Georgia Tech’s Institute for Matter and Systems (IMS) hosted its second Boundaries and Breakthroughs panel on Jan. 27, bringing together leading clinicians, engineers, and data experts to examine why promising medical technologies often fail to translate into clinical practice.

Moderated by IMS Executive Director Eric Vogel, the panel explored how innovation, regulation, economics and clinical realities intersect to shape the future of medical devices. 

The panel featured John Duke, physician and director of the Center for Health Analytics and Informatics at Georgia Tech Research Institute; Matthew Flavin, assistant professor in the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering; HyunJoo Oh, assistant professor in the schools of Industrial Design and Interactive Computing; and Lokesh Guglani, pediatric pulmonologist and clinician-researcher at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta. 

Vogel opened the event by highlighting the gap between technological novelty and real-world medical adoption. 

“About 75% of medical device start-ups never achieve commercial success or make it to market, and some industry estimates push this higher,” Vogel said. “Even those that reach the market often fail to gain meaningful adoption. This may be because technologists optimize for platforms five or 10 years out and are rewarded by novelty, whereas clinicians demand reliability, interpretability, and outcomes that hold up with real patients, real workflows, and real liability.”

Throughout the discussion, panelists examined the balance between rapid innovation and clinical safety, noting that the level of invasiveness often determines how bold developers can be.

“We must remember that in medicine—and especially when we're dealing with human lives—there's a significant asymmetry of the harm that could be done,” said Guglani. “Even a small change or an oversight at the design level of a medical device can have significant downstream repercussions for patients and create liability for institutions and providers.”

Flavin and Duke added that excessive conservatism, particularly around non-invasive wearable, can also slow potentially life-changing advancements. 

All panelists agreed that breakthrough technology alone is not enough to ensure clinical adoption. Usability, workflow fit, and time efficiency often determine whether clinicians adopt a device. Tools that require lengthy calibration or add to a clinician’s already tight schedule rarely succeed. Even when a technology integrates well, reimbursement barriers can prevent adoption. 

 “A lot of technologies come out, but then if the clinic is using them and is not being reimbursed for the time spent, that creates a bottleneck,” said Guglani.

Economic constraints also shape who benefits from innovation. Children with rare diseases, stroke survivors, and other small or heterogeneous patient groups often struggle to attract investors, even when their needs are urgent.

The panelists also discussed the dual role of regulatory and manufacturing standards. Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) requirements ensures consistent, safe production, but force teams to lock designs earlier than ideal, adding cost and slowing iteration. These requirements protect patients but also function as an economic filter for many early-stage technologies.

The conversation then turned to data, AI, and the education of future innovators. Despite massive amounts of health data, many clinically important areas remain data‑scarce. Wearable devices, such as smart watches, may help close these gaps, but AI models remain limited by the quality of input data. 

When asked about preparing the next generation of MedTech innovators, panelists emphasized the importance of “interface literacy” or the ability to collaborate across disciplinary boundaries and understand how design decisions cascade into real clinical environments.  

“You really do have to be able to be interdisciplinary,” said Duke. “Now of course what makes things go is not often the knowledge of the domain, but the person’s role or connectivity into the system.”

Vogel closed by emphasizing that successful medical technology development requires “ongoing, honest collaboration” across fields. The Boundaries and Breakthroughs series will continue that mission in February with a panel on the future of the electric grid.