arbitrage can significantly reduce the overall cost of clinical evidence generation for AI-enabled medical devices. Therefore, companies should explore conducting multi-regional clinical trials or trials in lower-cost regions, ensuring strict adherence to international standards (ISO 14155, GCP) and local regulatory requirements. This strategy can optimize R&D budgets and accelerate clinical development for global market access.

4.2. Regulatory Pathway Timelines

4.2.1. Comparative Review Durations: FDA (510(k), PMA), EU MDR Conformity Assessment, and UK MHRA Pathways

FDA Timelines:

• 510(k) Pathway: The standard review period for 510(k) clearance decisions is typically 90 days, with acceptance review within 15 days, substantive review within 60 days, and final decisions within 90 days. However, the overall process can extend from 3 to 8 months, or up to 180 days if additional information is requested.

• PMA Pathway: This is a complex submission, often taking more than one year for approval. The FDA aims to review PMAs within 180 days (for submissions without committee input) or 320 days (for those with committee input). The in-depth review begins after filing and is expected to be completed within 180 days from the filing date, though amendments containing significant new data can extend this review period by up to 180 days.

EU MDR Conformity Assessment:

• Overall, the conformity assessment process under EU MDR can range from 6 to 18 months, depending on the device class and complexity [Query Prompt]. Typically, it spans 9 to 24 months, and in some cases, even longer.¹²

• One Notified Body's estimates suggest a pre-application phase of 50 working days and an assessment phase of 105 working days, totaling approximately 8 months for certification.

• Transition periods for legacy devices extend until December 31, 2027 (for Class III and Class IIb implantable devices) and December 31, 2028 (for Class IIb non-implantable, Class IIa, and Class I sterile/measuring devices).⁷⁶

UK MHRA Timelines:

• The MHRA is aligning with international timelines and offers potential for expedited review [Query Prompt].

• New Post-Market Surveillance (PMS) regulations, effective June 16, 2025, mandate manufacturers to actively track device safety and performance post-market. Serious incidents must be reported within 15 days.

• The International Recognition Procedure (IRP) for medicines, operational since January 2024, offers expedited approval (60 days for Recognition A, 110 days for Recognition B) for products already authorized by trusted global regulators. A new framework for medical devices is expected to allow expedited UK market access through recognition of approvals from Australia, Canada, the EU, and the USA.⁸²

• The MHRA roadmap anticipates new UK-specific regulation by mid-2025, but CE marking will continue to be recognized until 2028 or 2030, depending on the device type.¹⁸

The time-to-market for AI-enabled medical devices is heavily dependent on the device's novelty and risk classification in each jurisdiction. PMA and EU MDR Class III pathways are significantly longer (typically over a year) compared to the 510(k) pathway (3-8 months). Novel AI devices are more likely to fall into these longer, more complex pathways.¹⁵ However, the UK offers expedited pathways (IRP) and a "pro-innovation" approach that might lead to faster market access for certain AI devices. This implies that a "one-size-fits-all" market entry strategy is inefficient. Companies should strategically prioritize markets where their AI device aligns with faster pathways or where regulatory flexibility (e.g., UK's IRP, AI Airlock) can be leveraged to gain early market access and generate real-world evidence. Therefore, a multi-jurisdictional regulatory strategy should involve a detailed timeline projection for each target market, considering the specific AI characteristics and risk profile. For highly innovative AI, pursuing early market entry in more agile regulatory environments (like the UK) can provide valuable real-world data and a competitive edge before tackling more protracted processes in larger markets (like the EU or US for PMA devices).

5. Reimbursement Landscape and Value-Based Care Integration

Regulatory approval is a prerequisite for market entry, but successful commercialization of AI-enabled medical devices also hinges on favorable reimbursement policies. These policies are increasingly influenced by Health Technology Assessments (HTA) and the shift towards value-based care models.

5.1. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Frameworks

5.1.1. NICE (UK): Digital Health Technology Standards and Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the UK publishes the "Evidence Standards Framework for Digital Health Technologies" (ESF). This framework serves as a guide for the evidence standards that digital health technologies (DHTs) must meet to demonstrate their value for purchasing decisions within the National Health Service (NHS). The ESF classifies DHTs into tiers (A, B, C) based on their intended purpose and potential risk, with most regulated medical devices and IVDs expected to fall into Tier C.⁷⁸

NICE utilizes cost-effectiveness as a predominant consideration in its assessments, often expressed as an incremental cost per Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY). While a commonly cited threshold range is £20,000–£30,000 per QALY, in practice, decisions may accept higher Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios (ICERs) (e.g., £39,000–£44,000) based on other criteria such as uncertainty, innovation, non-health outcomes, end-of-life considerations, and stakeholder perspectives on quality of life gains. The ESF was updated in 2022 to specifically include standards for DHTs whose performance is expected to change over time, such as those incorporating machine-learning algorithms.⁸⁵

For AI-enabled medical devices, demonstrating value for reimbursement in the UK extends beyond traditional clinical efficacy and cost-per-QALY. AI-enabled devices often offer benefits beyond direct clinical outcomes, such as improved efficiency, personalized care, or reduced clinician burden.⁸⁷ NICE's consideration of "innovation," "non-health outcomes," and "patient group submissions" , alongside the ESF's inclusion of standards for adaptive DHTs ⁸⁵, indicates a nuanced assessment criterion. Therefore, manufacturers must strategically articulate the broader value proposition of their AI, including its impact on system efficiency, patient experience, and its adaptive nature, to meet NICE's comprehensive evaluation. Reimbursement strategies for AI-enabled devices in the UK should incorporate health economic modeling that captures both direct clinical benefits and indirect system-level efficiencies. Engaging with NICE early and presenting a comprehensive value dossier that aligns with the ESF and addresses AI-specific considerations (like continuous learning) is crucial for successful HTA.

5.1.2. HAS (France): Development of AI-Specific Evaluation Criteria

In France, a harmonized public mechanism for certifying AI technologies in healthcare as safe and trustworthy is currently lacking. The Haute Autorité de santé (HAS) conducts in-depth assessments only for reimbursed medical devices, specifically digital medical devices intended for individual use, as part of their reimbursement process. Conversely, digital medical devices for professional use, such as diagnostic assistance algorithms, are not subject to a structured national assessment, despite their potential for serious consequences in the event of errors. The absence of a clear regulatory framework has led to a proliferation of private labeling and certification initiatives, which sometimes lack transparency regarding their assessment criteria. This situation has prompted calls for public authorities to develop a public label to harmonize the landscape and ensure public interest protection.

While EU MDR provides baseline safety, the lack of a national HTA framework for professional-use AI in France creates a significant reimbursement challenge. HAS only conducts in-depth assessments for reimbursed medical devices, specifically digital medical devices for individual use. Digital medical devices for professional use (e.g., diagnostic assistance AI) are not subject to structured national assessment in France, despite their potential for serious consequences. This creates a gap where potentially risky professional AI tools can be marketed without rigorous public evaluation, leading to calls for a public label. Consequently, manufacturers of such AI tools may face difficulty securing public funding or widespread adoption without a clear, publicly recognized validation of their clinical and economic value, despite regulatory approval. Companies developing AI-enabled medical devices primarily for professional use in France should proactively engage with HAS or other relevant stakeholders to advocate for clear evaluation criteria and reimbursement pathways. They may need to independently generate robust health economic evidence to convince healthcare providers and payers of their device's value in the absence of a formal HTA.

