Findings
The FDA classifies CDS software as Non-Device CDS only if it meets four specific criteria related to data inputs, information display, HCP support, and independent reviewability. Software functions that analyze medical images, signals from IVDs, or patterns from signal acquisition systems remain regulated as medical devices. Non-Device CDS must be intended for health care professionals and not for patients or caregivers. Automation bias and the time-critical nature of decision-making are key factors in determining whether an HCP can truly review the basis of a recommendation independently. If software provides a specific diagnostic or treatment directive rather than a list of options, it generally fails to meet the exclusion criteria.

Recommendations
Developers should ensure that software intended as Non-Device CDS provides a plain language description of the underlying algorithm and the data used for validation. The software or labeling must clearly identify the intended HCP user, the patient population, and the required input medical information. To support independent review, the software should highlight the source of its clinical recommendations, such as specific clinical practice guidelines or peer-reviewed studies. Developers are encouraged to use usability testing to verify that HCPs can understand the basis of recommendations without relying primarily on the software’s output. For multiple function products, developers should follow the FDA’s policy for assessing products that contain both device and non-device functions.

Regulatory Considerations
The FDA applies a risk-based approach to software oversight, focusing on functions that acquire or analyze complex medical data like ECG waveforms or genomic sequences. Software intended for time-sensitive or critical medical decisions is typically regulated as a device because the user lacks the time to independently verify the recommendation. The agency intends to exercise enforcement discretion for certain software functions that provide only one clinically appropriate recommendation if all other non-device criteria are met. Sponsors may use the Q-Submission process to discuss alternative approaches or clarify the regulatory status of specific software functions. Existing digital health policies continue to apply to software functions that meet the device definition, including mobile medical applications.

Findings
The traditional medical device regulatory paradigm is not designed for the adaptive nature of AI/ML technologies, which can learn and change after they are on the market. A key benefit of AI/ML is its ability to improve performance by learning from real-world data, but this also presents a unique regulatory challenge. To ensure patient safety and device effectiveness, a new, flexible regulatory framework is required that can accommodate these iterative improvements. Transparency and robust monitoring are essential to manage the risks associated with evolving algorithms.

Recommendations
The FDA proposes a "Predetermined Change Control Plan" (PCCP) to be included in premarket submissions. This plan would specify the anticipated modifications to the device (the "what") and the methodology for implementing and validating those changes (the "how"). The development of "Good Machine Learning Practice" (GMLP) is encouraged to ensure that AI/ML algorithms are developed and validated using best practices. Manufacturers should implement robust real-world performance monitoring to ensure that their devices remain safe and effective after deployment.

Regulatory Considerations
The FDA is developing a new regulatory framework tailored to the unique aspects of AI/ML-based SaMD, which will leverage a TPLC approach. The agency has issued an "AI/ML SaMD Action Plan" that outlines its multi-pronged approach, including issuing draft guidance on PCCPs and promoting the harmonization of GMLP. The FDA is actively collaborating with stakeholders to foster innovation while ensuring patient safety. The agency maintains a public list of authorized AI/ML-enabled medical devices to enhance transparency.

Findings
The DHCoE works to strategically advance science and evidence for digital health technologies (DHTs).
Key areas of focus include Artificial Intelligence / Machine Learning (AI/ML) in Software as a Medical Device (SaMD), Cybersecurity, Augmented Reality (AR) and Virtual Reality (VR), and Wireless Medical Devices.
The DHCoE develops and publishes Guidances with Digital Health Content and maintains a Digital Health Policy Navigator to provide clarity on regulatory policies.
Digital health technologies are acknowledged as having the potential to facilitate decentralized clinical trial activities and allow for continuous or frequent measurements of clinical features remotely.
Programs and initiatives include the Software Precertification (Pre-Cert) Pilot Program, the Regulatory Accelerator, and the Diagnostic Data Program.
The center is also involved in international harmonization on device regulatory policy and standards.

Recommendations
The DHCoE recommends that stakeholders, including sponsors and DHT manufacturers, engage with the agency early to discuss the use of DHTs in drug development or for decentralized clinical trials (DCTs).
Stakeholders are encouraged to use the Digital Health Policy Navigator tool to assess whether a particular software function meets the device definition and is the focus of FDA oversight.
The DHCoE emphasizes the need for a patient-centered approach for AI/ML-enabled devices that considers issues like usability, equity, trust, and accountability, and promotes transparency.

