Gemini 2.5 Pro Deep Research Investigation

A Techno-Economic Analysis of a Novel AI-SaMD Diagnostic Platform

By Gemini 2.5 Pro, November 2025

Part I. Executive Summary: The Modern Cost Structure of Digital Diagnostics

The Central Thesis: The Digital Reagent

This report provides a techno-economic model to estimate the per-report cost for a novel, multi-model artificial intelligence (AI) diagnostic platform. This platform, a form of Software as a Medical Device (SaMD), presents a new cost paradigm that is fundamentally different from traditional, non-medical software.

The central finding of this analysis is that a digital diagnostic, when governed by stringent medical device regulations and national security frameworks, incurs direct, recurring, and significant operational costs. These costs are not merely IT overhead but represent the product's direct Cost of Goods Sold (COGS).

We introduce the concept of the Digital Reagent: the high-performance, low-latency AI inference computation required for each diagnosis. This computational process is not a one-time development cost; it is a direct-per-use consumable analogous to the chemical reagents or test strips consumed in a physical laboratory test. As AI model use increases, the computational costs (the "Digital Reagent") are incurred for every token or output generated, representing a direct, variable, and often underestimated expense.

Summary of Cost Model

The price-per-report for this SaMD is a function of two distinct and substantial cost centers:

1. Amortized Fixed Costs (AFC): These are the high, one-time capital expenditures (CapEx) required to legally enter the market. This "barrier to entry" includes the aggregated costs of regulatory certification under the EU Medical Device Regulation (MDR), certification under Spain's Esquema Nacional de Seguridad (ENS), and the initial capital-intensive development and clinical validation of the three-model AI core. These costs must be amortized over the product's viable lifecycle and allocated to each diagnostic report.

2. Recurring Operational Costs (OpEx): These are the high, ongoing expenses required to operate the service 24/7. This category includes the "always-on" cloud infrastructure (termed the "Latency Tax"), continuous regulatory maintenance and re-audits, mandatory AI model re-training and re-validation (MLOps), and the staffing of a specialized clinical support team.

Top-Line Finding and Strategic Implication

This analysis develops a unified cost formula: $Total_Cost_per_Report = (C_{OpEx_Fixed_Annual} / N_{Reports_Annual}) + C_{Variable_per_Report}$.

This model reveals that the per-report cost is overwhelmingly dominated by fixed annual operational costs ($C_{OpEx_Fixed_Annual}$) and that the true variable cost per report ($C_{Variable_per_Report}$) is negligible. Consequently, the cost-per-report is hyper-sensitive to utilization, a business dynamic defined as the "Utilization Trap." At low sales volumes, the per-report cost is catastrophically high, while at massive scale, it becomes nominal.

This cost structure, which is front-loaded with high fixed operational expenditures, strongly indicates that a simple "per-report" pricing model creates extreme financial risk. The strategic implication is that a subscription-based or annual licensing model is the most viable commercial strategy. This approach aligns the revenue model (predictable, fixed-fee) with the cost model (predictable, fixed-cost), ensuring that the non-optional costs of regulatory compliance and low-latency availability are covered.

Part II. The Barrier to Entry: Amortized Fixed Costs (AFC)

This section deconstructs the significant, one-time capital expenditures (CapEx) required before the first diagnostic report can be legally and commercially sold. These costs form the numerator of our amortization formula.

Regulatory Capitalization (A): EU MDR Certification

The product, as an AI-powered diagnostic tool, is regulated as a Software as a Medical Device (SaMD). Given its function in providing diagnosis and severity measures, it falls under the EU Medical Device Regulation (MDR) 2017/745. Its risk profile, which influences diagnosis and treatment, places it as a Class IIa or, more likely, Class IIb device. This analysis will model for the more complex and costly Class IIb pathway.

The QMS Foundation

Before approaching a Notified Body (NB) for MDR certification, the manufacturer must establish, document, and implement a robust Quality Management System (QMS) compliant with ISO 13485. This is a significant, prerequisite cost driver. While traditional paper-based systems exist, modern SaMD development typically relies on electronic QMS (eQMS) platforms, which have their own licensing fees, starting from approximately �610 per month for basic packages.

