Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2107.08185

Assessing Support for Industry Standards in Reference Medical Software Architectures

Shihui Han·Roopak Sinha·Andrew Lowe
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Industrial standards for developing medical device software provide requirements that conforming devices must meet. A number of reference software architectures have been proposed to develop such software. The ISO/IEC 25010:2011 family of standards provides a comprehensive software product quality model, including characteristics that are highly desirable in medical devices. Furthermore, frameworks like 4+1 Views provide a robust framework to develop the software architecture or high level design for any software, including for medical devices. However, the alignment between industrial standards and reference architectures for medical device software, on one hand, and ISO/IEC 25010:2011 and 4+1 Views, on the other, is not well understood. This paper aims to explore how ISO/IEC 25010:2011 and 4+1 Views are supported by current standards, namely ISO 13485:2016, ISO 14971:2012, IEC 62304:2006 and IEC 62366:2015, and current reference architectures for medical device software. We classified requirements from medical devices standards into qualities from ISO/IEC 25010:2011 and architectural views from 4+1 Views. A systematic literature review (SLR) method was followed to review current references software architectures and a mapping of their support for the identified ISO/IEC 25010:2011 qualities in the previous step was carried out. Our results show that ISO/IEC 25010:2011 qualities like functional suitability, portability, maintainability, usability, security, reliability and compatibility are highly emphasised in medical device standards. Furthermore, we show that current reference architectures only partially support these qualities. This paper can help medical device developers identify focus areas for developing standards-compliant software. A wider study involving under-development medical devices can help improve the accuracy of our findings in the future.

Explore related subjects

cs.SE

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Shihui Han, Roopak Sinha, Andrew Lowe. 2021-07-17. Assessing Support for Industry Standards in Reference Medical Software Architectures. https://doi.org/10.1109/iecon43393.2020.9255309.

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks

Vibe coding is a new software development paradigm in which human engineers prompt a large language model (LLM) agent to complete complex coding tasks with little supervision. Although vibe coding is increasingly adopted, is the generated code really safe to deploy in production? To investigate this question, we propose SUSVIBES, a benchmark consisting of 186 feature-request software engineering tasks from real-world open-source projects, for which, human programmers committed vulnerable implementations. We evaluate 12 widely used coding agentic settings with frontier models on the benchmark. Disturbingly, all agents perform poorly in terms of software security. Although 57% of the solutions from SWE-Agent with Claude 4 Sonnet are functionally correct, only 11.8% are secure. Further experiments demonstrate that preliminary security strategies, such as augmenting the feature request with vulnerability hints, cannot mitigate these security issues. Our findings raise serious concerns about the widespread adoption of vibe coding, particularly in security-sensitive applications. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/LeiLiLab/susvibes. The leaderboard is at https://leililab.github.io/susvibes-leaderboard.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

Why3-py: A Tool for Formal Verification of Hypothesis Testing and Meta-Analysis in Python

The reproducibility crisis in scientific research has received widespread recognition, thereby increasing the importance of meta-analyses that integrate statistical analyses from multiple studies. However, statistical methods often have ambiguous and implicit underlying assumptions, which can lead to their erroneous applications and interpretations. To address this issue, we propose a formal verification framework for statistical Python programs. Specifically, we present Why3-py, a Python front-end for the Why3 verification platform that transforms Python code into verification-oriented WhyML representations, addressing the challenges arising from Python's dynamic typing and runtime polymorphism. Furthermore, we extend the StatWhy tool to support the verification of meta-analysis methods. These tools enable meta-analysts to identify overlooked assumptions and misuse of analyses, and to verify the correct use of hypothesis testing and meta-analysis methods in Python code.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Code

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

cs.SE↗