01 : 04 : 10 : 28

01 : 04 : 10 : 28

01 : 04 : 10 : 28

01 : 04 : 10 : 28

Keep Apart Research Going: Donate Today

Apr 7, 2025

21st Century Healthcare, 20th Century Rules - Bridging the AI Regulation Gap

Vaishnavi Singh, Christen Rao, Era Sarda, Romano Tucci

Details

Details

Arrow
Arrow
Arrow
Arrow
Arrow
Arrow

The rapid integration of artificial intelligence into clinical decision-making represents both unprecedented opportunities and significant risks. Globally, AI systems are implemented increasingly to diagnose diseases, predict patient outcomes, and guide treatment protocols. Despite this, our regulatory frameworks remain dangerously antiquated and designed for an era of static medical devices rather than adaptive, learning algorithms.

The stark disparity between healthcare AI innovation and regulatory oversight constitutes an urgent public health concern. Current fragmented approaches leave critical gaps in governance, allowing AI-driven diagnostic and decision-support tools to enter clinical settings without adequate safeguards or clear accountability structures. We must establish comprehensive, dynamic oversight mechanisms that evolve alongside the technologies they govern. The evidence demonstrates that one-time approvals and static validation protocols are fundamentally insufficient for systems that continuously learn and adapt. The time for action is now, as 2025 is anticipated to be pivotal for AI validation and regulatory approaches.

We therefore in this report herein we propose a three-pillar regulatory framework:

First, nations ought to explore implementing risk-based classification systems that apply proportionate oversight based on an AI system’s potential impact on patient care. High-risk applications must face more stringent monitoring requirements with mechanisms for rapid intervention when safety concerns arise.

Second, nations must eventually mandate continuous performance monitoring across healthcare institutions through automated systems that track key performance indicators, detect anomalies, and alert regulators to potential issues. This approach acknowledges that AI risks are often silent and systemic, making them particularly dangerous in healthcare contexts where patients are inherently vulnerable.

Third, establish regulatory sandboxes with strict entry criteria to enable controlled testing of emerging AI technologies before widespread deployment. These environments must balance innovation with rigorous safeguards, ensuring new systems demonstrate consistent performance across diverse populations.

Given the global nature of healthcare technology markets, we must pursue international regulatory harmonization while respecting regional resource constraints and cultural contexts.

Cite this work:

@misc {

title={

@misc {

},

author={

Vaishnavi Singh, Christen Rao, Era Sarda, Romano Tucci

},

date={

4/7/25

},

organization={Apart Research},

note={Research submission to the research sprint hosted by Apart.},

howpublished={https://apartresearch.com}

}

Reviewer's Comments

Reviewer's Comments

Arrow
Arrow
Arrow
Arrow
Arrow

Olajide Olugbade

The paper demonstrated a good understanding of the policy problem and landscape. Engaged well with the literature. It also shed some light on technical interpretability problems of AI use in healthcare, but most of the explanations are drawn from existing research. Introducing novel concepts/approaches would strengthen the paper's unique contribution.

Offering multiple solution alternatives for improving AI safety and some potential failure modes was impressive. Insightful contributions on leveraging educational institutes. Strong and detailed implementation plan, but failed to consider the current US AI policy context, which has taken a pro-innovation approach and is dialing back on equity, responsibility, ethics, etc. Being sensitive to the implementation context would make for an implementation plan likely to be successful. Another relevant issue is the US withdrawal from WHO, which should have been considered, given that WHO is one of the main policy actors in this paper. Creative discussion of SupTech applications to advance AI safety. However, could have explained more about what SupTech is at first mention.

This is a well-researched paper that demonstrates the technical aptitude of the authors. However, the technical/science communication aspect could be improved. There was a lot of jargon and complex sentence structures that policymakers to whom it is addressed might struggle to comprehend. Simple sentence structures and reduced usage of jargon in policy papersn(especially those targeted at busy/non-technical policymakers) are best practices.