Beyond software, the implementation of the QMS itselfdrafting quality manuals, mandatory procedures, and essential formsrequires expert consultation. Costs for QMS implementation for a software device, including planning and internal audits, can range from �10,000 to over �27,000, depending on the level of external support.

The Notified Body Gauntlet

The cost of MDR certification is not a single fee but a "regulatory debt" accrued through a sequence of payments to multiple vendors (consultants, software providers, auditors, and the Notified Body).

A manufacturer must first pay for a gap analysis (which can range from �5,000 to �50,000) to understand existing deficiencies. Following this, they pay consultants and software vendors to build the QMS (as detailed in 2.1.1). Only after these substantial, sunk costs can the manufacturer begin the formal, paid engagement with a Notified Body.

Modeling Initial MDR Certification Costs

The fees charged by Notified Bodies are multifaceted, covering application processing, technical documentation review, and QMS audits.

1. QMS Implementation & Gap Analysis: Based on market rates, a realistic budget for the foundational QMS implementation and a preliminary gap analysis is modeled at �32,000 (e.g., �17,000 for implementation and �15,000 for gap analysis).

2. Technical Dossier (TD) Review: This is a primary cost. NBs estimate this by the day. For a Class IIb device, this review typically takes 6 to 8 days. Daily rates for TD review from major NBs (like T�V S�D or SGS) range from �3,000 to over �4,100. Modeling 7 days at an average rate of �3,500/day results in a cost of �24,500.

3. QMS Audits: The initial QMS certification involves a Stage 1 audit (1-2 days) and a Stage 2 audit. NB audit fees are often charged daily, with rates around �2,245 per day. A two-day audit engagement would cost �4,490.

4. Administrative & Certificate Fees: NBs charge flat fees for services, such as an application fee (approx. �3,000) and a final certificate decision fee (approx. �491). This adds �3,491.

The total initial modeled CapEx for MDR/QMS certification is the sum of these components:

$C_{MDR_Initial} = �32,000 + �24,500 + �4,490 + �3,491 = �60,981$

This is rounded to �65,000 in our final model to account for minor variations and consultant coordination fees.

Regulatory Capitalization (B): Esquema Nacional de Seguridad (ENS)

As a provider of ICT services to public organizations in Spain, the manufacturer must also comply with the Esquema Nacional de Seguridad (National Security Framework), governed by Royal Decree 311/2022.

A Parallel Mandate

This is not an optional or substitute certification; it is a parallel, mandatory framework. Given that the service processes sensitive medical data, it must be certified to the "High" (Nivel ALTO) sensitivity level, which requires a formal, external conformity audit. The estimated "sticker price" for achieving an initial ENS certification can range from �5,000 to over �30,000. We will model this initial certification cost at �15,000.

ENS as a Cost Multiplier

The true financial impact of ENS is not the certification fee but the constraints it imposes on all subsequent technical and operational decisions. ENS is not a paper exercise; it mandates specific, auditable technical controls.

For example, ENS "High" controls map to specific cloud configurations, such as IAM policies and risk assessment schedules. This requirement forces the manufacturer to select a cloud provider (e.g., Google Cloud, AWS, or Azure) that offers an ENS "High" certified environment. These certified platforms are inherently more complex and expensive, as the cloud providers pass their own significant audit and security infrastructure costs on to the customer. Therefore, the ENS requirement acts as a structural cost multiplier on the core AI inference and data hosting components detailed in Part III.

AI Development Capitalization (C): Building the Three-Model Core

The product's value is derived from a complex, three-part AI pipeline. This is not one development project but at least three distinct AI models that must be built, trained, and validated:

1. Image Quality Model: A classification model to check input validity.
2. Diagnosis Model: A classification model to identify the condition.
3. Severity Model: A complex suite of models (segmentation, detection, and/or classification) to measure clinical signs.

This multi-model architecture significantly increases the initial development cost.

The Specialist Bottleneck and Data Annotation Costs

The primary cost driver for supervised deep learning is the acquisition and annotation of high-quality training data. The cost of this process is dictated by the expertise of the annotator.

Medical image segmentation (required for the severity model) is one of the most expensive annotation tasks, ranging from $0.84 to over$8.00 per image. This high cost is due to the complexity and time required (potentially 1-3 minutes or more per object) for precise, pixel-level annotation.

