Develops a framework to enhance software safety in medical devices using NLP for hazard classification.
The rapid evolution of Software as a Medical Device (SaMD) for diagnostic and therapeutic applications requires evidence-based design strategies to maximise the benefit-to-risk ratio. This study aims to provide manufacturers with a framework for reducing risks by design. We also propose a novel standard classification of software failures related to Health Information Technologies (HIT) using a Natural Language Processing (NLP) multinomial classifier, shaping the entire design process of SaMD in an evidence-based, risk-aware manner. Adverse event reports (2022–2024) were extracted from the FDA MAUDE database. HIT reports were identified using a binomial NLP classifier from the authors. A preliminary taxonomy of failure modes was derived from the literature and refined using self-supervised learning. K-modes clustering was applied to generate a balanced sample of 1048 records, then manually labelled and used to fine-tune the final classifier. Model performance was assessed through 10-fold cross-validation. The multinomial classifier achieved cross-validated accuracies between 74.29% and 83.81% with an F1-score up to 0.87 for dominant classes. It enables rapid identification of recurring issues, helping developers prioritise design improvements based on real-world risks. Nine failure categories were also identified. Underrepresented categories exhibited lower performance due to the limited availability of training data. This study demonstrates the feasibility of integrating deep learning-based failure classification into SaMD design workflows and proposes a standard classification for HIT-related software failures. By leveraging insights from historical data, manufacturers can proactively identify and mitigate potential hazards, thereby enhancing both patient safety and regulatory compliance. This proactive, data-driven approach supports the creation of safer and more reliable biomedical devices and digital health technologies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Luschi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: