Mapping AI regulation in health care with the Health & AI Policy Index (HAPI)

CLAIM (Claim-Specific Citation Network audit, sometimes called CSN) is a forensic method for testing whether a scientific or medical claim's authority is supported by evidence or by citation dynamics. It detects citation bias, amplification, citation diversion, citation transmutation, dead-end citation, and back-door invention.

The ASSAY skill runs a structured, CLAIM-compatible extraction and integrity assessment on an article. Output is a verdict (sound, mixed, flagged, problematic, or cascade), a count of claims extracted, the central key claim, and an integrity note describing the structural read.

This scan restricts ASSAY to peer-reviewed publications and preprint servers. Journalism, opinion pieces, and government documents are evaluated under different frameworks (CAIHL for power and agency; editor's note for context).

ASSAY found the central claims well-supported by the underlying evidence; methodology stands; the integrity-of-citation check raised no structural concerns.

240 distinct health-AI policy instruments published 2016-2025 across more than 100 issuers; no single unified governance framework exists.

Total claims extracted from the article: 14. The key claim is the single most load-bearing assertion the rest of the argument depends on.

Methodology is a structured policy-document review with explicit inclusion criteria and a public interactive index. The 'fragmentation' framing is well-supported by the data. One caveat: counting policy instruments by issuer overweights jurisdictions with prolific advisory bodies and may understate the binding weight of any single instrument.

Editor's note: HAPI is the first artifact patient advocates can cite when an institution claims regulatory cover. Use it to ask which of the 240 policies actually constrains the AI in front of you.

Summary: npj Digital Medicine: Mount Sinai researchers analyze 240 health-AI policies from 2016-2025 across 100+ issuers, finding fragmented oversight, transparency-oriented advisories dominant, obligations falling on providers and developers.

Read the original source → CAIHL read of this item →