For a diagnostic and severity model, the "ground truth" cannot be established by a standard data annotator (who earns ~�17/hr in Spain). It must be provided by a board-certified clinical specialist, such as a dermatologist. The average hourly rate for a dermatologist in Madrid is approximately �88/hr.

This creates a "Specialist Bottleneck." A simple cost calculation demonstrates the impact:

• Specialist hourly rate: �88/hr = �1.47 per minute.
• Time to annotate one complex image (e.g., 3 minutes): 3 * �1.47 = �4.41.
• This single-image labor cost aligns perfectly with the high-end market rates for medical segmentation.

Initial Clinical Validation

After the models are developed, they must undergo formal clinical validation to prove their safety and performance as required by the MDR. This is a substantial, non-trivial expense. For a comparable AI-based SaMD, the cost of a US FDA 510(k) submission, including clinical validation and documentation, can range from $200,000 to$500,000. A similar clinical investigation for the EU market represents a major capital outlay. We will model this conservatively at �150,000.

Modeling Initial AI Development Costs

A baseline cost model for the initial AI development ($C_{AI_Dev_Initial}$) is as follows:

1. Data Annotation (Severity Model): 2,000 images * �4.41/image (Specialist labor) = �8,820
2. Data Annotation (Diagnosis/Quality): 4,000 images * �0.50/image (Simpler task) = �2,000
3. Data Science & Engineering Labor: 2 FTEs for 1 year (avg. �60k/yr) = �120,000
4. Initial Clinical Validation: �150,000

The total initial AI development cost is modeled at:

$C_{AI_Dev_Initial} = �8,820 + �2,000 + �120,000 + �150,000 = �280,820$

Final Amortization Formula

The total upfront capital expenditure ($C_{Fixed_Total}$) is the sum of these one-time costs:

$C_{Fixed_Total} = C_{MDR_Initial} + C_{ENS_Initial} + C_{AI_Dev_Initial}$
$C_{Fixed_Total} (Model) = �65,000 + �15,000 + �280,820 = �360,820$

This $C_{Fixed_Total}$ of �360,820 must be amortized over the product's commercially viable lifecycle. For software, a 3-year lifecycle ($L_{years}$) is a reasonable assumption.

Annual Amortized Cost ($C_{Amortized_Per_Year}$) = �360,820 / 3 = �120,273

This �120,273 is the annual fixed cost that must be covered by report revenue before any operational costs are considered or any profit is made.

Part III. The Cost of Goods Sold: Ongoing Operational Costs (OpEx)

This section details the recurring, non-optional costs required to deliver the diagnostic service. These costs are the true COGS of the digital product and are incurred regardless of sales volume, differentiating this SaMD from typical enterprise software.

The Digital Reagent: Modeling High-Performance Inference

The user requirement for a <1s response time while processing large (20 MB) images is the single most significant operational cost driver.

The Latency Tax: Why <1s Response Mandates a Provisioned Cost

Cloud providers offer two primary models for AI inference: "Serverless" and "Provisioned" (or "Dedicated").

• Serverless Inference: (e.g., AWS SageMaker Serverless Inference, RunPod) You pay per-second of compute only when a request is made. This is cost-effective for spiky or unpredictable workloads. However, if the service is idle, the resources spin down.

• The "Cold Start" Problem: When a new request arrives after a period of inactivity, the system must perform a "cold start": provisioning the container, loading the large model files, and loading the 20 MB image data. This process introduces significant latency, often taking seconds or even minutes.

A cold start definitively violates the <1s response time requirement. Therefore, the manufacturer has no choice but to use a Provisioned Endpoint (also known as "Real-time Inference" or "Dedicated Inference").

This means the manufacturer must pay for one or more high-performance GPUs to be "always-on," 24/7/365, actively waiting for requests. This non-optional, recurring cost, paid purely to guarantee low-latency availability, is termed the "Latency Tax." The manufacturer is not paying for use; they are paying for readiness.

Modeling the Provisioned Endpoint Cost

To host three distinct deep learning models and process 20 MB images in under a second, a powerful GPU is required. We compare two common inference GPUs:

• NVIDIA T4: A common choice, offering 16GB of VRAM. A dedicated T4 instance costs approximately $0.66/hr.
• NVIDIA A10G: A more powerful option with 24GB of VRAM, making it better suited for hosting multiple large models simultaneously. A dedicated A10G instance costs approximately $1.22/hr.

