Decision Support Systems: Regulatory Landscapes for Advanced Computing in Sensitive Industries

Abstract

Advanced computing—including AI/ML, cloud-native architectures, and real-time analytics—offers transformative potential across healthcare, finance, defense, and critical infrastructure. However, these “sensitive industries” operate under stringent regulatory regimes that shape technology design, deployment, and governance. This paper systematically reviews the key regulatory frameworks (EU AI Act; U.S. FDA, HIPAA, SEC; DoD AI Strategy; NIST AI RMF), analyzes industry-specific compliance requirements, and maps these into concrete technology stacks and AI models. We present case studies illustrating how organizations implement GDPR-aligned microservices on AWS for telehealth, HIPAA-compliant ML pipelines, XGBoost credit scoring under SEC oversight, and edge-AI for defense applications. Finally, we discuss challenges—interoperability, explainability, data sovereignty—and propose best-practice architectures for regulatory “compliance-by-design.”

Shaping Europe’s digital future

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

Keywords

Regulatory Compliance; EU AI Act; HIPAA; FDA AI Guidance; SEC AI Guidelines; DoD Responsible AI; NIST AI RMF; Cloud-Native; Microservices; ClinicalBERT; XGBoost; GPT-4; Kubeflow

1. Introduction

The proliferation of AI/ML, cloud platforms, and real-time data processing has enabled Decision Support Systems (DSS) to inform critical decisions in sensitive contexts—from patient diagnosis to financial risk assessment and mission-critical defense operations. Yet, regulatory bodies worldwide are rapidly evolving policies to safeguard privacy, security, fairness, and accountability. Organizations must therefore architect their systems not only for performance and scalability but also for demonstrable compliance.

2. Regulatory Framework Overview

2.1 EU Artificial Intelligence Act

The EU AI Act (Regulation EU 2024/1689) introduces a risk-based categorization of AI systems—banning “unacceptable” uses, imposing strict requirements on “high-risk” applications (e.g., healthcare devices, critical infrastructure), and prescribing transparency for general-purpose models. It mandates conformity assessments, legal person liability, and fines up to 7% of global turnover for non-compliance

Shaping Europe’s digital future

WIRED

.

2.2 U.S. FDA Guidance for AI/ML Software

The FDA’s draft guidance on “Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Software as a Medical Device” outlines a Total Product Lifecycle (TPLC) approach, recommending pre-market submissions detailing algorithm change control, real-world performance monitoring, and risk-based validation. A separate guidance on marketing submissions emphasizes documentation of safety and effectiveness across the model lifecycle

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

.

2.3 HIPAA and AI Governance

HIPAA continues to apply to Protected Health Information (PHI) used by AI systems. Recent advisories call for specialized AI governance teams, updated Business Associate Agreements (BAAs), and enhanced technical safeguards (encryption, audit logging) to manage algorithmic access to PHI. Proposed HIPAA Security Rule revisions would explicitly require AI-specific risk assessments and governance processes

HIPAA Journal

Frost Brown Todd

.

2.4 SEC AI-Related Policies

The SEC’s preliminary AI compliance framework instructs financial institutions and registered advisors to inventory AI use cases, implement oversight mechanisms, and report on the governance of generative-AI tools. Though full regulations are pending, firms are advised to align policies with existing market-conduct and cybersecurity rules

SEC

SEC

.

2.5 DoD Responsible AI Strategy

The Department of Defense’s Responsible AI Strategy & Implementation Pathway (May 2022) mandates robust lifecycle management for AI in defense, emphasizing data quality, model traceability, ethical principles, and field-ready edge inference under the Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2) framework

U.S. Department of Defense

ai.mil

.

2.6 NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF)

NIST’s AI RMF provides voluntary guidelines to integrate trustworthiness—fairness, robustness, explainability—into AI development. Complemented by SP 800-218A, which prescribes AI-specific practices within the Secure Software Development Framework (SSDF), NIST standards serve as foundational controls for U.S. federal and commercial systems

NIST Computer Security Resource Center

NIST Computer Security Resource Center

.

3. Industry-Specific Regulatory Landscapes

3.1 Healthcare

Requirements: MDR/CE marking in EU; FDA TPLC for SaMD; HIPAA Privacy/Security Rules; local data-residency laws.

Key Controls: Clinical validation studies, continuous performance monitoring, explainable AI for diagnostic support.

Examples:

AI Models: ClinicalBERT fine-tuned for discharge-summary summarization; U-Net variants for radiology segmentation.

Stack: AWS HealthLake (FHIR datastore), EKS Kubernetes hosting HAPI FHIR server, TensorFlow Extended (TFX) pipelines, Seldon Core for inference.

3.2 Finance

Requirements: SEC/FINRA oversight; GDPR/CCPA for consumer data; Basel/BCBS guidance on model risk management.

