Navigating AI Regulations: Insights on FDA’s AI/ML Guidance and the EU AI Act
As artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) transform the regulated life sciences sector, they are driving groundbreaking advancements in drug discovery, diagnostics, and patient care. However, the rapid adoption of these technologies brings unique challenges, particularly in navigating the complex regulatory landscapes required to ensure their safe, ethical, and effective deployment. The FDA's AI/ML guidance and the EU AI Act are two pivotal regulatory approaches shaping the governance of AI in this highly regulated sector. While the FDA focuses on AI/ML applications in medical devices, prioritizing patient safety, product efficacy, and compliance with established standards, the EU AI Act adopts a broader framework, emphasizing ethics, data governance, and human rights, particularly for high-risk applications like healthcare. This article explores the technical intricacies of these frameworks, delving into their implications for AI deployment in life sciences and comparing their approaches to compliance, oversight, and ethical considerations.
FDA’s AI/ML Guidance
Provides a framework for how AI/ML models are to be regulated within medical devices. The guidance focuses primarily on software and technologies intended for medical purposes (Software as a Medical Device - SaMD), such as AI-based diagnostic tools, clinical decision support systems, or therapeutic devices, ensuring that they maintain high standards of patient safety, efficacy, and regulatory compliance. AI/ML systems used in SaMD must meet the same regulatory requirements as traditional medical devices under the FD&C Act (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act).
Key Elements:
1. Risk-Based Classification
The FDA adopts a risk-based approach to categorize and regulate AI/ML-based devices, guided by the International Medical Device Regulators Forum (IMDRF) framework. AI/ML-based medical devices are classified into three risk categories - Class I, II, or III, depending on factors such as the intended use, complexity, risk to patient safety, impact of failure and human oversight.
Class I: Low Risk
Examples: Devices like stethoscopes, elastic bandages, or wellness apps that monitor general fitness metrics (e.g., step counters, sleep trackers).
Regulation: Most Class I devices are exempt from premarket notification (510(k)) requirements but must comply with General Controls like labeling, manufacturing practices, and registration.
AI/ML Context: An AI application that provides basic health tips or monitors non-critical vitals without influencing medical decisions typically falls under this category.
Class II: Moderate Risk
Examples: Devices such as infusion pumps, CT scan analyzers, or AI systems that assist in diagnosing conditions like diabetic retinopathy.
Regulation: Class II devices generally require 510(k) clearance, demonstrating that the device is substantially equivalent to a legally marketed device (predicate device).
AI/ML Context: An AI system used to suggest potential diagnoses to a physician would fall into this category if it is not autonomous and serves as a supplemental tool.
Class III: High Risk
Examples: Devices like pacemakers, heart valves, or fully autonomous AI diagnostic tools that directly determine treatment decisions.
Regulation: Class III devices require stringent Premarket Approval (PMA) to provide evidence of safety and effectiveness through clinical trials and comprehensive testing.
AI/ML Context: Autonomous AI systems that independently diagnose or treat patients, such as AI-powered robotic surgical assistants, would typically fall into this category.
2. Predetermined Change Control Plan (PCCP)
AI/ML systems often evolve post-deployment due to updates in algorithms, training data, or intended use. Adaptive models can modify themselves through continuous learning, raising challenges for maintaining regulatory compliance. The Predetermined Change Control Plan (PCCP) addresses this by allowing developers to outline how updates or modifications will be implemented and validated to ensure ongoing safety, effectiveness, and compliance. Example: A diagnostic tool that continuously learns from new patient data may undergo updates in algorithms, but the manufacturer must provide clear guidelines on how these changes are validated and assessed.
As part of the premarket submission, the FDA reviews the proposed PCCP to approve or reject the outlined change process:
Approved PCCP: Manufacturers can implement specified changes without additional regulatory reviews.
Rejected PCCP: Every significant change will require individual FDA review before deployment.
This approach balances innovation with regulatory oversight, ensuring that adaptive AI/ML systems remain safe and effective throughout their lifecycle.
PCCP Components:
Description of Anticipated Modifications: Manufacturers outline specific changes they foresee, such as expanding a system’s training dataset.
Performance Evaluation Plan: Includes protocols for validating modifications to ensure they meet performance and safety benchmarks.
Update Implementation Plan: Details how updates will be tested and rolled out to users without disrupting clinical workflows.