We will model using the more robust NVIDIA A10G, as 16GB of VRAM on the T4 may be insufficient for the multi-model (segmentation, classification) pipeline. This assumes a multi-model endpoint configuration on a platform like AWS SageMaker or Google Vertex AI.

• Annual Cost per Endpoint: $1.22/hr _ 24 hours/day _ 365 days/year =$10,687.20
• (Assuming �1.00 = $1.00 for model simplicity)
• $C_{OpEx_Inference}$ (Annual) = �10,687

If the models are too large or complex to be co-hosted, this cost would triple as three separate endpoints would be required.

The Variable Cost: Data Transfer

The system must also handle data transfer (egress) for the 20 MB image and the resulting report. Cloud providers charge for data egress, with average rates around $0.10 -$0.20 per GB. Data inbound to the cloud is often free.

• $C_{Variable_per_Report}$ = 0.02 GB * �0.10/GB = �0.002

This cost is trivial.

The Utilization Trap

The inference cost structure is composed of a �10,687 fixed annual cost and a �0.002 variable per-report cost. The variable cost is effectively a rounding error. The entire cost structure is dominated by the fixed "Latency Tax."

This creates the "Utilization Trap." The actual inference cost per report is:

$Cost_{Inference_per_Report} = (�10,687 / N_{Reports_Annual}) + �0.002$

• If $N_{Reports_Annual}$ = 1,000 (low volume), the cost is �10.69 per report.
• If $N_{Reports_Annual}$ = 100,000 (high volume), the cost is �0.11 per report.

This formula reveals the critical business vulnerability: the per-report cost is entirely dependent on achieving high utilization.

The Digital Factory: MLOps and Regulatory Re-validation

An AI medical device is not a "set-and-forget" product. Its clinical environment constantly changes (new phone cameras, different lighting conditions, evolving patient populations), leading to "model drift" and a degradation of accuracy.

MLOps as a Regulatory Mandate

To counter model drift, a continuous process of monitoring, re-training, and re-validation is required. This process is known as MLOps (Machine Learning Operations). For a SaMD, MLOps is not just a "DevOps best practice"; it is a codified regulatory requirement.

MDR and FDA guidance (such as the "Predetermined Change Control Plan" or PCCP) require manufacturers to have a documented, auditable process for managing model updates. This process includes components for reproducibility (tracking data, code, and hyperparameters), model validation, continuous monitoring, and auditability. This compliant "Digital Factory" requires a dedicated, permanent, and expensive team of MLOps engineers and data scientists.

The Re-Annotation Tax

The dominant cost of this re-training cycle is not the cloud compute; it is the re-acquisition and re-annotation of new clinical data to fix the model's blind spots. This means the "Specialist Bottleneck" (Part 2.3.1) is not a one-time cost. The manufacturer must continuously pay specialists (�88/hr) to label new, challenging edge cases. This is a massive, recurring "Re-Annotation Tax" required just to maintain the product's day-one accuracy and regulatory standing.

Modeling Annual MLOps and Re-training Costs

The cost of maintaining a production-grade AI model is substantial. Industry analysis places the monthly cost for model monitoring and retraining cycles between $15,000 and$100,000.

Using the most conservative end of this estimate:

• MLOps Platform & Team: �15,000/month = �180,000 per year. This covers the labor for MLOps engineers and data scientists and the tools for monitoring.
• Annual Re-Annotation Budget: A modest budget of �10,000 per year to pay for ongoing specialist annotation.

$C_{OpEx_MLOps}$ (Annual) = �190,000

The Service Mandate: Regulatory and Support Overhead

The operational costs also include the non-technical overhead required to legally sell and support a clinical product.

Annual Regulatory and Compliance Maintenance

The certification costs from Part II are not "one-and-done." Notified Bodies and compliance frameworks require annual maintenance.

• MDR Maintenance: NBs charge flat "annual maintenance fees" ranging from �1,250 to �2,456. More importantly, they charge for every single change. The MLOps cycle (Section 3.2) guarantees a steady stream of changes. Each "Notification of change" can cost �800, and the review of the annual Periodic Safety Update Report (PSUR) is billed hourly (e.g., �400/hr).

