Manufacturer specification
A feature or value stated in publicly available product documentation. It may still vary by configuration and market.
Evidence & transparency
Know what is documented—and what is still being tested.
We separate manufacturer specifications, public ARC research statements, and future-looking concepts so each can be evaluated on the right terms.
Evidence map
Three types of information.
Each source supports a different part of the ARC Medical story.
- Product documentationSupports the ECG belt’s reusable design, six precordial positions, four limb connections, compatibility options, and supplied components.
- ARC public research notesDescribe the beat-independence principle, classification framing, CardioVision architecture, and reported benchmark metrics.
- Conceptual roadmapDescribes proposed 3D/4D visualization and future clinical workflow possibilities that require further validation.
Primary references
Source materials used for this site.
External links open the original public materials. ARC Medical does not control third-party content or availability.
WEB
Referenced ECG belt distributor listing
Open source ↗Hebrew product listing supplied by the client, used as the requested product reference.
IMG
Client-supplied product image set
View product ↗Local images show the belt, reusable electrode, connector layouts, and fitted examples for female and male patients.
MFR
LevMed ECG belt reference
Open source ↗Public product information describing a reusable, adjustable belt with six precordial electrodes and standard ECG compatibility.
ARC
Domain 23: Medical Diagnostics (ECG)
Open source ↗ARC public note describing the independent-beat classification principle and a reported V-recall result.
ARC
ARC.ceo Solutions Overview
Open source ↗Public overview containing the CardioVision architecture, applications, research specifications, and roadmap.
Reported results
Read metrics with context.
The ARC documents report different performance figures in different contexts: a 93% V-recall statement in the medical domain note and 86% sensitivity on ventricular arrhythmias in the broader solutions overview.
These values may reflect different experiments, definitions, subsets, or revisions. Without a complete study protocol, confusion matrix, cohort description, confidence intervals, and independent replication, they should not be treated as directly comparable or as a clinical performance claim.
What stronger evidence should include
- Pre-specified intended use and endpoints
- Patient-level training/test separation
- External, multi-site validation
- Subgroup and failure-mode analysis
- Comparison to a clinical reference standard
- Peer review and regulatory assessment
Status labels
Language that keeps claims honest.
ARC research result
A result stated in ARC public material that has not been independently verified as part of this website build.
Developmental concept
A future-facing architecture, workflow, or visualization that requires technical, clinical, and regulatory evaluation.
Technical diligence
Ask better questions before making bigger claims.
For research protocols, technical materials, or validation discussions, contact the ARC engineering team.