Article 5 lists AI practices that are prohibited in the Union, including subliminal or manipulative techniques causing significant harm, exploitation of vulnerabilities, social scoring by public authorities, real-time remote biometric identification in public spaces for law enforcement (with narrow exceptions), untargeted scraping of facial images to build databases, emotion inference at work or school (with medical and safety exceptions), and biometric categorisation inferring sensitive attributes.

Why it matters

Most MedTech products sit well outside these categories, but emotion-inference features in workplace-wellness or education-adjacent digital health products can trigger the prohibition. The medical-purposes exception is narrow: it applies when emotion inference is genuinely part of a medical device's intended purpose, not a marketing add-on.

Common pitfalls

•Assuming that because a MedTech product has a medical purpose, any use of emotion inference within it automatically qualifies for the medical exception. The exception is narrow and requires emotion inference to be genuinely integral to the medical device's intended purpose, not just a supplemental feature.
•Believing that if a MedTech product does not involve 'social scoring' or 'facial recognition,' it is entirely exempt from Article 5 prohibitions. Other categories like subliminal manipulation or exploitation of vulnerabilities can still apply, even if less common in MedTech.
•Failing to consider the downstream implications of a feature, such as a biometric categorisation system, that might inadvertently infer sensitive attributes, even if the primary design intent was different. The prohibition targets the outcome, not just the explicit design goal.

Sources

Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, Article 5 · EUR-Lex
European Commission - Medical Devices · European Commission
IMDRF Documents · IMDRF

Open full page

Select term B to compare.

Why compare MedTech terms side by side?

MedTech terminology is full of pairs that look interchangeable but carry very different regulatory, clinical, and commercial consequences. Picking the wrong framework, pathway, or standard early in a project can add months to a submission, invalidate clinical evidence, or trigger an audit finding. Side-by-side comparison is the fastest way to surface those differences before they become costly mistakes.

Each comparison on this page pulls from the same vendor-neutral, sourced definitions used throughout the MedTech Terms glossary. You see the one-line summary, the formal definition, why it matters in practice, common pitfalls, and the primary sources (FDA guidance, EU MDR/IVDR articles, ISO/IEC standards, MDCG documents, IMDRF principles) that back each entry. That makes the comparison defensible in regulatory strategy memos, design reviews, and submission narratives.

Common comparison patterns

Regulatory pathway choice - 510(k) vs PMA, 510(k) vs De Novo, Abbreviated vs Special 510(k).
Quality systems - QSR vs ISO 13485, QMSR vs QSR.
Software classification - SaMD vs SiMD, Locked vs adaptive AI.
EU frameworks - MDR vs IVDR, CE Mark vs UKCA.
Cybersecurity artifacts - SPDX vs CycloneDX SBOM, CVE vs CVSS.
Post-market actions - Recall vs field action, Removal vs correction.

How to use this tool

Pick term A and term B from the dropdowns, or click a preset above. The URL updates with both slugs so you can bookmark or share the exact comparison with a colleague, a notified body reviewer, or your regulatory consultant. Click Open full page on either side for the complete entry, including FAQs, related terms, and the full citation list. If you are not sure which term to start with, browse the Categories view or the A-Z index.

MedTech Terms is a vendor-neutral community resource sponsored by Blue Goat Cyber. Definitions are written for educational use and are not legal or regulatory advice.