• ENS Maintenance: The "High" level certification requires periodic re-audits to ensure continued compliance.

A MedTech Europe survey highlights that over a 5-year cycle, maintenance and re-certification costs are expected to exceed initial certification fees by as much as 50%.

A conservative model for these recurring fees (NB maintenance, ENS re-audits, and minor change reviews) is $C_{OpEx_Regulatory}$ (Annual) = �5,000.

Dedicated Clinical Support Staff

The user query specifies "dedicated personnel." For a clinical diagnostic tool, this has a specific meaning. The end-user (a clinician) is not a standard IT user. If they question a diagnostic result, they cannot be triaged by a generic L1 help desk. This support interaction is a clinical and regulatory event, as it may constitute a formal "complaint" that must be processed by the QMS.

This mandates hiring Clinical Applications Specialists, not just "Technical Support Specialists". A Clinical Applications Specialist is trained to discuss clinical context with peers. The salary for this role is significantly higher. In Madrid, an Applications Support Specialist earns an average of �47,167, compared to approximately �31,000 for a mid-career technical support specialist.

Modeling Annual Support Costs

A minimal dedicated team to provide specialized clinical support would consist of two Clinical Application Specialists.

• $C_{OpEx_Support}$ (Annual) = 2 * �47,167 = �94,334

Part IV. Synthesis: Deconstructing the Value of a Digital Test

This section builds the central analogy to justify the cost structure to a customer (e.g., a hospital administrator) who is accustomed to buying physical lab tests.

The Visible vs. Invisible Cost Fallacy

A common objection to SaMD pricing is the perceived gap between a "visible" physical product and an "invisible" digital one.

• Physical Lab Test (e.g., Blood Panel): A hospital administrator sees visible, tangible costs. They purchase a physical analyzer (hardware). They order boxes of chemical reagents (consumables). They pay the salary of a lab technician or pathologist (labor). These costs are understood and easily justified.

• SaMD Diagnostic Test (AI Report): The administrator sees an invisible product: a software license. The high cost is often met with resistance because the underlying cost driverscloud infrastructure, MLOps, and regulatory maintenanceare "hidden" from the end-user.

This analysis demonstrates that the costs are structurally identical; they merely differ in form. The function of the SaMD's "invisible" costs is precisely the same as the lab's "visible" costs.

• The "visible" �100,000 lab analyzer is functionally identical to the "invisible" �360,820 in Amortized Fixed Costs (Part II).
• The "visible" consumable reagent kit is functionally identical to the "invisible" �10,687/year Provisioned GPU Endpoint, which is the "Digital Reagent" (Part 3.1).
• The "visible" lab technician's salary is functionally identical to the "invisible" �94,334/year Clinical Applications Support Team (Part 3.3).

Comparative Cost Structure: The Digital Reagent Framework

We can directly map the costs using the "Cost-Per-Reportable-Test" (CPRT) model, a standard for physical labs, to our SaMD model.

Table 4.1: Cost Structure Analogy: Physical Lab vs. Digital SaMD

Cost Component	Physical Lab (e.g., Blood Test)	Digital SaMD (AI Test)	Research Justification
I. AMORTIZED CAPEX
Acquisition Cost	Lab Analyzer (Hardware)	Initial Regulatory Cert. (MDR + ENS) + AI Development	1
Accreditation	Lab Accreditation (e.g., ISO 15189)	QMS (ISO 13485) Implementation	10
II. OPERATIONAL COGS
Test Consumable	Chemical Reagent	AI Inference Compute Time ("Digital Reagent")	1
Processing Hardware	Centrifuge / Analyzer	Provisioned GPU Instance (e.g., A10G)	28
Quality Control	Calibrators / Control Samples	Image Quality Check Model / MLOps Monitoring	1
Expert Validation	Pathologist / Lab Technician	Clinical Applications Specialist	45
Maintenance	Hardware Service Contract	Annual NB Fees / ENS Re-audits / Cloud Maintenance	11

The Key Differentiator: Dynamic vs. Static Cost

This analogy reveals one final, critical difference: the cost stability.