5.1.3. G-BA (Germany): The Digital Health Applications (DiGA) Pathway

Since 2019, individuals insured under Germany's statutory health insurance system are entitled to use certified Digital Health Applications (DiGAs).⁸⁹ DiGAs are defined as low-risk (Class I or IIa) medical devices whose primary function relies substantially on digital technologies and are intended to assist in the detection, monitoring, treatment, or mitigation of disease.⁸⁹ The prerequisites for DiGA certification include proof of evidence in three key areas: safety, functional capability, and quality (including interoperability); data protection and security; and demonstration of a positive healthcare effect.⁸⁹ DiGAs can be prescribed by a physician or psychotherapist or requested directly by the patient from their statutory health insurance fund.⁸⁹ While manufacturers are free to determine the price in the first year, fixed reference price groups must be considered in subsequent years.⁸⁹

While Germany's DiGA pathway is highly innovative and provides a clear route to reimbursement for low-risk digital health solutions, it currently excludes many higher-risk AI-enabled medical devices. DiGAs are explicitly defined as low-risk (Class I or IIa) medical devices ⁸⁹, whereas many AI-enabled medical devices often fall into higher risk classes (Class IIb or Class III) under EU MDR. This creates a potential "reimbursement gap" for more complex or invasive AI technologies that do not fit the DiGA criteria. Therefore, companies developing low-risk AI-enabled medical devices (e.g., diagnostic assistance software, monitoring apps) should actively pursue DiGA certification in Germany, as it offers a clear and established reimbursement pathway. For higher-risk AI devices, manufacturers will need to explore alternative reimbursement strategies or advocate for the expansion of such pathways to include more complex AI technologies.

5.1.4. CMS (US): Medicare Coverage for AI Diagnostics, Category A vs B Device Classifications

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) established payment mechanisms for AI through the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (MPFS) and the Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) in 2020.

• MPFS: A new Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code was valued for an AI tool used in diabetic retinopathy diagnosis (IDx-DR). However, its valuation, based primarily on "practice expense" alone, struggled to adequately capture the full value of AI. CMS acknowledges that "AI applications are not well accounted for in our PE methodology".

• IPPS (New Technology Add-on Payment - NTAP): CMS granted reimbursement for AI-driven triage software (Viz.ai) through the NTAP pathway. NTAP provides a supplemental payment to hospitals for innovative technologies that are new, "not substantially similar" to existing technologies, inadequately paid for by existing Diagnosis Related Groups (DRGs), and substantially improve clinical outcomes. NTAP payments are typically for a limited duration, often 3 years.

• Medicare Coverage of Innovative Technology (MCIT): CMS proposed a new coverage pathway, MCIT, dependent on FDA market authorization for breakthrough devices, offering 4 years of payment coverage. However, the "Health Tech Investment Act," introduced in April 2025, proposes a new technology ambulatory payment classification (APC) as a transitional reimbursement mechanism for at least five years for FDA-cleared or -approved AI/ML devices. This bill has not yet progressed through the legislative process.

Category A (Experimental) vs. Category B (Non-experimental/Investigational) Devices: The FDA assigns IDE devices to one of these categories for Medicare coverage purposes. Category A devices are those for which the absolute risk has not been established, and initial questions of safety and effectiveness remain unresolved. Medicare generally does not pay for Category A devices. Category B devices are those for which the incremental risk is the primary question, or initial safety and effectiveness questions have been resolved. Medicare may provide payment for Category B devices and routine care in FDA-approved studies if CMS criteria are met.

Despite FDA approvals, a consistent and predictable payment pathway for AI-enabled devices under Medicare is currently lacking. Existing mechanisms like MPFS and NTAP have limitations in capturing AI's full value or are temporary. Ongoing legislative efforts, such as the Health Tech Investment Act, highlight a recognition of this problem and a push towards more predictable payment mechanisms, but their success is not guaranteed. The US reimbursement landscape for AI-enabled medical devices is currently fragmented and uncertain, posing a significant market access hurdle even after regulatory approval. Consequently, manufacturers targeting the US market with AI-enabled devices must develop a robust reimbursement strategy in parallel with regulatory approval. This involves understanding the nuances of MPFS, IPPS, and potential new pathways, and actively engaging with CMS or advocating for legislative changes. Early health economic modeling and demonstration of clear clinical and economic value are paramount.

5.2. Value-Based Care and Economic Considerations

5.2.1. Outcome-Based Contracts and Risk-Sharing Arrangements for AI Technologies

Value-based care models are increasingly gaining traction within the healthcare industry, emphasizing outcomes-based contracts and the smarter utilization of real-world data.⁷⁹ AI technologies, by their very nature, lend themselves to quantifiable outcome-based performance metrics.⁷⁹ AI can significantly enhance processes such as prior authorization, improving efficiency while preserving the critical role of clinical judgment in complex cases.⁷⁹ Ideally, healthcare providers and AI companies would share risks, with payments tied to predefined milestones and the actual performance of the product.⁹² However, this model is not yet widely adopted, as many AI developers currently prefer traditional fee-for-service or time-and-materials compensation structures.⁹² AI contracts also require meticulous precision in defining training rights, particularly concerning patient data and Protected Health Information (PHI), as well as clear terms for data revocation and retention post-contract, and the allocation of shared liability for downstream harms.⁸⁸

There exists a fundamental disconnect between the emerging value-based care reimbursement models and the current contracting practices of many AI developers. This "contractual chasm" hinders the widespread adoption of AI-enabled medical technologies, as healthcare providers are hesitant to bear full risk for AI performance without shared liability or outcome-based payments.⁹² Consequently, AI medical device companies must evolve their business models to align with value-based care. This involves developing sophisticated outcome metrics, being open to risk-sharing arrangements, and meticulously crafting contracts that define data usage, liability, and performance guarantees. Proactive engagement with payers and providers on these models can unlock significant market opportunities.

5.2.2. The Role of Real-World Evidence (RWE) in Reimbursement Decisions

Real-World Evidence (RWE) plays a crucial role in post-market surveillance, enabling the continuous monitoring of a medical product's safety and effectiveness once it is on the market.⁵³ RWE reflects how devices perform in routine clinical care across diverse patient populations, varied healthcare settings, and over long-term usage, providing insights that traditional clinical trials often miss.⁷³ RWE can complement initial clinical trial data, offering valuable information on long-term effectiveness, safety, and performance in diverse patient populations.⁵³ It can also significantly influence both regulatory decisions (e.g., approval, labeling changes, post-market requirements) and reimbursement decisions by providing evidence on comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in real-world settings.⁵³

Integrating RWE into Clinical Evaluation Reports (CERs) leads to more accurate classification of device-related incidents, stronger justifications in benefit-risk sections, and better support for Post-Market Clinical Follow-up (PMCF) planning.⁷³ Furthermore, RWE can support the geographic extrapolation of clinical claims and justify labeling changes based on global outcomes.⁷³ RWE is the critical bridge connecting regulatory approval to successful market adoption and reimbursement for AI-enabled medical devices. While clinical trials secure initial approval, RWE demonstrates the true value and long-term performance of the device in diverse clinical practice, which is essential for convincing payers and healthcare systems to adopt and reimburse the technology. Therefore, manufacturers should prioritize a robust RWE generation strategy throughout the device lifecycle, from early real-world data collection to comprehensive post-market surveillance. This data should be collected and analyzed to specifically address HTA and reimbursement criteria, demonstrating not just safety and efficacy, but also real-world value and cost-effectiveness.