Regulatory Considerations
The DHCoE's work includes innovating the regulatory paradigm for digital health, moving towards models that may include shifting scrutiny from the pre-market to the post-market phase and focusing on the capability of firms (Software Pre-Cert Pilot Program).
The FDA has committed, as part of PDUFA VII, to activities such as publishing a Framework for the Use of DHTs in Drug and Biological Product Development and establishing a DHT Steering Committee.
The center provides information to help determine the regulatory status of various digital health products, such as Software as a medical device (SaMD), mobile medical applications (MMA), and General Wellness products.
Submissions for products with device software functions must include recommended documentation for the FDA's evaluation of safety and effectiveness.
For questions regarding upcoming premarket submissions, stakeholders are directed to contact the appropriate review division through a Q-submission.

Findings
Cytokine Release Syndrome (CRS) is a common and potentially life-threatening adverse event of immunotherapies, particularly in Oncology, complicating patient care and increasing healthcare costs. Standard-of-care inpatient monitoring for CRS is manual, intermittent, costly, and restrictive, providing an incomplete view of the syndrome’s development and progression. The use of Digital Health Technologies (DHTs) for continuous, remote monitoring of vital signs (like heart rate, respiratory rate, skin temperature, SpO2, and activity) can capture early indicators of CRS up to two hours earlier than standard episodic monitoring. This ability to collect multivariate continuous data is valuable for informing robust model development for CRS risk prediction.

Recommendations
Investigators should deploy DHTs available today to monitor vital signs and symptoms currently observed in the hospital setting, but in an outpatient or home environment. The goal is to develop Early Warning Products that assess the probability of developing CRS, providing clinical decision support. Product developers should follow a strategic roadmap that outlines milestones for building products that are clinically relevant and commercially viable. Researchers should use a common set of digital clinical measures to gather high-quality datasets and ensure comparability across studies to build more robust predictive models. Predictive algorithms should be built on a robust reference measure for analytical validation and be clinically validated with sufficient data.

Regulatory Considerations
The resources are designed to help developers build products that are clinically appropriate, regulatory-acceptable, and commercially viable. Future regulatory submissions for CRS de-risking products will benefit from aligning with this industry-wide dialogue that is being built in collaboration with the FDA. Developing a robust CRS safety biomarker could enhance the safety profile of clinical trials, increase trial access, and streamline regulatory decision-making, possibly through a qualification pathway. Products that aim for a higher level of autonomy, such as a Diagnostic that redefines current CRS grading classes, may require very high clinical evidence and likely stringent regulatory review.

Findings
Not all CDS software is regulated as a medical device; the FDA applies specific criteria to determine its classification.
CDS software functions are excluded from the device definition if they meet all four criteria in section 520(o)(1)(E) of the FD&C Act.
Automation bias in decision-making poses a risk, particularly in time-critical scenarios, and influences regulatory considerations.
Clear labeling and transparency about the basis for recommendations are essential for enabling HCPs to make independent decisions.
Software functions that provide specific diagnostic outputs or time-critical directives typically fail to meet the criteria for Non-Device CDS.

Recommendations
Clearly define the intended use, user population, and input medical information for CDS software in labeling.
Ensure that software provides transparent and plain language descriptions of algorithms, data sources, and validation results.
Avoid presenting specific treatment or diagnostic directives to ensure the software supports rather than replaces HCP judgment.
Include sufficient information to allow HCPs to independently review and understand the basis for software recommendations.
Engage with the FDA early in the development process for software functions with potential regulatory oversight.

Regulatory Considerations
CDS software functions that meet all four criteria under section 520(o)(1)(E) of the FD&C Act are excluded from FDA’s definition of a device.
Software intended for time-critical decision-making or replacing HCP judgment is generally considered a device.
Developers must ensure that software labeling and functionality align with the criteria for Non-Device CDS.
Transparency in data sources, algorithm logic, and validation methods is required to enable independent HCP decision-making.
The FDA may request additional information or oversight for software that poses significant risks to patient safety.

Findings
FDA oversight focuses on software functions that meet the definition of a medical device under section 201(h) of the FD&C Act and pose risks to patient safety.
Many software functions are exempt from regulation if they do not meet the medical device definition or pose minimal risk.
Mobile medical apps that transform general-purpose platforms into regulated devices (e.g., by using sensors or attachments) fall under FDA’s regulatory scope.
Certain apps, like those for general wellness or simple medical calculations, are subject to enforcement discretion due to their low risk.
Manufacturers are encouraged to adopt quality systems to ensure software safety and effectiveness throughout the product lifecycle.