Jan 24, 2025

Safe ai

The rapid adoption of AI in critical industries like healthcare and legal services has highlighted the urgent need for robust risk mitigation mechanisms. While domain-specific AI agents offer efficiency, they often lack transparency and accountability, raising concerns about safety, reliability, and compliance. The stakes are high, as AI failures in these sectors can lead to catastrophic outcomes, including loss of life, legal repercussions, and significant financial and reputational damage. Current solutions, such as regulatory frameworks and quality assurance protocols, provide only partial protection against the multifaceted risks associated with AI deployment. This situation underscores the necessity for an innovative approach that combines comprehensive risk assessment with financial safeguards to ensure the responsible and secure implementation of AI technologies across high-stakes industries.

Read More

Jan 20, 2025

AI Risk Management Assurance Network (AIRMAN)

The AI Risk Management Assurance Network (AIRMAN) addresses a critical gap in AI safety: the disconnect between existing AI assurance technologies and standardized safety documentation practices. While the market shows high demand for both quality/conformity tools and observability/monitoring systems, currently used solutions operate in silos, offsetting risks of intellectual property leaks and antitrust action at the expense of risk management robustness and transparency. This fragmentation not only weakens safety practices but also exposes organizations to significant liability risks when operating without clear documentation standards and evidence of reasonable duty of care.

Our solution creates an open-source standards framework that enables collaboration and knowledge-sharing between frontier AI safety teams while protecting intellectual property and addressing antitrust concerns. By operating as an OASIS Open Project, we can provide legal protection for industry cooperation on developing integrated standards for risk management and monitoring.

The AIRMAN is unique in three ways: First, it creates a neutral, dedicated platform where competitors can collaborate on safety standards. Second, it provides technical integration layers that enable interoperability between different types of assurance tools. Third, it offers practical implementation support through templates, training programs, and mentorship systems.

The commercial viability of our solution is evidenced by strong willingness-to-pay across all major stakeholder groups for quality and conformity tools. By reducing duplication of effort in standards development and enabling economies of scale in implementation, we create clear value for participants while advancing the critical goal of AI safety.

Read More

Jan 20, 2025

Securing AGI Deployment and Mitigating Safety Risks

As artificial general intelligence (AGI) systems near deployment readiness, they pose unprecedented challenges in ensuring safe, secure, and aligned operations. Without robust safety measures, AGI can pose significant risks, including misalignment with human values, malicious misuse, adversarial attacks, and data breaches.

Read More

Jan 24, 2025

Safe ai

The rapid adoption of AI in critical industries like healthcare and legal services has highlighted the urgent need for robust risk mitigation mechanisms. While domain-specific AI agents offer efficiency, they often lack transparency and accountability, raising concerns about safety, reliability, and compliance. The stakes are high, as AI failures in these sectors can lead to catastrophic outcomes, including loss of life, legal repercussions, and significant financial and reputational damage. Current solutions, such as regulatory frameworks and quality assurance protocols, provide only partial protection against the multifaceted risks associated with AI deployment. This situation underscores the necessity for an innovative approach that combines comprehensive risk assessment with financial safeguards to ensure the responsible and secure implementation of AI technologies across high-stakes industries.

Read More

Jan 20, 2025

AI Risk Management Assurance Network (AIRMAN)

The AI Risk Management Assurance Network (AIRMAN) addresses a critical gap in AI safety: the disconnect between existing AI assurance technologies and standardized safety documentation practices. While the market shows high demand for both quality/conformity tools and observability/monitoring systems, currently used solutions operate in silos, offsetting risks of intellectual property leaks and antitrust action at the expense of risk management robustness and transparency. This fragmentation not only weakens safety practices but also exposes organizations to significant liability risks when operating without clear documentation standards and evidence of reasonable duty of care.

Our solution creates an open-source standards framework that enables collaboration and knowledge-sharing between frontier AI safety teams while protecting intellectual property and addressing antitrust concerns. By operating as an OASIS Open Project, we can provide legal protection for industry cooperation on developing integrated standards for risk management and monitoring.

The AIRMAN is unique in three ways: First, it creates a neutral, dedicated platform where competitors can collaborate on safety standards. Second, it provides technical integration layers that enable interoperability between different types of assurance tools. Third, it offers practical implementation support through templates, training programs, and mentorship systems.

The commercial viability of our solution is evidenced by strong willingness-to-pay across all major stakeholder groups for quality and conformity tools. By reducing duplication of effort in standards development and enabling economies of scale in implementation, we create clear value for participants while advancing the critical goal of AI safety.