5.2.3. Health Economics: Cost-per-QALY Thresholds Across Healthcare Systems

Health economics frequently employs Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) as a standardized metric to assess the value of health interventions, reflecting both the quantity and quality of life gained. The Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER = ΔCost / ΔQALY) is a key tool in this discipline, where a lower ICER indicates a more cost-effective intervention. Many health systems establish maximum acceptable ICER thresholds to guide funding decisions. For instance, in the UK, the commonly cited threshold range is £20,000–£30,000 per QALY, while in the US, thresholds of $50,000/QALY or $100,000/QALY are often used. These criteria for judging cost-effectiveness can differ significantly across various healthcare systems and countries. Future economic evaluations are anticipated to integrate personalized medicine approaches and leverage enhanced data analytics, driven by big data and AI, to develop more precise cost-effectiveness models.

AI-enabled medical devices have the potential not only to meet existing cost-effectiveness thresholds but also to fundamentally reshape health economic evaluations. AI can enable personalized medicine and generate vast amounts of data, leading to more precise cost-effectiveness models. Additionally, AI can improve efficiency in various healthcare processes, such as prior authorization and diagnostics, and potentially reduce overall healthcare costs.⁷⁹ This implies that AI can generate more favorable QALYs and ICERs, demonstrating unique value propositions that traditional devices cannot. Therefore, manufacturers should invest in sophisticated health economic modeling that fully captures the multi-faceted value of their AI-enabled devices, including direct patient outcomes, system efficiencies, and the benefits of personalized care. This comprehensive data will be crucial for navigating HTA processes and securing favorable reimbursement decisions across diverse healthcare systems.

6. Risk Management and Best Practices for Successful AI Integration

The successful integration of AI into medical devices necessitates a robust approach to risk management, addressing both common regulatory pitfalls and AI-specific challenges.

6.1. Common Regulatory Pitfalls and Mitigation Strategies

6.1.1. Device Misclassification and Inadequate Predicate Analysis

Misclassification: Assigning an incorrect regulatory category to a device can lead to significant compliance issues, inadequate testing, improper labeling, and potential safety risks. The consequences are severe, including delays in market approval, audit failures, market access rejection, fines, product recalls, and legal penalties. Notably, filing a Class III device as Class II is particularly risky, as it can necessitate extensive additional testing and potentially compromise patient safety.⁴

Inadequate Predicate Analysis: For 510(k) submissions, the lack of a "suitable predicate device" is a primary reason for "Not Substantially Equivalent" (NSE) determinations by the FDA.¹⁹ A predicate device must share the same intended use and have similar technological characteristics, or any differences must not introduce new questions of safety and effectiveness.¹⁹ Most 510(k) submissions claim substantial equivalence to recently cleared devices, as the FDA often views older devices as lacking adequate supporting data for their original clearance.¹⁹

The inherent novelty and complexity of AI-enabled medical devices exacerbate the risks of misclassification and inadequate predicate analysis. Without clear precedents, manufacturers are more prone to errors, which can compound regulatory delays and financial burdens. This highlights a critical need for proactive regulatory intelligence and early engagement. To mitigate these risks, manufacturers should perform a region-specific regulatory gap analysis ⁹⁴, carefully assess device classification using relevant regulatory tools (e.g., FDA product codes, EU MDR classification rules) ⁹⁴, and seek formal classification advice or pre-submission feedback when uncertainty arises.⁹⁴ Involving Regulatory Affairs professionals early in the product design phase is also crucial.⁹⁴ For 510(k) submissions, identifying a clear predicate device from the outset is paramount.⁵⁷ Companies developing AI-enabled medical devices must invest heavily in expert regulatory intelligence and pre-submission consultations with authorities (e.g., FDA Q-Submission, MHRA AI Airlock). This proactive engagement is vital to clarify classification, discuss predicate suitability (or justify De Novo/PMA), and avoid costly missteps that can derail market entry.

6.1.2. Insufficient Clinical Evidence and Post-Market Surveillance Gaps

Insufficient Clinical Evidence: Inadequate study design, insufficient population representation, or weak and outdated data will fail to demonstrate a device's safety and effectiveness to regulatory bodies. For high-risk devices, well-designed, randomized, and controlled trials are generally expected.

Post-Market Surveillance (PMS) Gaps: Inadequate vigilance and reporting systems, disparate data management systems, reliance on manual workflows, and limited capabilities for signal detection can lead to delayed responses to safety issues, regulatory penalties, product recalls, and significant reputational damage.²⁹ Regulators increasingly expect manufacturers to implement a proactive PMS system.⁹⁴

The interconnectedness of pre- and post-market evidence for AI lifecycle management is critical. Regulators demand robust clinical evidence pre-market, especially for high-risk devices. Post-market surveillance is equally critical for demonstrating ongoing safety and effectiveness, particularly for adaptive AI systems. Real-World Evidence (RWE) generated post-market can significantly supplement initial clinical trial data and support expanded indications.⁷³ This implies that pre-market clinical evidence and post-market surveillance are not discrete stages but form a continuous, interconnected evidence generation lifecycle. Gaps in one area can undermine the other, especially for adaptive AI where initial evidence may not fully capture long-term or evolving performance. Effective PMS is crucial for validating initial claims and continuously updating the device's benefit-risk profile. To mitigate these pitfalls, manufacturers should conduct a Clinical Evaluation Report (CER) aligned with MEDDEV 2.7/1 Rev. 4 or MDR Annex XIV, supplemented with literature reviews, RWE, and PMCF. Involving qualified clinical experts early in the development cycle is also essential.⁹⁴ For PMS, it must be treated as a core regulatory strategy from day one, establishing a feedback loop to actively collect, review, and respond to real-world data.⁹⁷ Implementing a comprehensive PMS system, including a detailed PMS Plan, Periodic Safety Update Reports (PSURs), PMCF Plans, and robust incident reporting mechanisms, is paramount.⁶⁵

6.1.3. Quality Management System (QMS) Deficiencies (ISO 13485 Compliance)

ISO 13485 is the internationally recognized standard for implementing a Quality Management System (QMS) in the medical device industry, ensuring product safety, regulatory compliance, and continuous improvement throughout the product lifecycle.⁹⁹ Without an ISO 13485-compliant QMS, many regulatory bodies will not even initiate the review of a submission, raising significant concerns about the overall quality of the product.⁹⁴ Common deficiencies observed in QMS include misaligned quality manuals, missing or incomplete records, inadequate version control, vague or unmeasurable quality objectives, incomplete management review inputs, and the conduct of internal audits by incompetent personnel.⁹⁹

A robust, ISO 13485-compliant QMS is not merely a regulatory hurdle but a strategic enabler for AI-enabled medical devices. It provides the necessary infrastructure to manage the unique complexities of AI development, such as data governance, software validation, and change control, thereby ensuring consistent quality, mitigating risks, and facilitating scalability for global market access. Deficiencies in the QMS can ripple through every aspect of device development and post-market activities. To prevent these issues, manufacturers should build a solid QMS from the outset, ensuring traceability, precise record-keeping, and the application of risk-based thinking.⁹⁹ Defining measurable quality objectives and conducting regular, impartial internal audits are also crucial.⁹⁹ Furthermore, ensuring comprehensive employee training and education on QMS requirements is fundamental.⁹¹ Companies should prioritize establishing and continuously improving an ISO 13485-compliant QMS from the earliest stages of AI device development. This QMS must be specifically tailored to address AI-specific challenges, integrating risk management (ISO 14971) and software development lifecycle processes to ensure end-to-end quality and regulatory readiness.

