Shared context
Event
Connecting 5G Standards to Medical Device EMC: Reflections from IEEE EMC+SIPI 2026
Reflections from co-chairing a workshop and presenting a practical approach to representative 5G immunity testing for medical devices.
At the 2026 IEEE International Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility, Signal and Power Integrity (EMC+SIPI) in Dallas, I had the opportunity to co-chair the workshop “5G and Frontiers of Medical Devices” with Susanna Mosleh of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). I also presented a talk titled “Connecting the Dots Between Mobile Communication Standards and Medical Device EMC.”
The workshop brought together perspectives from medical device EMC and wireless coexistence engineering, test laboratories, wireless systems, device manufacturers, and regulatory science. Our shared question was practical: as 5G changes the radio-frequency environments in and around healthcare, how can we evaluate medical device immunity using test conditions that are both technically defensible and manageable in the laboratory?
The challenge is realism without exhaustive testing
Modern wireless signals such as 5G New Radio (NR) are dynamic and highly dependent on configuration. Their timing can change with operating mode, subcarrier spacing, scheduling, and other network parameters. Trying to reproduce every possible configuration would produce an impractically large test matrix, yet relying only on legacy profiles may overlook relevant characteristics of contemporary emitters.
The useful middle ground is not to choose an arbitrary “5G-like” waveform. It is to identify which signal characteristics are most relevant to the susceptibility mechanism, derive representative values systematically, and document how those values connect to real equipment and deployment scenarios.
In my presentation, I discussed a methodology described in the peer-reviewed IEEE Access paper, “A Metrology-Driven Approach to Distilling Live Wireless Signals Into Immunity Test Signals”. The approach simulates large populations of wireless signals, calculates their duty cycle and pulse-repetition rate, and identifies dominant statistical modes. These modes can then define a compact set of pulse-modulated immunity test signals.
Timing and amplitude answer different questions
An important distinction is that the distilled waveform describes when an exposure is on and off. It does not, by itself, determine the exposure amplitude at the device under test.
The research-derived candidate set presented at the workshop uses a 20% duty cycle across the evaluated technologies. For 5G NR, candidate pulse-repetition rates include 1, 2, and 4 kHz for Frequency Range 1 (FR1), and 4, 8, 32, and 64 kHz for Frequency Range 2 (FR2). These values represent dominant modes found across the simulated signal populations. They are candidate test signals, not universal requirements, limits, or substitutes for an application-specific risk assessment.
Amplitude must be determined separately. It depends on the emitter, its permitted transmit power, its distance and orientation relative to the medical device, and the environment in which the device is expected to operate. Mobile communication specifications can help ground that analysis. For example, 3GPP TS 38.101-2 provides technical limits relevant to FR2 user equipment, while other applicable 3GPP specifications define bands and power limits for different equipment categories and operating ranges.
Separating timing from amplitude makes the rationale clearer: use evidence from the wireless signal structure to define the modulation, then use the credible exposure scenario and applicable radio limits to define severity.
A practical path from use environment to test setup
A defensible evaluation can begin with a short series of questions:
- Where will the medical device be used?
- Which 5G user equipment or base stations could operate nearby?
- How close could those emitters reasonably be?
- Which frequency bands are permitted and actively used in the target market?
- What transmit-power limits apply to the relevant equipment category?
The answers establish the frequency range and a justifiable exposure amplitude. Representative duty-cycle and pulse-repetition-rate values can then provide the timing parameters. In the laboratory, the resulting signal is calibrated at the intended device location before the field probe is replaced by the device under test. The exposure can then be applied across the relevant frequencies, orientations, operating modes, and performance endpoints defined by the device’s risk analysis.
This workflow creates a traceable line from the clinical use environment to the test signal and setup. It also helps teams explain why a test condition is meaningful instead of treating realism as synonymous with maximum complexity.
Connecting standards can reduce unnecessary assumptions
One of my main takeaways from the workshop is that medical device EMC standards and mobile communication specifications should not be treated as separate bodies of knowledge. Medical device standards provide the safety, performance, and risk-management framework. Mobile standards provide detailed information about the emitters that increasingly share clinical environments with those devices.
Connecting the two can help engineers focus on technically meaningful cases, justify representative test signals, and avoid both under-testing and unrealistic worst-case combinations. That does not eliminate engineering judgment. It gives that judgment a stronger evidentiary foundation.
The discussion in Dallas reinforced the value of bringing medical device manufacturers, EMC and coexistence engineers, test laboratories, wireless specialists, healthcare stakeholders, and regulators into the same conversation. As clinical RF environments become denser and more dynamic, that cross-disciplinary work will be essential to building medical devices that remain safe and effective in real use.