Key Controls: Algorithmic audit trails, Shapley-based explainability, rigorous back-testing.

Examples:

AI Models: XGBoost/LightGBM ensembles for credit scoring; Transformer-based anomaly detection for fraud.

Stack: Azure Databricks lakehouse, MLflow model registry, Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) microservices, Key Vault for secrets.

3.3 Defense & National Security

Requirements: DoD AI Ethics Principles; CMMC for controlled unclassified information; FedRAMP for cloud.

Key Controls: Secure enclave processing (Intel SGX), hardware-anchored chain of custody, automated red-team testing.

Examples:

AI Models: Deep Q-Networks for autonomous UAV path planning; Spatiotemporal LSTM for threat forecasting.

Stack: Edge inference on NVIDIA Jetson Xavier; Kubernetes at the tactical edge with K3s; data sync via MQTT over 5G.

3.4 Critical Infrastructure (Energy, Transportation, Utilities)

Requirements: NERC CIP for power grids; TSA directives for transportation; CISA’s Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity program.

Key Controls: Network segmentation, real-time anomaly detection, emergency-response automation.

Examples:

AI Models: Temporal Fusion Transformer (TFT) for load forecasting; Isolation Forest for intrusion detection in SCADA.

Stack: On-premise Kubernetes clusters, Kafka streaming, Grafana/Prometheus monitoring, Vault for certificate management.

4. Technological Architectures & Tech Stacks

Layer Technologies & Tools

Cloud & Edge AWS (HealthLake, SageMaker), Azure for Health, Google Healthcare API; Edge: K3s, Jetson, Azure Stack

Compute & Orchestration Docker, Kubernetes (EKS/AKS/GKE), Istio Service Mesh, HashiCorp Nomad

Data Layer PostgreSQL/TimescaleDB, MongoDB, Neo4j for knowledge graphs; Data Lake: S3, ADLS; ETL: Apache Airflow, NiFi

APIs & Integration HAPI FHIR, Mirth Connect, Kafka, RabbitMQ, gRPC

AI/ML Development TensorFlow, PyTorch, scikit-learn, Hugging Face Transformers; MLOps: Kubeflow, MLflow, Seldon Core

Security & Governance HashiCorp Vault, Keycloak/OAuth2, Open Policy Agent (OPA), ELK Stack, Sentinel (Azure), Splunk SIEM

Explainability SHAP, LIME, Eli5; Model Cards, Datasheets for Datasets

Monitoring Prometheus, Grafana, Evidently.ai; Audit: AWS CloudTrail, Azure Monitor

5. Case Studies

Telehealth Platform (EU/US)

Challenge: Deploy GDPR-compliant video-visit service with AI triage.

Solution: AWS HealthLake FHIR store + EKS microservices; ClinicalBERT for symptom classification; end-to-end encryption; audit via CloudTrail

Shaping Europe’s digital future

HIPAA Journal

.

Digital Banking Risk Engine

Challenge: Real-time fraud detection under SEC oversight.

Solution: Azure Databricks streaming to XGBoost models; MLflow CI/CD; explainability via Shapley values; secure key management in Key Vault

SEC

.

Autonomous ISR Drone Fleet (DoD Pilot)

Challenge: On-edge object recognition with low latency.

Solution: Jetson Xavier inference hosting YOLOv5; K3s for microservices; continuous model validation per DoD TPLC; FIPS-validated crypto modules

U.S. Department of Defense

U.S. Department of Defense

.

6. Discussion

Aligning advanced computing with regulatory demands requires “compliance-by-design”: embedding privacy, security, and explainability at every development stage. Challenges include heterogeneous regulations across jurisdictions, model drift affecting regulatory status, and talent gaps in AI governance. Solutions involve modular architectures, unified data models (OMOP CDM, FHIR), automated compliance tooling (OPA policies), and robust MLOps.

7. Conclusion

Sensitive industries demand a holistic synthesis of regulatory knowledge, rigorous AI engineering, and resilient architectures. By mapping global frameworks—EU AI Act, FDA, HIPAA, SEC, DoD, NIST—into concrete tech stacks and model-specific controls, organizations can both leverage the power of advanced computing and maintain the trust of regulators, stakeholders, and the public.

References

European Commission. AI Act (Regulation EU 2024/1689).

Shaping Europe’s digital future

WIRED

U.S. Food & Drug Administration. Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Software as a Medical Device (SaMD).

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

The HIPAA Journal. When AI Technology and HIPAA Collide.

HIPAA Journal

Frost Brown Todd

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. AI Compliance Plan & Guidelines.

SEC

SEC

U.S. Department of Defense. Responsible Artificial Intelligence Strategy and Implementation Pathway.

U.S. Department of Defense

ai.mil

National Institute of Standards and Technology. SP 800-218A: AI-Specific Secure Software Development Practices.

NIST Computer Security Resource Center

NIST Computer Security Resource Center