6.2. AI-Specific Risk Factors and Mitigation

6.2.1. Algorithm Bias: Addressing Underrepresentation in Training Data

Algorithm bias represents a critical AI-specific risk, frequently arising from unrepresentative training data, suboptimal model design, or an over-reliance on AI recommendations without adequate human oversight.⁶⁰ Bias can lead to inaccurate outcomes, discriminatory results for certain demographic groups, and underperformance across diverse populations.²² Alarmingly, studies indicate that a significant proportion of existing healthcare AI models carry a high risk of bias due to incomplete data or design flaws.⁶⁰

Proactively addressing algorithm bias is not just a regulatory compliance requirement but an ethical imperative that can also serve as a significant competitive differentiator. Regulatory bodies like the FDA, MHRA, and those involved in the EU AI Act are increasingly emphasizing bias mitigation and fairness in AI systems. Addressing bias necessitates proactive strategies throughout the AI lifecycle, from initial data collection to ongoing post-market monitoring.⁶⁰ Devices that demonstrate robust bias mitigation strategies will foster greater trust among healthcare providers, patients, and payers, facilitating wider adoption and market acceptance. To mitigate algorithm bias, manufacturers should involve diverse, multidisciplinary teams early in the design process.⁶⁰ It is essential to ensure that data collection is representative and inclusive, applying fairness-aware preprocessing techniques to correct imbalances before model training.⁶⁰ Utilizing fairness metrics and conducting testing across various subgroups during algorithm development is also crucial.⁶⁰ Leveraging Explainable AI (XAI) can further assist in identifying biases.⁵⁶ The MHRA specifically encourages the adoption of ISO/IEC TR 24027:2021 for bias assessment.⁴³ Companies must implement a comprehensive "fairness by design" approach for their AI-enabled devices. This includes diverse and representative data acquisition, rigorous bias detection and mitigation techniques during development, and transparent reporting on fairness metrics. This commitment to ethical AI will be crucial for long-term success and patient safety.

6.2.2. Cybersecurity: FDA Guidance and Best Practices for Medical Devices

Cybersecurity risks, including hacking and data breaches, pose a significant threat to patient safety and device integrity.⁸⁷ Medical devices connected to the internet, hospital networks, and other devices present elevated risks.⁸⁷ The FDA strongly recommends incorporating threat modeling throughout the device's design process to ensure comprehensive risk identification and control.¹⁰¹

Cybersecurity for AI-enabled medical devices is not a one-time compliance check but a continuous, dynamic process that spans the entire product lifecycle. Given the evolving threat landscape and the potential for AI-specific vulnerabilities, a static security approach is insufficient. Best practices for mitigation include integrating security risk management with the overall quality system throughout the Total Product Life Cycle (TPLC).⁹⁸ Implementing robust security controls, such as authentication, authorization, cryptography, data integrity, confidentiality, event detection, and logging, is essential.⁹⁸ Providing a Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) to customers and planning for timely software updates are also critical measures.¹⁰¹ Adherence to recognized standards like AAMI TIR57 (premarket), ANSI/AAMI SW96, and AAMI TIR97 (postmarket) is highly recommended.⁹⁸ Manufacturers must embed cybersecurity into every phase of their AI device's development ("Security by Design") and maintain robust post-market surveillance for vulnerabilities. This includes continuous threat modeling, regular security updates, and transparent communication (e.g., SBOMs) to users and regulators, recognizing that ongoing vigilance is essential for patient safety and regulatory compliance.

6.2.3. Interoperability Challenges with Existing Healthcare IT Systems

Healthcare data is inherently complex and often resides in disparate systems that adhere to different standards, such as Health Level Seven International (HL7) and Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR).⁶² A substantial portion of patient data, including doctors' notes and images, is unstructured, making seamless integration challenging.⁶² This lack of interoperability can lead to inefficient practices, such as repeated diagnostic scans, loss of critical patient data during transfers, and delayed or misinformed medical decisions.¹⁰⁴

While AI-enabled medical devices are dependent on interoperability for data access and integration, AI also offers transformative solutions to the long-standing interoperability crisis in healthcare. This creates a symbiotic relationship where AI's success is tied to solving the very data challenges it often encounters. AI tools can effectively map and standardize data formats (e.g., converting HL7 version 2.x data to FHIR format) and utilize Natural Language Processing (NLP) to convert unstructured clinical notes into structured data.⁶² Unified cloud platforms can centralize diverse data types, enhancing data accessibility and reducing preparation time.⁶² Furthermore, federated learning enables AI models to be trained across multiple institutions without the need to move raw patient data, thereby preserving privacy and enhancing data utility.¹⁰⁴ Developers of AI-enabled medical devices should not view interoperability as merely an external hurdle but as an integral part of their product strategy. Designing devices with built-in interoperability features (e.g., FHIR compliance, NLP capabilities) and exploring collaborative data-sharing models (e.g., federated learning) can significantly enhance market adoption and clinical utility.

6.2.4. Validation Challenges: Continuous Learning vs. Locked Algorithms

The validation of AI-enabled medical devices presents unique challenges, particularly concerning the distinction between "locked algorithms" and "continuous learning" (adaptive AI) systems. Most AIaMD currently utilize "locked algorithms," where the algorithm's performance is fixed after development.²² However, locked AI can become outdated if its training data no longer accurately represents real-world data, leading to "model drift" and a degradation in performance over time.²⁶

Continuous learning or adaptive AI systems, by contrast, are designed to evolve and improve with new data, which fundamentally challenges static regulatory models.²² These systems introduce new complexities related to ensuring ongoing effectiveness and safety, as well as assessing their evolving value.²⁶ Risks include a lack of generalizability to the intended population, "catastrophic forgetting" (where new data interferes with previously acquired knowledge), and the potential to exacerbate algorithmic bias if new training data reflects existing disparities.²⁶ The validation challenges for adaptive AI include ensuring diagnostic accuracy (e.g., sensitivity, specificity) and mitigating risks such as algorithm drift or failure in real-world settings.²² Post-market surveillance becomes particularly challenging for continuously learning systems, and explaining how decisions are made becomes more complex for algorithms that are constantly changing.²²

The emergence of adaptive AI has compelled regulators to innovate beyond traditional "snapshot" approval processes. This has led to the development of dynamic regulatory mechanisms designed to oversee the continuous evolution of AI algorithms, shifting the focus from one-time validation to ongoing lifecycle management and real-world performance monitoring. Frameworks like the FDA's Predetermined Change Control Plan (PCCP) and the MHRA's AI Airlock are direct responses to these challenges, providing mechanisms to manage adaptive AI. Manufacturers developing adaptive AI-enabled medical devices must embrace these new regulatory paradigms. This means designing for continuous validation, implementing robust post-market performance monitoring, and proactively engaging with regulators to define acceptable change control mechanisms (e.g., PCCPs) that ensure safety and effectiveness throughout the device's evolving lifecycle.

6.3. Best Practices for Regulatory Success

6.3.1. Proactive Engagement with Regulatory Authorities

Early and continuous dialogue with regulatory bodies is a critical best practice. For instance, the FDA encourages early engagement through its Q-Submission program to discuss the suitability of PCCPs and clarify required information.³³ Similarly, the MHRA's AI Airlock program offers a unique opportunity for direct engagement with regulators to address novel AI challenges in a controlled environment. This proactive approach helps clarify requirements, align strategies, and mitigate risks, particularly for innovative AI technologies where regulatory precedents may be scarce.

