TechInHSR LLC
Last updated: June 2026

When is an AI/ML LDT
really IVD-SaMD?

FDA's 2024 LDT rule was vacated March 31, 2025 and formally rescinded September 19, 2025 but FDA device oversight of AI-enabled software functions remains fully intact. The classification question still matters.

Principle 1
Start with intended use

If the function diagnoses, predicts, stratifies, or recommends treatment for disease, FDA device analysis is triggered first.

Principle 2
The clinician's role matters

Transparent support for a healthcare provider (HCP) may fit non-device CDS. Opaque or directive outputs push the function toward device/SaMD treatment.

Principle 3
LDT label is not enough

Calling something an LDT does not answer whether the software behaves like IVD-SaMD. The function and workflow do.

TechInHSR LLC
Last updated: June 2026
Decision Tree

Quick guide: AI/ML LDT vs IVD-SaMD

The more the software analyzes medical signals or images, produces patient-specific diagnostic output, and cannot be independently checked by the clinician, the more it looks like regulated IVD-SaMD.

Yes → device-leaning
No → stop / exit
Endpoint
Q1 — If Yes ↓

Medical purpose?

Intended to diagnose, predict, classify, risk-stratify, or guide treatment for disease or state of health?

✕ If No → Not device software. Stop here.
Q2 — If Yes ↓

Analyzes medical signals or images?

Processes pathology images, assay signals, waveforms, genomic features, or other IVD-derived data?

If No → less device-like; review CDS criteria
Q3 — If Yes ↓

Patient-specific output?

Produces a diagnosis, probability, classification, or recommendation for a specific patient or specimen?

If No → population-level tool; not patient-specific IVD-SaMD
Q4 — Key differentiator

Independent review possible?

Can the healthcare provider (HCP) meaningfully review the basis for the output, rather than simply accepting a black-box result?

If Yes → may qualify as non-device CDS
Endpoint

Likely IVD-SaMD

Q1–Q3 Yes and Q4 No: output analyzes IVD-derived data, produces a patient-specific result, and cannot be independently verified. Treat as device-like pending resolution of FDA's legal reach over LDTs.

Practical Tips
  • Stop early: If no medical intended use it is not device software.
  • CDS candidate: Medical use but transparent, non-directive; the HCP can independently review the reasoning behind the output.
  • Device-leaning: Analyzes images or signals and converts them into diagnostic interpretation.
  • Strongest IVD-SaMD case: Black-box or directive output that clinicians cannot independently verify.
Important Note: "LDT is a deployment context. IVD-SaMD is a functional and regulatory characterization."
Remember

The 2024 LDT rule is gone, but FDA still classifies AI/ML software based on what it does: its intended use, whether it analyzes medical signals or images, and whether the clinician can independently review the reasoning behind its output. The January 2026 FDA CDS guidance update allows enforcement discretion for software that gives a single clinically appropriate recommendation — but the ability to independently review the output remains the key factor. What the software does determines how it is classified. Where it is deployed does not.

TechInHSR LLC
Last updated: June 2026

Current legal status: What changed and what stays the same

Still true under current administration
  • FDA continues to regulate AI-enabled device software functions and issued 2025 draft guidance on lifecycle management and submission content.
  • FDA still classifies AI/ML software based on what it does: its intended use, whether it analyzes medical signals or images, and whether a clinician can independently review the reasoning behind its output. Note: a January 2026 FDA update extended enforcement discretion to software that gives a single clinically appropriate recommendation, but the independent review requirement remains operative.
  • An AI workflow that converts specimen data into a patient-specific diagnostic output still looks conceptually like IVD-SaMD.
  • Federal AI policy frameworks issued by the current administration (including the July 2025 AI Action Plan and related executive orders) are deregulatory in orientation but do not remove FDA's existing legal authority over AI-enabled medical devices.
Changed
  • The 2024 FDA LDT final rule was vacated by a federal district court (E.D. Tex.) on March 31, 2025.
  • FDA reverted the amended text in 21 CFR 809.3(a) effective September 19, 2025.
  • Most LDTs are back under CLIA oversight. FDA's ability to reach tests that laboratories call "LDTs" is legally contested.
  • The four-year, five-stage enforcement phase-out (Stages 1–5, 2025–2028) no longer has legal force.

Use the examples below to help determine where your tool likely fits

Likely not IVD-SaMD

Rule-based triage aid that displays ordinary clinical information and lets the pathologist independently evaluate the basis. Transparent rationale, no patient-specific diagnostic call.

Borderline

AI risk score layered into a lab workflow — transparent rationale, required human confirmation before reporting. Classification depends on how directive the output is in practice.

Likely IVD-SaMD-like

Black-box molecular or pathology classifier that converts specimen data into a diagnostic call or treatment recommendation without independent verifiability.