Using Medical Device Standards for Design and Risk Management of Immersive Virtual Reality for At-Home Therapy and Remote Patient Monitoring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerous virtual reality (VR) systems have received regulatory clearance as therapeutic medical devices for in-clinic and at-home use. These systems enable remote patient monitoring of clinician-prescribed rehabilitation exercises, although most of these systems are nonimmersive. With the expanding availability of affordable and easy-to-use head-mounted display (HMD)-based VR, there is growing interest in immersive VR therapies. However, HMD-based VR presents unique risks. Following standards for medical device development, the objective of this paper is to demonstrate a risk management process for a generic immersive VR system for remote patient monitoring of at-home therapy. Regulations, standards, and guidance documents applicable to therapeutic VR design are reviewed to provide necessary background. Generic requirements for an immersive VR system for home use and remote patient monitoring are identified using predicate analysis and specified for both patients and clinicians using user stories. To analyze risk, failure modes and effects analysis, adapted for medical device risk management, is performed on the generic user stories and a set of risk control measures is proposed. Many therapeutic applications of VR would be regulated as a medical device if they were to be commercially marketed. Understanding relevant standards for design and risk management early in the development process can help expedite the availability of innovative VR therapies that are safe and effective.
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 | 0.026 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".