6.3.2. Robust Quality Management and Risk Management Systems (ISO 13485, ISO 14971)

Implementing and maintaining robust Quality Management Systems (QMS) compliant with ISO 13485 is foundational for any medical device manufacturer. This standard provides the blueprint for ensuring quality across all organizational processes, both pre- and post-market, and is often a prerequisite for regulatory review globally.⁹¹ Complementing this, ISO 14971:2019 is the essential standard for risk management, requiring the identification, mitigation, and ongoing monitoring of all foreseeable and unknown risks associated with a medical device.⁵⁸ While many of its principles extend to AI, supplementary guidance is often necessary to address AI-specific hazards.⁵⁸ Integrating ISO 13485 and ISO 14971 throughout the AI device lifecycle is non-negotiable. These systems provide the structural and procedural rigor necessary to manage AI-specific risks (e.g., bias, cybersecurity, adaptivity) and ensure consistent quality, mitigating risks, and facilitating scalability for global market access.

6.3.3. Transparency and Explainability for "Black Box" Algorithms

AI transparency involves understanding how AI systems make decisions, the rationale behind their results, and the data utilized.⁹ Explainable AI (XAI) focuses on making complex "black box" algorithms more accessible and understandable.¹⁰⁶ The lack of transparency in AI can lead to unethical or biased outcomes, undermine trust, and complicate accountability.⁹ Regulators are increasingly emphasizing the importance of transparency and explainability for AI-enabled medical devices.⁹

Conclusions and Strategic Recommendations

The landscape for AI-enabled neurotech/MedTech device registration and market access is characterized by rapid technological advancement and evolving regulatory frameworks across the EU, US, and UK. The analysis reveals a complex interplay of stringent classification rules, dynamic AI-specific guidances, and varied reimbursement pathways, all of which necessitate a highly strategic and adaptive approach from manufacturers.

Key Conclusions:

1. Elevated Risk Classification for AI: AI-enabled medical devices are consistently being classified into higher risk categories across all jurisdictions (e.g., EU MDR Rule 11/22, FDA Class II/III). This is a direct consequence of AI's increasing autonomy and its direct impact on diagnostic and therapeutic decisions. This elevation mandates more rigorous conformity assessments, extensive clinical evidence, and higher regulatory fees.

2. Dual Compliance Burden in the EU: The EU AI Act introduces a new layer of certification for high-risk AI systems, which predominantly includes medical devices. This creates a dual compliance burden (AI Act + MDR/IVDR) and is anticipated to exacerbate existing Notified Body bottlenecks, leading to increased costs and prolonged market entry timelines.

3. FDA's Adaptive Lifecycle Approach: The FDA is proactively adapting its regulatory framework to the dynamic nature of AI through guidances like the January 2025 draft on Lifecycle Management and the final guidance on Predetermined Change Control Plans (PCCPs). These initiatives aim to streamline post-market modifications for adaptive AI, acknowledging its iterative nature.

4. UK's Pro-Innovation and Agile Stance: The MHRA's "pro-innovation" AI strategy, its principles-based approach, and the use of regulatory sandboxes (AI Airlock) position the UK as a potentially faster and more flexible market for novel AI devices. This approach emphasizes post-market evidence generation and international harmonization.

5. Clinical Evidence Imperative: For high-risk AI devices, particularly in the EU, extensive, dedicated clinical investigations are becoming mandatory, with reduced reliance on equivalence claims. The FDA's increasing acceptance of Real-World Evidence (RWE) offers a strategic avenue for post-market optimization and indication expansion.

6. Fragmented Reimbursement Landscape: Reimbursement pathways for AI-enabled devices remain inconsistent and unpredictable across jurisdictions, particularly in the US. While Germany offers a clear pathway for low-risk digital health applications (DiGAs), higher-risk AI faces significant reimbursement hurdles. The shift towards value-based care necessitates outcome-based contracts, often conflicting with traditional AI developer compensation models.

7. Pervasive AI-Specific Risks: Algorithm bias, cybersecurity vulnerabilities, and validation challenges for adaptive AI are critical risks that demand continuous, lifecycle-long mitigation strategies. These are not merely compliance points but fundamental ethical and safety considerations.

Strategic Recommendations for AI-Enabled Neurotech/MedTech Device Registration and Market Access:

1. Prioritize Early Regulatory Intelligence and Engagement:

2. Action: Conduct a comprehensive, AI-specific regulatory gap analysis from the earliest stages of device development. Proactively engage with regulatory authorities (e.g., FDA Q-Submission, MHRA AI Airlock) for formal risk determinations and to discuss novel AI aspects, classification, and predicate suitability.

3. Rationale: This mitigates the significant risks of misclassification, inadequate predicate analysis, and unforeseen regulatory hurdles, which can otherwise lead to substantial delays and financial losses. Early dialogue helps clarify expectations and aligns development with regulatory pathways.

4. Adopt a Total Product Lifecycle (TPLC) Approach for AI:

5. Action: Design AI-enabled devices with a TPLC mindset, incorporating robust data governance, version control, and mechanisms for post-market algorithm updates (e.g., through FDA PCCPs). Embed "Security by Design" and "Fairness by Design" principles from conception.

6. Rationale: AI's dynamic nature demands continuous oversight. A TPLC approach, supported by frameworks like PCCPs, facilitates seamless post-market modifications, ensures ongoing safety and effectiveness, and aligns with evolving regulatory expectations, particularly in the US. Proactive bias mitigation and cybersecurity are ethical imperatives and competitive differentiators.

7. Strategize Multi-Jurisdictional Clinical Development:

8. Action: Develop a multi-regional clinical trial strategy, potentially leveraging lower-cost regions for evidence generation while ensuring strict adherence to international standards (ISO 14155, GCP). Integrate RWE generation into device design for continuous real-world performance monitoring.

9. Rationale: This optimizes R&D budgets and accelerates clinical development. RWE is crucial for demonstrating real-world value to regulators and payers, supporting lifecycle management, and potentially expanding indications post-approval.

10. Develop a Nuanced Market Entry and Reimbursement Strategy:

11. Action: Conduct detailed market-specific HTA and reimbursement analyses in parallel with regulatory approval. For novel AI, consider early market entry in agile regulatory environments (e.g., UK) to gather real-world data and gain a competitive edge. Actively engage with payers and explore outcome-based contracts and risk-sharing arrangements.

12. Rationale: Regulatory approval does not guarantee market adoption. Understanding and proactively addressing country-specific HTA criteria, cost-effectiveness thresholds (e.g., QALY), and reimbursement mechanisms is critical for commercial success. Adapting business models to value-based care is essential for long-term market penetration.

13. Invest in Robust Quality Management Systems (QMS):

14. Action: Establish and continuously improve an ISO 13485-compliant QMS tailored to AI-specific challenges, integrating risk management (ISO 14971) and software development lifecycle processes. Ensure comprehensive employee training on QMS requirements.

15. Rationale: A robust QMS is the foundational infrastructure for managing the unique complexities of AI development, ensuring consistent quality, mitigating risks (including AI-specific ones like bias and cybersecurity), and facilitating scalability for global market access.

By adopting these strategic recommendations, manufacturers of AI-enabled neurotech/MedTech devices can navigate the intricate regulatory and market access pathways, ensuring successful registration, fostering innovation, and ultimately delivering transformative healthcare solutions to patients worldwide.

High angle view of an electronic medical device enhancing patient diagnostics with AI. - Concept.

