4.2.3 A Systems Approach to Medical Device Compliance with IEC 60601–1:2005
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The development of electrical medical devices requires compliance with a host of regulations and standards to help ensure their safety and effectiveness. One of the most notable additions in recent years is the 3 rd Edition of IEC 60601‐1 (IEC 60601–1, 2005), “Medical electrical equipment – General requirements for basic safety and essential performance.” Medical devices sold to the European Community and Canada must comply with the standard in 2012, and devices in the U.S. and other countries must follow shortly thereafter. This standard represents a sea change in the way medical devices are typically developed, and includes a heavy reliance on safety risk management and usability engineering processes. This paper presents the systems engineer as the ideal candidate to lead these activities and facilitate device development; the standard impacts many areas (e.g., engineering, regulatory, human factors, and project management) and requires a methodical approach to implement in a cost‐effective manner while ensuring safety and effectiveness of the device. This paper details techniques developed to efficiently comply with the standard, leveraging existing systems engineering practices and emerging methods such as Model Based Systems Engineering.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".