• Physical Lab Test (Static): A physical lab test is static. The chemical reagent for a lipid panel is a stable commodity. The test performed in 2025 is identical to the one from 2020. Its CPRT is predictable and tends to decrease with volume.

• AI SaMD Test (Dynamic): The AI SaMD is inherently dynamic. Its "digital reagent" (the model) must evolve to fight "model drift". It must be re-trained to handle new phone cameras. It must be patched to defend against new ENS security threats. It must be re-validated to satisfy evolving regulatory expectations, which have already seen costs escalate.

The SaMD's operational costs are designed to escalate over time to maintain its clinical value and regulatory compliance. This dynamism is its core feature, but it is also its core, recurring operational cost.

Part V. Conclusion: The Unified Cost Model and Strategic Price Point

The Unified Cost Formula

We can now combine all cost centers from Parts II and III into a single, comprehensive formula to determine the $Total_Cost_per_Report$.

Step 1: Calculate Total Annual Fixed Costs ($C_{OpEx_Fixed_Annual}$)

This represents the total, non-negotiable cost per year to keep the service operational, compliant, and available.

$C_{OpEx_Fixed_Annual} = C_{Amortized_Per_Year} + C_{OpEx_Inference} + C_{OpEx_MLOps} + C_{OpEx_Regulatory} + C_{OpEx_Support}$

$C_{OpEx_Fixed_Annual} (Model) = �120,273 (Amortized) + �10,687 (GPU) + �190,000 (MLOps) + �5,000 (Reg) + �94,334 (Support)$

$C_{OpEx_Fixed_Annual} (Model) = �420,294$

This �420,294 is the fixed, recurring annual cost to operate the service, which is incurred even at zero report volume.

Step 2: Calculate True Variable Cost ($C_{Variable_per_Report}$)

As determined in Part 3.1.3, this cost is limited to data transfer.

$C_{Variable_per_Report}$ (Model) = �0.002

Step 3: Final Blended Cost Per Report

The total cost for a single report is the fixed annual cost distributed over the total number of reports sold per year ($N_{Reports_Annual}$), plus the negligible variable cost.

$Total_Cost_per_Report = (�420,294 / N_{Reports_Annual}) + �0.002$

Scenario Modeling and The Utilization Trap

This formula reveals the extreme sensitivity to sales volume. The table below models the true, fully-loaded cost per report at different stages of commercial maturity.

Table 5.1: Scenario Model for Per-Report Cost (Based on Annual Volume)

Annual Report Volume (N_Reports_Annual)	Fixed Cost Allocation (�420,294/N)	Variable Cost	Total Cost per Report
1,000 (Early Stage)	�420.29	�0.002	�420.30
5,000 (Growth Stage)	�84.06	�0.002	�84.06
10,000 (Target)	�42.03	�0.002	�42.03
50,000 (Scale)	�8.41	�0.002	�8.41
100,000 (Maturity)	�4.20	�0.002	�4.20

Strategic Recommendations

The scenario model provides a clear and unambiguous strategic direction.

1. Primary Recommendation: A "per-report" pricing model is financially catastrophic at low volumes. Selling a report for �50 when the business has only 5,000 users would result in a �34 loss on every single report. The pricing model must be a subscription-based or annual license. This model (e.g., SaaS) forces the customer (a hospital, clinic, or health system) to pay a fixed annual fee that covers the manufacturer's fixed annual operational costs of �420,294. This strategy de-risks the business, guarantees the "Digital Factory" (MLOps, Support, Compliance) remains funded, and aligns the revenue model (pay-for-availability) with the core cost driver (the "Latency Tax").

2. Secondary Recommendation: A "per-report" fee should not be the primary revenue stream. However, it can be used in a hybrid model:

   • Annual License Fee: A fixed fee paid by the institution to cover the $C_{OpEx_Fixed_Annual}$.
   • Variable Utilization Fee: A small, per-report fee (e.g., �5-�10) charged on top of the license. This allows the manufacturer to capture additional revenue from high-utilization customers and ensures that revenue scales with customer success, but only after the high fixed costs have been secured.