Table 1: Comparative Regulatory Pathways and Key Classification Impact for AI-Enabled Medical Devices (FY 2025)

Feature	European Union (EU MDR)	United States (FDA)	United Kingdom (MHRA)
Primary Regulation	EU MDR (2017/745) 1	Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) 14	UK Medical Devices Regulations 2002 (under reform) 37
AI-Specific Legislation	EU AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689)	AI/ML Guidance , PCCP Guidance 33	AI Strategy (April 2024) , AIaMD Guidance (Spring 2025 expected)
Device Classification	Risk-based (Class I, IIa, IIb, III) based on Annex VIII (22 rules) 1	Risk-based (Class I, II, III) based on risk level and controls 14	Risk-based (aligning with international position, up-classification of AI expected)
AI Classification Impact	Most AI as "High-Risk" (Class IIa, IIb, III) under Rule 11 (Software) & Rule 22 (Active Therapeutic w/ Diagnostic)	AI often Class II or III 15; novel AI may require De Novo/PMA due to lack of predicate 15	Many AI products to be upgraded from Class I to higher risk classes
Conformity Assessment	Notified Body (NB) mandatory for Class IIa, IIb, III ; new certification under EU AI Act	510(k) (Class II) 14, PMA (Class III) 14, De Novo (novel, moderate-risk) 14	UK Approved Body for UKCA marking (for GB) 39; EU NB for CE marking (for NI) 39
Post-Market Changes (AI)	EU AI Act mandates ongoing monitoring & reporting obligations	Predetermined Change Control Plans (PCCP) for AI-DSF 33	PCCP guidance (intended to be formalized)
Clinical Evidence	Enhanced requirements, especially for Class III & implantables 48; equivalence harder 63	Valid scientific evidence 42; RWE acceptance for pre/post-market 49	Alignment with international standards ; flexibility for post-deployment evidence generation 74
Market Access Mark	CE Marking (EU, NI) 39	FDA Clearance/Approval 14	UKCA Marking (GB) 39; CE Marking (NI) 39
Regulatory Sandbox/Pilot	N/A (EU AI Act is broad)	Breakthrough Devices Program	AI Airlock Program (launched Spring 2024)

Table 2: Estimated Regulatory Costs (FY 2025) for AI-Enabled Medical Devices

Cost Category	European Union (EU MDR)	United States (FDA)	United Kingdom (MHRA)
Notified Body/Submission Fees	- Class IIb: €20,000 - €50,000

Navigating the Future Article Bibliographic References

1. Understanding EU MDR Medical Device Classification Rules - Qualityze, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.qualityze.com/blogs/eu-mdr-medical-device-classification

2. FDA's Draft Guidance on Externally Controlled Trials Answers Some Questions, Leaves Others Unanswered, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.thefdalawblog.com/2023/04/fdas-draft-guidance-on-externally-controlled-trials-answers-some-questions-leaves-others-unanswered/

3. EU Notified Bodies for medical devices and IVDs - Decomplix, accessed June 26, 2025, https://decomplix.com/eu-notified-bodies-for-medical-devices-and-ivds/

4. Misclassification of a Device? – – Introduction to Project Management - Medical Device Courses, accessed June 26, 2025, https://medicaldevicecourses.com/forums/introduction-to-project-management/misclassification-of-a-device/

5. France needs a public label for the evaluation of AI used in healthcare - Action Santé Mondiale - Global Health Advocates, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.ghadvocates.eu/france-public-label-evaluation-ai-healthcare/

6. MDCG 2019-11 Guidance on Qualification and ... - European Union, accessed June 26, 2025, https://health.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2020-09/md_mdcg_2019_11_guidance_qualification_classification_software_en_0.pdf

7. FDA Issues Draft Guidance on “External Controls” in Clinical Trials to Support Safety and Efficacy of a Drug - King & Spalding, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.kslaw.com/news-and-insights/fda-issues-draft-guidance-on-external-controls-in-clinical-trials-to-support-safety-and-efficacy-of-a-drug

8. Explore the Changes to Medical Device Classification Under EU MDR, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.kapstonemedical.com/resource-center/blog/explore-the-changes-to-medical-device-classification-under-eu-mdr

9. What is AI transparency? A comprehensive guide - Zendesk, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.zendesk.com/in/blog/ai-transparency/

10. The EU AI Act's impact on medical devices - PharmaLex, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.pharmalex.com/thought-leadership/blogs/what-global-ai-regulations-mean-for-medical-device-manufacturers/

11. AI Contracts in Health Care: Avoiding the Data Dumpster Fire | Foley & Lardner LLP, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.foley.com/p/102kpu0/ai-contracts-in-health-care-avoiding-the-data-dumpster-fire/

12. What are the timelines for obtaining CE certification under the MDR or IVDR? - team-nb, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.team-nb.org/faq-items/what-are-the-timelines-for-obtaining-ce-certification-under-the-mdr-or-ivdr/

13. Artificial Intelligence for Drug Development - FDA, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/center-drug-evaluation-and-research-cder/artificial-intelligence-drug-development

14. Medical Device Classifications: Determine Your Device Class - Greenlight Guru, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.greenlight.guru/blog/medical-device-regulatory-classification

15. FDA Medical Device Classes - Arterex Medical, accessed June 26, 2025, https://arterexmedical.com/what-to-know-about-fda-medical-device-classes/

16. FDA 2025 MDUFA User Fees - PaxMed International, accessed June 26, 2025, https://paxmed.com/fda-2025-mdufa-user-fees/

17. New UK MHRA Fees Starting April 2023 - Casus Consulting, accessed June 26, 2025, https://casusconsulting.com/increased-mhra-fees-starting-april-2023/

18. UKCA Marking for Medical Devices: Deadlines and Requirements - Cognidox, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.cognidox.com/blog/ukca-marking-for-medical-devices

19. 510(k) - Choosing The Proper Predicate Devices - DuVal & Associates - FDA Law, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.duvalfdalaw.com/clientAlerts/DuVal_Client_Alert_S01_E03_510k_Choosing_Proper_Predicate.pdf

20. FDA's 510(k) Program Guidance: Predicate Devices and Clinical Data | Goodwin, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.goodwinlaw.com/en/insights/publications/2023/09/alerts-lifesciences-modernizing-fda-510k-program-for-medical-devices

21. Updated Breakthrough Devices metrics and marketing authorizations - GovDelivery, accessed June 26, 2025, https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USFDA/bulletins/3c0719b

22. AI as a Medical Device: Key Challenges and Future Directions - Healthcare's Digital, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.healthcare.digital/single-post/ai-as-a-medical-device-key-challenges-and-future-directions

23. MHRA publishes the consultation outcome on statutory fees | Emergo by UL, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.emergobyul.com/news/mhra-publishes-consultation-outcome-statutory-fees

24. MDR Classes and Conformity Assessment - tracekey solutions GmbH, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.tracekey.com/en/mdr-classes/

25. FDA Releases Draft Guidance on Submission Recommendations for ..., accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.kslaw.com/news-and-insights/fda-releases-draft-guidance-on-submission-recommendations-for-ai-enabled-device-software-functions

26. An Overview of Continuous Learning Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Medical Devices, accessed June 26, 2025, https://canjhealthtechnol.ca/index.php/cjht/article/download/eh0102/704?inline=l

27. FDA Premarket Approval (PMA) - Regulatory knowledge for medical devices, accessed June 26, 2025, https://blog.johner-institute.com/regulatory-affairs/premarket-approval-pma/

28. What Is FDA's Breakthrough Devices Program? Complete 2025 Guide, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.complizen.ai/post/fda-breakthrough-devices-program-guide-2025

29. Post-Market Surveillance (PMS) and Vigilance of Medical Devices according to MDR - VDE, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.vde.com/topics-en/health/consulting/pms-and-vigilance-of-medical-devices-according-to-mdr

30. MDUFA for FDA 510k Submission and Clearance - i3cglobal, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.i3cglobal.com/mdufa-fda-medical-device-user-fee-amendments/