Advantages:
Reduces the regulatory burden for iterative changes.
Encourages innovation while ensuring patient safety.
3. Good Machine Learning Practices (GMLP)
The FDA emphasizes adherence to Good Machine Learning Practices (GMLP) for the design, development, and validation of AI/ML systems. Key technical aspects include:
Data Management and Quality
Data Collection: Use high-quality, diverse, and representative datasets to train AI/ML models, minimizing biases and improving generalizability.
Data Preprocessing: Employ techniques like normalization, augmentation, and handling of missing data to ensure consistent input quality.
Documentation: Maintain comprehensive records of data sources, processing steps, and dataset versioning for reproducibility and auditability.
Key FDA Insight: Insufficient or biased data can lead to unsafe outcomes, so ensuring data quality is paramount.
Algorithm Design
Transparency: Develop interpretable models, especially for high-risk applications, to facilitate understanding and validation by clinicians and regulators.
Robustness: Build models capable of handling variability in real-world data while maintaining performance and reliability.
Validation: Conduct rigorous internal validation to confirm the algorithm meets its intended use before clinical deployment.
Key FDA Insight: Model performance must be demonstrated across diverse populations and scenarios to mitigate risks of underperformance.
Training and Testing Practices
Training Data Segmentation: Separate datasets into distinct training, validation, and testing sets to avoid overfitting and assess generalizability.
Cross-Validation: Use robust validation techniques like k-fold cross-validation to ensure stable performance.
Key FDA Insight: AI/ML systems must be tested against realistic clinical scenarios to ensure accuracy and reliability.
4. Transparency and Explainability
The FDA underscores the importance of transparency and explainability to foster trust and adoption among healthcare providers. Transparency refers to the openness and clarity with which an AI/ML system’s design, development process, and functioning are documented and communicated to stakeholders, including developers, regulators, and end-users. Explainability refers to the ability of an AI/ML system to provide understandable, human-interpretable insights into its decision-making process.
Model Interpretability
Techniques like SHAP (Shapley Additive Explanations) and LIME (Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations) can elucidate model predictions.
For deep learning models, techniques like saliency maps or Grad-CAM can provide visual explanations.
Traceability
Maintain audit trails documenting all stages of development, including data selection, preprocessing, model training, and deployment.
Version control systems, such as Git, are essential for tracking algorithm changes over time.
User-Friendly Outputs
Outputs should be presented in clinically relevant formats, such as confidence intervals or risk scores, with clear limitations.
5. Real-World Performance Monitoring (RWPM)
AI systems deployed in clinical environments must be monitored continuously to ensure system’s functionality, sustained performance, accuracy, and safety. It is vital for ensuring that the AI/ML system operates as intended, maintains compliance, and adapts effectively to new data or conditions.
Real-World Evidence (RWE)
Real-world data from diverse sources, including electronic health records (EHRs), wearable devices and sensors, patient-reported outcomes and clinical trials and registries, are used to validate ongoing performance.
Signal detection methods, such as CUSUM (Cumulative Sum Control Charts), can identify performance degradation.
Automated Feedback Mechanisms
Adaptive learning models can integrate real-world data to refine algorithms dynamically, provided the changes align with the PCCP.
6. Ethical and Bias Mitigation Considerations
The FDA recognizes the risks associated with ethics and bias in AI/ML systems and mandates proactive measures. Ethics in AI refers to the principles and practices that ensure AI systems operate in ways that respect human rights, privacy, fairness, and safety. Bias in AI refers to systematic errors in algorithms or data that lead to unfair or inaccurate outcomes, often affecting specific groups disproportionately.
Data Diversity
Ensure datasets include patients of different ages, genders, ethnicities, and clinical conditions.
Use data augmentation techniques to address under-represented groups.
Fairness Assessments
Evaluate metrics like disparate impact or equalized odds to detect and mitigate bias.
Robust Evaluation
Test systems across sub-populations to confirm consistent performance.
EU AI Act
The EU AI Act is a landmark regulation introduced by the European Union to govern the use of artificial intelligence (AI) across various sectors, including healthcare, finance, and transportation. It is one of the most extensive regulatory frameworks for AI globally and is intended to ensure that AI technologies are used safely, ethically, and in compliance with human rights standards. The Act lays out clear guidelines for high-risk AI applications, such as those used in medical devices, credit scoring, and criminal justice, while ensuring that innovation and AI development are not stifled.
