Life Sciences Is Merging Two EU AI Act Obligations Into One
EU AI Act transparency rules for content marking and interaction disclosure are distinct obligations, and life sciences compliance teams keep treating them as one.
EU AI Act transparency rules for content marking and interaction disclosure are distinct obligations, and life sciences compliance teams keep treating them as one.
FDA's large base of authorized AI-enabled devices masks a readiness gap that generative and agentic systems will expose immediately.
AI medical device clearances are outpacing the regulatory architecture meant to govern them, and hospitals are deploying generative AI ahead of any classification at all.
FDA's two-axis risk framework for generative AI medical devices is not policy yet, and the October 19 comment window is the cheapest chance to shape it before it hardens.
FDA's open docket on generative AI medical devices is the narrow window life sciences leaders have to shape binding rules before they harden.
FDA's reported Tempo pilot lets generative AI devices reach patients ahead of authorization, and the public record on how is thinner than the headline suggests.
FDA's two-axis approach to generative AI devices is a familiar SaMD extension, but existing inspection data suggest most manufacturers can't yet clear the bar it sets.
FDA's generative AI discussion paper outlines a safety, proficiency, and generalizability framework that will shape validation evidence long before formal guidance arrives.
FDA has cleared over 1,000 AI-enabled devices, but generative AI features still lack a defined regulatory pathway, forcing sponsors to choose their architecture carefully.
Hospitals and pharma functions adopting generative AI now carry governance obligations that device and drug frameworks were never built to cover.
FDA's generative AI vacuum in clinical SaMD is pushing vendor activity toward drug discovery applications that sit outside device regulation entirely.