Clarifying validation terminologies in healthcare

Validation is a cornerstone of reliability and trust in diagnostics, yet discipline-specific assumptions and unspoken contextual differences often lead to miscommunication, misalignment, and avoidable delays. As AI/ML becomes more integrated into healthcare, there is a growing necessity to re-examine how the term validation is used and understood. We highlight inconsistencies in the use of the term validation through an analysis of 94 themes across five domains, including Communication Science (n = 12), AI/ML (n = 26), Clinical and Laboratory Practice (n = 19), Regulatory Science (n = 22), and Business (n = 15). We emphasize how persistent reliance on domain-specific implied definitions impedes interdisciplinary alignment. Rather than advocating for a single definition, we derived five consensus proposals that collectively advocate for more specific and context-aware additions to the term validation to support clarity, reliability, and compliance across disciplines. Our goal is to support clearer communication and provide useful strategies that inform the development, regulation, and use of digital health technologies.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
npj Digital Medicine
Published
2026-03-05
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-026-02471-2
Primary Topic
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Clarifying validation terminologies in healthcare

Jansen N. Seheult, April Khademi, Fabienne Lucas, Sandra Buetow et al.
npj Digital Medicine
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
article

Clarifying validation terminologies in healthcare

Jansen N. Seheult, April Khademi, Fabienne Lucas, Sandra Buetow, Jithesh V. Veetil, Belinda Lennerz, David S. McClintock, Keith A. Wharton, Shannon M. Bennett, Staci J. Kearney, Kim Blenman, Norman Zerbe, Amanda Dy, Monika Lamba Saini, Matthew G Hanna, R. Salgado, Sunil Singhal, Andrew J. Bredemeyer, M. E. de Baca, Kevin Schap
article en

Abstract

Validation is a cornerstone of reliability and trust in diagnostics, yet discipline-specific assumptions and unspoken contextual differences often lead to miscommunication, misalignment, and avoidable delays. As AI/ML becomes more integrated into healthcare, there is a growing necessity to re-examine how the term validation is used and understood. We highlight inconsistencies in the use of the term validation through an analysis of 94 themes across five domains, including Communication Science (n = 12), AI/ML (n = 26), Clinical and Laboratory Practice (n = 19), Regulatory Science (n = 22), and Business (n = 15). We emphasize how persistent reliance on domain-specific implied definitions impedes interdisciplinary alignment. Rather than advocating for a single definition, we derived five consensus proposals that collectively advocate for more specific and context-aware additions to the term validation to support clarity, reliability, and compliance across disciplines. Our goal is to support clearer communication and provide useful strategies that inform the development, regulation, and use of digital health technologies.

npj Digital Medicine
College of American Pathologists (US), University of Washington (US), Robert Koch Institute (DE), Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre (AU), Yale University (US), Morrison Tech (US), Adc Therapeutics (Switzerland) (CH), Mayo Clinic in Arizona (US), Vector Institute (CA), University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (US), Synergetics (Belgium) (BE), CS Diagnostics (DE), Toronto Metropolitan University (CA), Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin (DE), Repligen (United States) (US)
Bundesministerium für Gesundheit, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Openalex Percentile: Top 35%
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.