Recommendations
Clearly identify the intended use of software functions and ensure they align with definitions for medical devices under the FD&C Act.
Adopt a robust Quality System (QS) to ensure software safety and mitigate risks.
For mobile medical apps that transform general-purpose platforms into devices, ensure compliance with FDA classification and regulatory requirements.
Distinguish between software functions for general wellness and those with patient-specific analysis to assess regulatory oversight needs.
Engage with FDA early in the development process to clarify requirements for new or novel device software functions.

Regulatory Considerations
Device software functions that meet FDA’s medical device definition and pose safety risks are subject to classification (Class I, II, or III) and regulatory requirements.
FDA exercises enforcement discretion for low-risk software functions, such as apps for medication reminders or wellness tracking.
Mobile apps used solely for administrative purposes or patient education generally do not meet the definition of a medical device.
Developers of regulated software must comply with labeling, quality system, and premarket submission requirements, depending on classification.
Apps that collect, transfer, or display medical device data without modifying it may fall under MDDS guidance and are typically exempt from rigorous regulation.

Findings
The use of Intended Use and Indication for Use is crucial for digital health products to ensure the product is used appropriately and effectively to meet the needs of the intended population. This information helps establish clear expectations for a product's performance and safety, facilitates regulatory approval, and ensures compliance. The Intended Use provides a general description of the digital health product's purpose or function. The Indication for Use describes the disease or condition the device will diagnose, treat, prevent, cure, or mitigate, including a description of the patient population. A change in a product's indication for use from general to specific usually results in a narrower indication concerning function, target population, or disease entity. Levels of specificity for diagnostic and therapeutic products can be categorized, ranging from the identification of a physical parameter (most general) to the identification of an effect on the clinical outcome (most specific).

Recommendations
The Intended Use statement should include the name of the product, the medical purpose, and what it is trying to do for the user. The Indication for Use statement should include the name of the product, the specific condition or disease state it is addressing, the patient population being targeted, what the product features do, whether other technology components are used with the product, and whether it is for "prescription" or "over-the-counter" use. Developers should characterize the users (e.g., by age, knowledge, or language) and describe the usage context (e.g., hospital ward, emergency room, web-based app). The Indication for Use statement should clearly state the product's clinical capabilities and what it is not intended for (e.g., not intended to provide a diagnosis or replace traditional methods).

Regulatory Considerations
The information provided in the Intended Use and Indication for Use statements is used to inform the product's design and development, as well as to guide regulatory decisions about its approval and marketing. Defining these statements facilitates the regulatory approval process and helps ensure compliance with relevant regulations and standards. The FDA defines the levels of specificity as a qualitative ranking of the proposed indications for use. The document provides examples of FDA's "Indications for Use" from submissions, such as the use of an Atrial Fibrillation History Feature, illustrating the necessary detail for regulatory submissions like a 510(k).

Findings
Software functions for administrative support of healthcare facilities, general wellness, and maintaining electronic patient records are excluded from FDA regulation if they meet specific criteria under section 520(o)(1) of the FD&C Act.
MDDS software functions for transferring, storing, converting formats, and displaying data are not devices unless they include interpretive or analytical features.
Wellness-related software functions that are unrelated to disease diagnosis or treatment (e.g., tracking fitness or sleep) are no longer regulated as devices.
Software functions associated with certified health IT under ONC Health IT Certification are not considered devices, provided they are not intended for interpretation or diagnosis.
Software involving clinical alerts, prioritization of patient information, or medical decision support remains subject to FDA oversight under section 520(o)(1)(E).

Recommendations
Clearly define software functions to assess whether they fall under the excluded categories outlined in section 520(o)(1) of the FD&C Act.
For software functions that combine device and non-device functionalities, ensure that only device-related functionalities are included in FDA regulatory submissions.
Maintain compliance with general FDA requirements for software that still meets the definition of a device, particularly those with interpretive or decision-support capabilities.
Align product labeling and marketing claims with the revised guidance to accurately reflect whether software functions meet the exclusion criteria.
Use the latest FDA-recognized consensus standards to assess compliance for any software functions still considered devices.

Regulatory Considerations
Non-device software functions under section 520(o)(1) are excluded from FDA regulation, but any interpretive or analytical capabilities must still comply with device requirements.
Software functions certified under ONC Health IT Certification are not devices unless intended for analysis or diagnosis.
Hardware associated with MDDS functions remains subject to FDA regulation, but non-device MDDS software functions are excluded from oversight.
FDA continues to regulate functions that prioritize patient-related information or trigger clinical alerts under section 520(o)(1)(E).
Software combining device and non-device functions must clearly delineate each functionality’s regulatory status to avoid unnecessary oversight of non-device components.