Read More

Jan 24, 2025

Safe ai

The rapid adoption of AI in critical industries like healthcare and legal services has highlighted the urgent need for robust risk mitigation mechanisms. While domain-specific AI agents offer efficiency, they often lack transparency and accountability, raising concerns about safety, reliability, and compliance. The stakes are high, as AI failures in these sectors can lead to catastrophic outcomes, including loss of life, legal repercussions, and significant financial and reputational damage. Current solutions, such as regulatory frameworks and quality assurance protocols, provide only partial protection against the multifaceted risks associated with AI deployment. This situation underscores the necessity for an innovative approach that combines comprehensive risk assessment with financial safeguards to ensure the responsible and secure implementation of AI technologies across high-stakes industries.

Read More

Jan 20, 2025

AI Risk Management Assurance Network (AIRMAN)

The AI Risk Management Assurance Network (AIRMAN) addresses a critical gap in AI safety: the disconnect between existing AI assurance technologies and standardized safety documentation practices. While the market shows high demand for both quality/conformity tools and observability/monitoring systems, currently used solutions operate in silos, offsetting risks of intellectual property leaks and antitrust action at the expense of risk management robustness and transparency. This fragmentation not only weakens safety practices but also exposes organizations to significant liability risks when operating without clear documentation standards and evidence of reasonable duty of care.

Our solution creates an open-source standards framework that enables collaboration and knowledge-sharing between frontier AI safety teams while protecting intellectual property and addressing antitrust concerns. By operating as an OASIS Open Project, we can provide legal protection for industry cooperation on developing integrated standards for risk management and monitoring.

The AIRMAN is unique in three ways: First, it creates a neutral, dedicated platform where competitors can collaborate on safety standards. Second, it provides technical integration layers that enable interoperability between different types of assurance tools. Third, it offers practical implementation support through templates, training programs, and mentorship systems.

The commercial viability of our solution is evidenced by strong willingness-to-pay across all major stakeholder groups for quality and conformity tools. By reducing duplication of effort in standards development and enabling economies of scale in implementation, we create clear value for participants while advancing the critical goal of AI safety.

Read More

Jan 24, 2025

Safe ai

The rapid adoption of AI in critical industries like healthcare and legal services has highlighted the urgent need for robust risk mitigation mechanisms. While domain-specific AI agents offer efficiency, they often lack transparency and accountability, raising concerns about safety, reliability, and compliance. The stakes are high, as AI failures in these sectors can lead to catastrophic outcomes, including loss of life, legal repercussions, and significant financial and reputational damage. Current solutions, such as regulatory frameworks and quality assurance protocols, provide only partial protection against the multifaceted risks associated with AI deployment. This situation underscores the necessity for an innovative approach that combines comprehensive risk assessment with financial safeguards to ensure the responsible and secure implementation of AI technologies across high-stakes industries.

Read More

Jan 20, 2025

AI Risk Management Assurance Network (AIRMAN)

The AI Risk Management Assurance Network (AIRMAN) addresses a critical gap in AI safety: the disconnect between existing AI assurance technologies and standardized safety documentation practices. While the market shows high demand for both quality/conformity tools and observability/monitoring systems, currently used solutions operate in silos, offsetting risks of intellectual property leaks and antitrust action at the expense of risk management robustness and transparency. This fragmentation not only weakens safety practices but also exposes organizations to significant liability risks when operating without clear documentation standards and evidence of reasonable duty of care.

Our solution creates an open-source standards framework that enables collaboration and knowledge-sharing between frontier AI safety teams while protecting intellectual property and addressing antitrust concerns. By operating as an OASIS Open Project, we can provide legal protection for industry cooperation on developing integrated standards for risk management and monitoring.

The AIRMAN is unique in three ways: First, it creates a neutral, dedicated platform where competitors can collaborate on safety standards. Second, it provides technical integration layers that enable interoperability between different types of assurance tools. Third, it offers practical implementation support through templates, training programs, and mentorship systems.

The commercial viability of our solution is evidenced by strong willingness-to-pay across all major stakeholder groups for quality and conformity tools. By reducing duplication of effort in standards development and enabling economies of scale in implementation, we create clear value for participants while advancing the critical goal of AI safety.

Read More

This work was done during one weekend by research workshop participants and does not represent the work of Apart Research.
This work was done during one weekend by research workshop participants and does not represent the work of Apart Research.