ASTM F2503 defines the MR Safe (green square), MR Conditional (yellow triangle), and MR Unsafe (red circle) markings used on devices and accessories in MR-equipped facilities. MR Conditional devices must have labeling that describes the conditions for safe scanning, such as static magnetic field strength, spatial field gradient, RF exposure (specific absorption rate) and expected heating and image artifacts. Test methods are set out in related ASTM standards, such as F2052 (magnetically induced force), F2213 (torque), F2182 (RF heating) and F2119 (artifacts). FDA's guidance on MR safety labeling references ASTM F2503.

Why it matters

Required labeling element for any device that may enter or be used near MR scanners, including implants, monitoring equipment, and accessories.

Common pitfalls

•Misinterpreting 'MR Conditional' to mean a device is safe under all MR conditions, without considering the specific parameters and warnings outlined in the device's labeling.
•Failing to properly train personnel on the meaning of MR safety labels and the associated risks.
•Applying incorrect or unverified MR safety labels to devices, leading to potential harm to patients or damage to equipment.
•Not accounting for changes in a device's MR compatibility after repair or modification.

Sources

ASTM F2503 · ASTM
AAMI Standards · AAMI
FDA Recognized Consensus Standards · FDA

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.