ServicesAI validation and evidence

AI validation and regulatory evidence for medical devices

An AI model can perform well in development and still lack the evidence required to support its intended medical use. For an AI-enabled medical device, validation needs to connect model performance to intended purpose, patient population, clinical workflow, risk, product claims and expected use conditions.

Fabola helps manufacturers determine what evidence should be generated and how that evidence should be connected to the medical-device technical documentation.

Who this is for

  • AI-enabled medical device developers
  • Machine-learning medical device software developers
  • Clinical decision-support systems
  • Diagnostic or predictive algorithms
  • AI-enabled IVD manufacturers
  • Products using large language models or generative AI in a medical context

The problem it solves

  • What dataset should be used for validation?
  • Does the validation population represent the intended population?
  • What should the reference standard be?
  • Which performance metrics matter clinically and regulatorily?
  • Do we need subgroup analysis?
  • How should model error be linked to clinical risk?
  • How should training, test and validation datasets be documented?
  • How much independent validation is necessary?
  • How should model changes be controlled after launch?

Required inputs

  • Intended purpose
  • Product architecture
  • AI or model description
  • Model inputs and outputs
  • Target population
  • Dataset descriptions
  • Existing validation protocol
  • Existing validation results
  • Clinical or performance claims
  • Risk-management information

What Fabola does

We define the validation objectives and reference-standard strategy, and assess whether the datasets are suitable, independent and representative of the intended population.

We set out the performance metrics, subgroup analyses, acceptance criteria and statistical analysis expected. We also address robustness, clinically relevant failure modes, human-AI interaction, evidence traceability and the change-control implications.

Deliverables

  • AI Validation Evidence Plan
  • Validation gap analysis
  • Proposed acceptance criteria
  • Dataset and population assessment
  • Evidence matrix
  • Validation protocol structure
  • Regulatory traceability map
  • Recommendations for technical documentation

Price

Focused validation review

SEK 59,000

Review of an existing validation approach, dataset plan or protocol against the intended medical use and regulatory evidence needs.

Standard AI validation strategy

SEK 79,000

One model, one intended purpose and one principal validation dataset. Includes evidence plan, metrics, acceptance criteria and traceability.

Complex AI validation strategy

SEK 99,000–119,000

Multiple models, materially different patient populations, several major datasets or multiple intended uses.

All prices are in SEK and exclude VAT.

Delivery time

Typical delivery: 2–4 weeks.

Completion point

The assignment is complete when the manufacturer has a defined and documented plan for generating or closing the evidence required to support the AI component within the intended medical use.

Exclusions

  • AI model development or training
  • Dataset generation
  • Software engineering
  • Execution of statistical validation unless separately agreed
  • Clinical-site operations

Likely next step

The next step is usually execution of the validation plan followed by regulatory evidence review, clinical or performance evaluation integration and Notified Body readiness.

Frequently asked questions

Is a high AUROC or accuracy score enough to validate a medical AI system?

Not by itself. Regulatory evidence needs to show that the selected performance metrics, population, reference standard, acceptance criteria and failure analysis support the intended medical use and associated clinical risks.

Do we need an external validation dataset?

The appropriate level of independence depends on the intended use, model, evidence base and risk. The validation strategy should explicitly justify dataset independence and the relationship between development and validation data.

Do we need subgroup analysis?

Where performance may vary across clinically relevant groups, subgroup analysis can be important for demonstrating representative and safe performance. The relevant subgroups should be defined from the intended population and risk analysis.

Can you review a protocol before we run the study?

Yes. Reviewing the protocol before execution is usually more valuable than finding design problems after data collection has finished.

Primary regulatory sources

Last reviewed: September 2026

Other services

Classification and conformity pathway

Is my product a medical device or IVD, what class is it, and what do I need to do to place it on the EU market?

MDR and IVDR readiness

How far are we from being ready for CE marking under the MDR or IVDR?

Clinical and performance evidence

What evidence do we actually need to support our medical device or IVD?

EU AI Act + MDR / IVDR

How does the EU AI Act interact with the MDR or IVDR for our product?

Notified Body readiness

Are we ready to submit to a Notified Body?

Regulatory intelligence

We have one defined regulatory question. Can you answer it without turning it into a six-month consulting project?

PRRC

Do we need a Person Responsible for Regulatory Compliance, and can Fabola fulfil that role?

What are you building?

Whether you have an idea, a prototype, a working product, a validation study underway or a Notified Body submission approaching, we can start with the decision you need to make now.

You do not need to know which regulatory service to ask for.

Talk to Fabola

Send us a short description of your product.