31. FDA Categorization of Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) Devices to Assist the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) with Coverage Decisions, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.fda.gov/media/98578/download

32. FDA Publishes Its First Draft Guidance On Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Development of Drugs and Biological Products | Insights & Resources | Goodwin, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.goodwinlaw.com/en/insights/publications/2025/01/alerts-lifesciences-aiml-fda-publishes-its-first-draft-guidance

33. Small Change: FDA's Final Predetermined Change Control Plan ..., accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.thefdalawblog.com/2025/02/small-change-fdas-final-predetermined-change-control-plan-pccp-guidance-ditches-ml-and-adds-some-details-but-otherwise-sticks-closely-to-the-draft/

34. FDA Finalizes Guidance on Predetermined Change Control Plans for AI-Enabled Medical Device Software | Insights | Ropes & Gray LLP, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.ropesgray.com/en/insights/alerts/2024/12/fda-finalizes-guidance-on-predetermined-change-control-plans-for-ai-enabled-device

35. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis - Health Economics Resource Center (HERC), accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.herc.research.va.gov/include/page.asp?id=cost-effectiveness-analysis

36. The FDA PMA Submission Process, accessed June 26, 2025, https://5890743.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/5890743/ebook%20-%20Beginners%20guide%20to%20PMA/Beginners%20Guide%20to%20FDA%20PMA.pdf

37. Medical Device Compliance After Brexit: CE vs. UKCA, accessed June 26, 2025, https://remmed.com/ce-vs-ukca-marking-compliance-deadlines/

38. FRANCE NEEDS A PUBLIC LABEL FOR THE EVALUATION OF AI USED IN HEALTHCARE - Global Health Advocates, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.ghadvocates.eu/app/uploads/2024-09-AI-label-Position-Paper.pdf

39. Regulating medical devices in the UK - GOV.UK, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/regulating-medical-devices-in-the-uk

40. MHRA opens second round of AI testing scheme - Health Tech World, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.htworld.co.uk/news/digital-health/mhra-opens-second-round-of-ai-testing-scheme-htai24/

41. MHRA proposes recognition path for devices cleared by trusted regulators - RAPS, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.raps.org/news-and-articles/news-articles/2024/5/mhra-proposes-recognition-path-for-devices-cleared

42. FDA Real-World Evidence: What Does It Really Mean and How Does It Work? - NAMSA, accessed June 26, 2025, https://namsa.com/resources/blog/fda-real-world-evidence/

43. Health Tech Series: MHRA publishes AI strategy for medical devices ..., accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.burges-salmon.com/our-thinking/health-tech-series-mhra-publishes-ai-strategy-for-medical-devices-and-medicines/

44. UK Post-Market Surveillance Requirements: Act Before June 2025 - Easy Medical Device, accessed June 26, 2025, https://easymedicaldevice.com/uk-pms-medical-device/

45. Good Clinical Practice for Medical Device Trials - ANSI, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.ansi.org/-/media/Files/ANSI/Education/Case%20Studies/Good_Clinical_Practice_for_Medical_Device_Trials_rev_1%20pdf.pdf

46. How Long is the FDA Review Process for 510(k) Medical Device Submissions? - Emergo, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.emergobyul.com/news/how-long-fda-review-process-510k-medical-device-submissions

47. AI Airlock: the regulatory sandbox for AIaMD - GOV.UK, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/ai-airlock-the-regulatory-sandbox-for-aiamd

48. Regulatory Approaches for Implantable Medical Devices - i3cglobal, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.i3cglobal.com/implantable-medical-devices/

49. Real-World Evidence | FDA, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.fda.gov/science-research/science-and-research-special-topics/real-world-evidence

50. Key QALY Cost & Outcome Guide in Health Econ, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/key-qaly-guide-health-econ

51. Guidance: Significant vs Nonsignificant Risk Devices, accessed June 26, 2025, https://dhr.research.northeastern.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Significant-Risk-Non-significant-risk-devices-04.-2.2-24.pdf

52. IRB SOP 1001 Medical Device Studies: Significant Risk/Non ..., accessed June 26, 2025, https://els-bib.southalabama.edu/departments/research/compliance/humansubjects/resources/1001.device.studies.sr.and.nsr.determinations.pdf

53. Real World Evidence (RWE) for Medical Devices | MakroCare, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.makrocare.com/whitepaper-real-world-evidence-rwe-for-medical-devices/

54. Medical Device Vigilance: Safeguarding Patient Safety Through Intelligent Post-Market Surveillance - Cloudbyz, accessed June 26, 2025, https://blog.cloudbyz.com/resources/medical-device-vigilance-safeguarding-patient-safety-through-intelligent-post-market-surveillance

55. Good Clinical Practice (GCP) for Medical Device Clinical ... - Labcorp, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.labcorp.com/education-events/info-sheets/good-clinical-practice-gcp-medical-device-clinical-investigations-iso-141552020

56. Medical device clinical investigations — What's new under the ... - BSI, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.bsigroup.com/globalassets/localfiles/en-gb/medical-devices/whitepapers/clinical-investigations-update/clinical-investigation-update.pdf

57. FDA 510(k) Explained: A Basic Guide to Premarket Notification, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.thefdagroup.com/blog/510k-explained

58. AI Device Standards You Must Know - ISO 13485, 14971, 62304 - Hardian Health, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.hardianhealth.com/insights/regulatory-ai-medical-device-standards

59. MHRA's Revised Regulatory Roadmap - Beaufort CRO, accessed June 26, 2025, https://beaufortcro.com/article/mhras-revised-regulatory-roadmap/

60. New Study Tackles Bias in Healthcare AI - AZoRobotics, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.azorobotics.com/News.aspx?newsID=15813

61. NICE's application of cost-effectiveness threshold(s) | AcademyHealth, accessed June 26, 2025, https://academyhealth.org/blog/2015-01/nices-application-cost-effectiveness-thresholds

62. The Challenges and Solutions in Implementing AI for Healthcare Integration and Data Management | Simbo AI - Blogs, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.simbo.ai/blog/the-challenges-and-solutions-in-implementing-ai-for-healthcare-integration-and-data-management-1714676/

63. Medical Device Clinical Evaluation | MDR Compliance Guide ..., accessed June 26, 2025, https://mantrasystems.com/eu-mdr-compliance/clinical-evaluation

64. Good Machine Learning Practice (USA / UK), accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.imdrf.org/sites/default/files/2023-04/Good%20Machine%20Learning%20Practice.pdf

65. Understanding EU Class IIb Medical Devices: Regulatory Framework, Compliance Demands, and Market Strategy - Registrar Corp, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.registrarcorp.com/blog/medical-devices/medical-device-regulations/understanding-eu-class-iib-medical-devices/

66. When Does NICE Recommend the Use of Health Technologies Within a Programme of Evidence Development? A Systematic Review of NICE Guidance, accessed June 26, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3561612/

67. ​​Navigating the use of external control arms - Cardinal Health, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.cardinalhealth.com/en/services/manufacturer/biopharmaceutical/real-world-evidence-and-insights/regulatory-grade-rwe/navigating-the-use-of-external-control-arms.html

68. The Essential Guide to EU MDR Medical Device Classification - MedEnvoy, accessed June 26, 2025, https://medenvoyglobal.com/blog/the-essential-guide-to-eu-mdr-medical-device-classification/

69. EU MDR Classification Rules - Ideagen, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.ideagen.com/thought-leadership/blog/eu-mdr-understanding-device-classification-rules