Key Elements and Core Principles:
The Act is based on several core principles that emphasize safety, ethics, accountability, and transparency. These principles are critical for ensuring that AI technologies are not only effective but also developed and used in ways that protect fundamental rights and uphold societal values. Below are the key elements and core principles that define the EU AI Act:
1. Risk-Based Classification of AI Systems
At the heart of the EU AI Act is the risk-based classification system, which aims to categorize AI systems according to their potential impact on safety and fundamental rights. This system underpins all regulatory requirements, ensuring that higher-risk applications receive more stringent scrutiny.
The regulations apply a graduated approach depending on the level of risk an AI system poses to individuals and society. The EU AI Act classifies AI systems into four categories, each with different regulatory requirements:
Unacceptable Risk - these are AI systems that pose a clear threat to safety, human rights, and ethical standards. They are prohibited within the EU.
Examples:
Social Scoring: Systems that evaluate citizens' behavior or social trust, like China's social credit system.
AI-based Manipulation: Systems that exploit vulnerabilities to manipulate people, such as AI-driven deepfakes used to deceive or mislead.
Impact: Such systems are banned from the market to prevent harm to fundamental rights and public order.
High-Risk AI - AI systems that can pose significant risks to health, safety, or fundamental rights. These systems are subject to strict regulation and oversight.
Examples: Medical devices, autonomous vehicles, financial systems, biometric Identification.
Regulatory Requirements:
Data Governance: High-risk AI systems must ensure data quality, accuracy, and relevance.
Transparency: Clear documentation of the AI’s capabilities, decision-making processes, and limitations.
Human Oversight: AI must be designed with mechanisms to ensure human intervention, especially in critical areas like healthcare and transportation.
Performance Monitoring: Ongoing monitoring to ensure the system remains safe and effective post-deployment.
Limited Risk - AI systems that pose moderate risks but do not require the same level of oversight as high-risk systems. However, transparency and accountability are still necessary.
Examples: Chatbots (customer service bots that interact with users), algorithms used by social media platforms and e-commerce sites to suggest content or products.
Regulatory Requirements:
Transparency: Users must be informed that they are interacting with AI, and systems should explain the rationale behind recommendations or decisions.
Minimal Risk - AI systems that pose little or no risk to rights or safety. These systems are largely unregulated.
Examples: Video games, spam filters (used in email services).
Regulatory Requirements: Minimal to no regulation, except for general consumer protection laws.
2. Conformity Assessment and Pre-Market Requirements
AI systems classified as high-risk must undergo an extensive conformity assessment before being placed on the market. This ensures that the AI meets strict standards of safety, performance, and ethical considerations. The assessment includes evaluations of the AI system’s design, functionality, data quality, and its potential societal impact.
Core Principle: Accountability and transparency in development - AI developers must document how their systems meet the required safety and compliance standards, ensuring that regulators can review the system's capabilities and risks.
This includes detailing the design, algorithms, data sources, and validation processes used in the AI system.
The AI must also be tested in real-world scenarios to ensure its reliability, safety, and compliance with regulatory standards.
3. Data Governance and Quality
A fundamental requirement under the EU AI Act is that AI systems must be developed using high-quality, representative, and unbiased data. The Act emphasizes that the data used for training, validation, and operation must meet high standards to ensure the safety, fairness, and accuracy of AI outcomes.
Core Principle: Data integrity and fairness - ensuring that AI systems operate based on non-biased, complete, and accurate data is critical for their safe deployment, particularly in sensitive sectors like healthcare, where data quality can significantly impact patient outcomes.
Developers are required to ensure that the training data used is representative of the intended population and does not perpetuate existing biases.
AI systems must undergo regular audits to ensure that they continue to operate with unbiased and high-quality data throughout their lifecycle.
4. Human Oversight and Control
A critical element of the EU AI Act is the requirement for human oversight of high-risk AI systems. The Act mandates that high-risk AI systems must be designed in such a way that humans can intervene and override the AI system's decisions, particularly when these decisions have direct consequences for safety or rights.
Core Principle: Human-centric AI - ensuring that AI systems remain under human control, especially in situations that affect people’s lives and rights, such as healthcare diagnosis or criminal justice decisions.
