Quality Management 3 answers

Is it appropriate to exclude ISO 13485 section 7.6 for SaMD under IVDR?

Anonymous · Published March 11, 2026 · 4 comments
Our product is a Software as a Medical Device (SaMD) that falls under the IVDR. It uses blood and genetic data as input to calculate disease risks for patients via machine learning. I am currently developing our quality manual and want to know if it is appropriate to exclude section 7.6 (Control of monitoring and measuring equipment) from our QMS.
We do not develop or produce any physical or hardware medical devices, but rather use measured data as input to our calculations. However, one could argue that we are 'measuring' the risk of a disease. Should section 7.6 be excluded, or is there an appropriate way to address it for SaMD?

Join the discussion. Leave a comment. Guest comments are welcome — add your email to get reply notifications.

Anonymous 3 months ago
Do you have any equipment to provide evidence of conformity of the product to requirements?
Reply to this comment
Anonymous 3 months ago
If you have equipment or software that measures something about your product to check requirements, then section 7.6 could be applicable.
Reply to this comment
Anonymous 3 months ago
You could consider the sensitivity and sensibility requirements of your machine learning models as relevant to this clause.
Reply to this comment
Anonymous 3 months ago
You can often exclude this clause for SaMD, but you may need to address it if auditors request it due to server operations.
Reply to this comment

Discussion

3 Answers

Accepted answer Dr. Oliver Eidel · Founder & CEO, OpenRegulatory ·
For a client in a similar situation, we justified marking section 7.6 as not applicable by stating:
We do not develop or produce physical or hardware medical devices, and this clause is excluded because we do not use any monitoring or measuring equipment during the design and development of our SaMD.

Join the discussion. Leave a comment. Guest comments are welcome — add your email to get reply notifications.

No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.

A
Anonymous ·
Rather than argue it is not applicable, sometimes you can reframe the clause to be useful for ensuring software quality. For example, if your software runs on a server, you may want to implement logging and monitoring to ensure it runs smoothly, doesn't crash, or overuse resources. However, the specific requirements in section 7.6 are often too focused on physical equipment to map directly to SaMD.

Join the discussion. Leave a comment. Guest comments are welcome — add your email to get reply notifications.

No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.

A
Anonymous ·
Agreeing with the previous points, it's usually best to exclude section 7.6 initially for SaMD. If an auditor later insists on covering server operations or similar aspects, you can address it then. Since server operations need to be managed anyway, you likely won't face extra requirements by waiting.

Join the discussion. Leave a comment. Guest comments are welcome — add your email to get reply notifications.

No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.

Want to add your answer to this question?
Write an answer under your name by logging in or signing up, or post anonymously.

Still have a question? Ask a question here publicly — for free.

Or talk to one of our consultants — first calls are free. Check out our services and prices.

Looking to automate your regulatory work? Check out our eQMS, Formwork. Built for lean, founder-led companies. There’s a free version too.