70. How much does a Notified Body certification cost? | MDRC, accessed June 26, 2025, https://mdrc-services.com/how-much-does-nb-certification-cost/

71. Clinical Evaluation for EU MDR: A Step-by-Step Guide to CE ..., accessed June 26, 2025, https://lfhregulatory.co.uk/clinical-evaluation-eu-mdr-guide/

72. FDA Fees Summary for 2025: What You Need to Know - Quality Smart Solutions, accessed June 26, 2025, https://qualitysmartsolutions.com/news/fda-fees-summary-for-2025/

73. Integrating Real-World Evidence (RWE) in Clinical Evaluation Reports (CERs) for Medical Devices - MakroCare, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.makrocare.com/blog/medical-devices-integrating-rwe-into-cer-for-post-market-devices/

74. The regulation of artificial intelligence as a medical device ... - GOV.UK, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-regulation-of-artificial-intelligence-as-a-medical-device-government-response-to-the-rhc/the-regulation-of-artificial-intelligence-as-a-medical-device-government-response-to-the-regulatory-horizons-council

75. EMA's new work plan: Leveraging data and AI to encourage innovation and research, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.hoganlovells.com/en/publications/emas-new-work-plan-leveraging-data-and-ai-to-encourage-innovation-and-research

76. EU MDR: Definition, Timelines, Requirements, and Compliance - SimplerQMS, accessed June 26, 2025, https://simplerqms.com/eu-mdr/

77. Timeline of proposed changes to the UK regulatory framework for medical devices, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.pharmavibes.co.uk/2025/05/01/timeline-of-proposed-changes-to-the-uk-regulatory-framework-for-medical-devices/

78. Summary of the NICE Evidence Standards Framework (ESF) for ..., accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.dht.health/post/summary-of-the-nice-evidence-standards-framework-esf-for-digital-health-technologies

79. How AI, Data Analytics, and Outcomes-Based Contracts Are Shaping Health Care: Laura Bobolts, PharmD, BCOP, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.ajmc.com/view/how-ai-data-analytics-and-outcomes-based-contracts-are-shaping-health-care-laura-bobolts-pharmd-bcop

80. Integration of digital health applications into the German healthcare system: development of “The DiGA-Care Path” - Frontiers, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/health-services/articles/10.3389/frhs.2024.1372522/full

81. Who Will Pay for AI? - PMC, accessed June 26, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8166111/

82. MHRA Unveils New International Reliance Framework for Faster Medical Product Approvals, accessed June 26, 2025, https://trial.medpath.com/news/454b96fab5a93d30/mhra-unveils-new-international-reliance-framework-for-faster-medical-product-approvals

83. Good machine learning practice for medical device development: Guiding principles, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.imdrf.org/documents/good-machine-learning-practice-medical-device-development-guiding-principles

84. What are the most effective techniques for reducing bias in AI models trained on imbalanced datasets? | ResearchGate, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_are_the_most_effective_techniques_for_reducing_bias_in_AI_models_trained_on_imbalanced_datasets

85. Section A: Technologies suitable for evaluation using the evidence ..., accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.nice.org.uk/corporate/ecd7/chapter/section-a-technologies-suitable-for-evaluation-using-the-evidence-standards-framework

86. European Medicines Agency opens dialogue on use of AI in pharmaceutical life cycle, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.dlapiper.com/es-pr/insights/publications/ai-outlook/2023/european-medicines-agency-opens-dialogue-on-use-of-ai-in-pharmaceutical-lifecycle

87. Software as medical device: Applicable requirements for market ..., accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.raps.org/news-and-articles/news-articles/2025/4/software-as-medical-device-applicable-requirements

88. AI Contracts in Health Care: Avoiding the Data Dumpster Fire | JD Supra, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/ai-contracts-in-health-care-avoiding-5836134/

89. Integration of digital health applications into the German healthcare system: development of “The DiGA-Care Path” - PMC, accessed June 26, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10966120/

90. Medicare Reimbursement Pathway for AI-Enabled Medical Devices ..., accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.sidley.com/en/insights/newsupdates/2025/05/medicare-reimbursement-pathway-for-ai-enabled-medical-devices-considered

91. ISO 13485 – Medical Devices – Compliance Made Easy - ISMS.online, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.isms.online/iso-13485/

92. Providers' Contracts with AI Companies Should Share Risk, This Hospital Exec Says, accessed June 26, 2025, https://medcitynews.com/2025/03/providers-contracts-with-ai-companies-should-share-risk-this-hospital-exec-says/

93. EMA and HMA launch 2028 plan to use AI and real-world data in EU medicines regulation, accessed June 26, 2025, https://becarispublishing.com/digital-content/blog-post/ema-and-hma-launch-2028-plan-use-ai-and-real-world-data-eu-medicines-regulation

94. Employee Misclassification: What it is, Risks & Prevention - Playroll, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.playroll.com/blog/employee-misclassification-guide

95. MHRA and Artificial Intelligence - Innovate UK Business Connect, accessed June 26, 2025, https://iuk-business-connect.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/MHRA-Webinar-Jan-2025-Webinar-slides.pdf

96. New medical device reporting requirements come into effect in the UK - Vascular News, accessed June 26, 2025, https://vascularnews.com/new-medical-device-reporting-requirements-come-into-effect-in-the-uk/

97. 5 Common Regulatory Pitfalls in the Medical Device Industry (and How to Avoid Them), accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.greenlight.guru/blog/common-regulatory-pitfalls

98. FDA Cybersecurity Guidelines for Medical Devices: 2024 Guide | Sternum IoT, accessed June 26, 2025, https://sternumiot.com/iot-blog/fda-cybersecurity-guidelines-for-medical-devices-2024-guide/

99. Top ISO 13485 Nonconformances and How to Prevent Them - Easy Medical Device, accessed June 26, 2025, https://easymedicaldevice.com/top-iso-13485-nonconformances-and-how-to-prevent-them/

100. Artificial Intelligence Paper Outlines FDA's Approach to Protect Public Health and Promote Ethical Innovation | Imaging Technology News, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.itnonline.com/content/artificial-intelligence-paper-outlines-fda%E2%80%99s-approach-protect-public-health-and-promote

101. Medical Device Cybersecurity: Best Practices, FAQs, and Examples - Innolitics, accessed June 26, 2025, https://innolitics.com/articles/medical-device-cybersecurity-best-practices-faqs-and-examples/

102. EU MDR Medical Device Classification: Classes and Examples - SimplerQMS, accessed June 26, 2025, https://simplerqms.com/eu-mdr-medical-device-classification/

103. FDA unveils FY 2025 user fee rates - RAPS, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.raps.org/news-and-articles/news-articles/2024/8/fda-unveils-fy-2025-user-fee-rates

104. The Interoperability Crisis in HealthTech: Can AI Help Connect the Dots? - ISHIR, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.ishir.com/blog/215199/the-interoperability-crisis-in-healthtech-can-ai-help-connect-the-dots.htm

105. MHRA publishes its strategic approach to artificial intelligence, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.techuk.org/resource/mhra-publishes-its-strategic-approach-to-artificial-intelligence.html

106. Enhancing Trust Safety And Performance Through Explainability In AI-Enabled Medical Devices, accessed June 26, 2025, https://www.meddeviceonline.com/doc/enhancing-trust-safety-and-performance-through-explainability-in-ai-enabled-medical-devices-0001

Top 10 Common Mistakes in Medical Device Regulatory Submissions - Operon Strategist, accessed June 26, 2025, https://operonstrategist.com/top-10-common-mistakes-in-medical-device-regulatory-submissions/