AI systems must be designed with human-in-the-loop capabilities, meaning that users can monitor and intervene when necessary.
Human oversight is essential for ensuring that AI systems align with societal norms, ethical considerations, and legal frameworks.
5. Transparency and Explainability
The EU AI Act emphasizes the need for transparency in AI systems, requiring that users are informed when interacting with AI and that AI decisions are explainable in a manner understandable to non-experts.
Core Principle: Clarity and accountability - AI systems must operate transparently so that individuals affected by AI decisions understand how those decisions were made and have the opportunity to challenge them if necessary.
Transparency means that users must be notified when they are engaging with AI, ensuring that they are aware of the role AI plays in decision-making.
Explainability requires that AI systems provide clear explanations of how decisions were made, especially when those decisions have significant consequences for individuals, such as in healthcare diagnoses or credit scoring.
6. Real-World Performance Monitoring
Even after deployment, high-risk AI systems must undergo continuous real-world performance monitoring to ensure that they maintain safety, accuracy, and compliance with the Act.
Core Principle: Continuous accountability and adaptability - AI systems must be subject to ongoing monitoring to identify and address any issues that may arise once the system is in use.
AI systems must be regularly assessed against their real-world performance metrics to ensure that they remain safe and effective throughout their lifecycle.
This monitoring allows for the identification of any data drift, unexpected biases, or performance degradation that might compromise the AI system’s efficacy or fairness.
7. Ethical Considerations and Bias Mitigation
The EU AI Act places a strong emphasis on the ethical use of AI, aiming to safeguard human rights, privacy, and non-discrimination. AI systems must be designed to operate fairly, without perpetuating or amplifying existing biases.
Core Principle: Ethics, fairness, and respect for human dignity - AI must be used to benefit society as a whole, without undermining human rights, privacy, or societal values.
AI systems must be regularly audited to identify and mitigate any biases in the decision-making processes, particularly in high-stakes areas like hiring, law enforcement, and healthcare.
The Act requires that AI systems respect fundamental rights, including privacy and non-discrimination, and ensure that AI technologies are deployed in a socially responsible manner.
8. AI Governance and Oversight Bodies
The Act introduces a robust governance structure to enforce the regulations, including national supervisory authorities and a European Artificial Intelligence Board (EAIB), responsible for overseeing the implementation of the Act.
Core Principle: Regulatory oversight and consistency - The Act establishes a clear structure for enforcing compliance, ensuring that AI developers and users adhere to the established rules across all member states.
National authorities will ensure compliance with the regulations and impose penalties for non-compliance, including fines.
The EAIB will coordinate efforts across member states and promote consistency in enforcement while facilitating the sharing of knowledge and best practices.
9. Penalties for Non-Compliance
The EU AI Act specifies penalties for organizations that fail to comply with its provisions. Fines can reach up to €30 million or 6% of annual global turnover, whichever is higher, depending on the severity of the violation.
Core Principle: Enforcement and deterrence - the penalty structure is designed to ensure that AI developers and users take compliance seriously and to deter the use of unsafe or unethical AI technologies.
Violations related to data governance, human oversight, and transparency may result in significant financial penalties, reinforcing the importance of adhering to the safety and ethical standards outlined in the Act.
10. Specific Focus on AI in Healthcare and Life Sciences
The EU AI Act has particular relevance for AI systems in healthcare and life sciences, where AI technologies are already transforming patient care, diagnostics, and drug development.
Core Principle: Ensuring safe and ethical AI in life sciences - AI used in high-risk applications like medical devices, clinical trials, and drug development must comply with both the EU AI Act and additional regulatory frameworks, such as the Medical Device Regulation (MDR) and In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation (IVDR).
The Act places a strong emphasis on safety and fairness, ensuring that AI applications in healthcare respect patient rights and privacy while delivering effective, equitable, and high-quality care.
____________________
Similarities Between FDA AI/ML Guidance and EU AI Act
While the FDA AI/ML Guidance and the EU AI Act originate from different regulatory landscapes (U.S. versus European Union), both share common principles aimed at ensuring the safety, efficacy, and ethical use of AI and machine learning in high-risk sectors, particularly in healthcare and life sciences. Below are the key similarities between these two regulatory frameworks:
1. Risk-Based Approach
Both the FDA AI/ML Guidance and the EU AI Act adopt a risk-based approach to categorize AI systems and determine the regulatory requirements based on their potential impact on safety and fundamental rights.