References

1. An Approach to Include the Cost of Consumables in Biochemistry Analyzer Procurement on the Reagent Rental Model Alleviates Hidden Expenses - NIH
2. Overcoming the cost and complexity of AI inference at scale - Red Hat
3. How the Economics of Inference Can Maximize AI Value - NVIDIA Blog
4. SaMD: Software as a Medical Device [The Ultimate Guide] - Greenlight Guru
5. Approval and Certification of Ophthalmic AI Devices in the European Union - PMC
6. EUMDR 2017/745 Compliance: Cost, Regulations, Requirements - EuroDev
7. Notified Body Fees And MDR Pricing For Medical Device Makers Explained - Peercode Regulatory Consultancy
8. A Business Model Framework for Software as a Medical Device Startups in the European Union: Mixed Methods Study - PubMed Central
9. QMS Software for Medical Devices (ISO 13485): Comparison - OpenRegulatory
10. FDA QMSR Fee I Assured Fast and Economic Service - I3CGlobal
11. MDR Fees for Conformity Assessment Activities (EUR) - BSI
12. Medical Devices - Kiwa
13. CE Certification Cost Based on Risk Class - MDR/IVDR - I3CGlobal
14. Royal Decree 311/2022 of 3 May regulating the National Security Framework - Portal de la Administraci�n Electr�nica
15. Spain Esquema Nacional de Seguridad (ENS) High-Level Security Measures - Microsoft Compliance
16. Esquema Nacional de Seguridad - Audidat
17. Operational Best Practices for Esquema Nacional de Seguridad (ENS) High - AWS Config
18. ENS (Spain) - Compliance - Google Cloud
19. What is the Cost to Deploy and Maintain a Machine Learning Model? | phData
20. How Much Do Data Annotation Services Cost? The Complete Guide 2025 | BasicAI's Blog
21. Data Annotation Pricing: Key Models & Cost Factors Explained
22. Estimating Image Annotation Pricing for AI Projects - Kili Technology
23. Calculating the Cost of Image Annotation for AI Projects - CVAT
24. Specialist Data Annotation Salary in Barcelona, Spain (2025) - ERI SalaryExpert
25. Dermatologist Salary in Madrid, Spain (2025) - ERI
26. �Qu� requisitos deben cumplir los productos sanitarios? - aemps
27. The Cost of Implementing AI in Healthcare in 2025 - Aalpha Information Systems
28. LLM model inference deployment models and pricing comparison | AWS re:Post
29. Serverless vs Dedicated Inference: Choose the Best for Your AI Product - Hyperstack
30. Unpacking Serverless GPU Pricing for AI Deployments - Runpod
31. Serverless GPU Pricing: Provider Comparison | by Victor Rocco - Medium
32. Reducing the Cost of GPU Cold Starts in Serverless Deep Learning Inference Serving - University of Waterloo
33. Inferless Serverless GPU pricing - starts from $0.33/hr
34. GPU pricing | Google Cloud
35. How much does it cost to run NVIDIA A10G GPUs in 2025? | Modal Blog
36. SageMaker vs Vertex AI for Model Inference - GeeksforGeeks
37. Vertex AI pricing | Google Cloud
38. Why data transfer is so expensive? : r/selfhosted - Reddit
39. Overview of Data Transfer Costs for Common Architectures - Amazon AWS
40. Navigating FDA's AI Guidelines for Medical Devices: The Edge Impulse Perspective
41. MLOps and Model Governance
42. MLOps: Continuous delivery and automation pipelines in machine learning | Cloud Architecture Center
43. AI Model Maintenance Cost - KPI Depot
44. MedTech Europe IVDR & MDR Survey Results 2024
45. Clinical Applications Specialist Salary in Spain (2025) - ERI SalaryExpert
46. Average Technical Support Specialist Salary in Spain - Payscale
47. Applications Support Specialist Salary in Madrid, Spain (2025) - ERI
48. The Hidden Costs of Outdated Medical Technology: A Call to Innovate
49. The Hidden Costs of In-House Medical Billing: Is It Time to Outsource?
50. Laboratory Instrument & Inventory Forecast - USAID Global Health Supply Chain Program
51. Cost Analysis of Operating an Anatomic Pathology Laboratory in a Middle-Income Country
52. Navigating the EU AI Act: implications for regulated digital medical products - PMC - NIH
53. The Convergence of Medical Devices and Digital Health: What's Next? - IQVIA
54. SaaS Licensing | What is SaaS Licensing | Pricing Strategies - Thales