FDA: The FDA’s approach focuses on the risk classification of AI/ML medical devices (Class I, II & III), where AI systems are categorized based on their intended use and potential risk to patient safety.
EU AI Act: The EU AI Act similarly uses a risk-based framework, classifying AI systems as unacceptable, high-risk, limited-risk, and minimal-risk. Higher-risk AI systems, such as those in healthcare, are subject to more stringent regulatory requirements.
Commonality: Both frameworks prioritize stricter oversight and compliance for higher-risk AI systems, particularly in healthcare, to ensure patient safety and rights protection.
2. Post-Market Monitoring and Real-World Performance
Both frameworks emphasize the importance of monitoring AI systems post-market to ensure continued safety, performance, and compliance once the system is deployed.
FDA: The FDA requires continuous real-world performance monitoring for AI/ML-based devices through mechanisms like the PCCP (Predetermined Change Control Plan), which allows manufacturers to track the AI system’s performance, ensuring its safety and efficacy post-deployment.
EU AI Act: The EU AI Act also mandates that high-risk AI systems undergo continuous monitoring to track their real-world performance and ensure that any identified risks or biases are mitigated.
Commonality: Both frameworks stress the need for ongoing oversight of AI systems in real-world settings to address emerging risks and ensure long-term safety and effectiveness.
3. Ethical Considerations and Bias Mitigation
Both the FDA AI/ML Guidance and the EU AI Act highlight the need for ethical AI development and the mitigation of bias to ensure that AI systems do not perpetuate harm, inequality, or discrimination.
FDA: The FDA’s guidance includes principles of Good Machine Learning Practice (GMLP), which emphasizes fairness, transparency, and bias mitigation during the development, validation, and deployment phases of AI-based medical devices.
EU AI Act: Similarly, the EU AI Act requires AI systems to respect human rights, ensure non-discrimination, and undergo audits to assess and address any biases that may arise in AI decision-making.
Commonality: Both frameworks emphasize the ethical development and deployment of AI systems, focusing on reducing risks related to biased algorithms, ensuring fairness, and safeguarding fundamental rights.
4. Transparency and Explainability
Both the FDA and EU regulations emphasize the need for transparency and explainability of AI systems, particularly in high-risk applications like healthcare.
FDA: The FDA requires transparent algorithms that can be audited and understood by regulators, healthcare providers, and patients. The guidance stresses that AI systems should be explainable, particularly when critical decisions (e.g., diagnostic or treatment recommendations) are being made.
EU AI Act: The EU Act mandates that AI systems in high-risk sectors (such as healthcare) must be transparent in their operations, providing clear explanations of how decisions are made and offering users the ability to challenge AI outcomes if necessary.
Commonality: Both frameworks require that AI systems in regulated environments (especially healthcare) must provide clear and understandable explanations of their decision-making processes to ensure transparency and accountability.
5. Accountability and Human Oversight
Both the FDA AI/ML Guidance and the EU AI Act emphasize human oversight to ensure that AI systems remain under human control, especially when their decisions can have significant impacts on safety or fundamental rights.
FDA: The FDA guidance requires human-in-the-loop mechanisms for AI-based medical devices, ensuring that healthcare professionals are involved in the decision-making process and can intervene when needed.
EU AI Act: The EU AI Act also insists on human oversight for high-risk AI systems, mandating that these systems be designed so that humans can intervene, correct, or override decisions made by AI, particularly in areas like healthcare where human lives and rights are at stake.
Commonality: Both frameworks mandate human oversight for high-risk AI systems, ensuring that AI cannot replace human judgment in critical areas such as healthcare and life sciences.
6. Continuous Adaptation and Change Control
Both regulatory frameworks acknowledge that AI/ML systems may evolve over time, and they require mechanisms for controlling and monitoring changes to ensure that these modifications do not compromise safety or compliance.
FDA: The FDA’s PCCP (Predetermined Change Control Plan) allows manufacturers to make updates to AI systems post-market without requiring re-approval for each change, provided that the proposed changes meet pre-established safety criteria.
EU AI Act: The Act also includes provisions to monitor and evaluate changes to high-risk AI systems, ensuring that any modifications to AI systems maintain their compliance with safety and ethical standards.
Commonality: Both frameworks allow for continuous updates and improvements to AI systems, but require oversight and controls to ensure that these changes do not introduce new risks.
7. Focus on Safety, Compliance, and Regulatory Oversight
Both the FDA AI/ML Guidance and the EU AI Act emphasize regulatory oversight to ensure that AI systems, especially those in healthcare, meet safety standards and comply with the relevant legal and ethical requirements.
FDA: The FDA oversees AI/ML medical devices by ensuring that they meet established regulatory standards, focusing on safety and effectiveness, while also monitoring post-market performance.
EU AI Act: The EU AI Act ensures compliance through national supervisory authorities and the European Artificial Intelligence Board (EAIB), which help enforce AI regulations and promote consistent implementation across the EU member states.
Commonality: Both frameworks establish robust regulatory oversight to ensure AI systems meet compliance standards, promoting safety and protecting user rights.
____________________
Differences Between FDA AI/ML Guidance and EU AI Act
While the FDA AI/ML Guidance and the EU AI Act share several core principles regarding AI regulation, they differ in terms of scope, focus, regulatory mechanisms, and enforcement. These differences arise from the distinct regulatory landscapes of the United States and the European Union, as well as the specific needs of their respective sectors. Below are the key differences between the two frameworks:
| Aspect | FDA AI/ML Guidance | EU AI Act |
|---|---|---|
| Scope and Applicability | Focuses on AI/ML applications in medical devices (life sciences). | Provides a broad framework for AI across all sectors, including healthcare, finance, transport, etc. |
| Regulatory Structure | Centralized authority (FDA) overseeing medical device regulations. | Distributed regulatory system, with national authorities and the European AI Board (EAIB) for coordination. |
| Regulatory Basis | Builds on existing medical device regulations (21 CFR, FDA guidance). | New regulation covering ethics, accountability, and AI across sectors. |
| Ethics and Human Rights | Focuses on safety, efficacy, and performance in the context of medical devices. | Emphasizes ethics, human rights, and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in all AI applications. |
| Risk Classification | Classifies medical devices into Class I, Class II, or Class III based on risk. | Classifies AI systems as unacceptable, high-risk, limited-risk, and minimal-risk based on general risk criteria. |
| Transparency and Explainability | Focus on model behavior and outputs for clinical decision-making. | Mandates transparency across all high-risk sectors, requiring that AI decisions are explainable to users. |
| Enforcement and Penalties | Compliance enforced through premarket approval, post-market surveillance, and inspections. | Includes financial penalties for non-compliance, including fines up to 6% of global turnover. |
| Flexibility and Evolution | Allows changes via PCCP (Predetermined Change Control Plan) without needing additional FDA reviews for minor updates. | Requires audits and evaluations for ongoing compliance, and mandates review for significant changes. |
____________________
Conclusion
The convergence of AI and life sciences presents an unprecedented opportunity to revolutionize healthcare, but it also demands a proactive and informed approach to regulatory compliance. The FDA's AI/ML guidance and the EU AI Act, while distinct in their methodologies, both underscore the importance of transparency, accountability, and safety in deploying AI technologies. Although full compliance with these frameworks may not yet be mandatory in all jurisdictions, their principles are already shaping the expectations for AI development in regulated sectors. Organizations that proactively align with these guidelines today will be better positioned to navigate future regulatory requirements and demonstrate their commitment to ethical and responsible innovation.
For stakeholders in the life sciences sector, staying ahead requires more than just understanding these regulations—it demands integrating them seamlessly into the design, development, and lifecycle management of AI solutions. These frameworks provide a pathway to building systems that are not only innovative but also reliable, ethical, and aligned with global regulatory expectations. While the FDA’s guidance serves as a foundation for product efficacy and safety in medical devices, the EU AI Act’s broader emphasis on ethics and data governance signals a future where compliance will extend beyond technical performance to address societal impact.
As you navigate these evolving regulatory landscapes, our team is ready to offer the expertise and support you need. Whether it’s crafting a robust compliance strategy, addressing specific regulatory challenges, or ensuring quality and safety in your AI deployments, we’re here to help you succeed. Together, we can shape the future of AI in life sciences - innovative, ethical, and compliant.
