Medical Device Keyword Candidate Study

Comparative structure study

The largest recorded reporting jurisdiction, Jiangsu, contains 219 records (16.8% of this 1,301-record cohort). The remaining cohort contains 1,082 records. The comparison concerns archive composition.

The recorded industry label Biomedicine accounts for 69.3% here (902/1,301), compared with 8.9% in the parent set (1,721/19,297), an absolute gap of 60.4 percentage points.

461/1,301 companies link to pages with existing source-supported excerpts (35.4% of the cohort). The other 840 records remain usable for archive composition, but do not support new operating case studies.

3 keyword candidates match only a company name, with no matching term in recorded products or sub-industry fields. Product evidence is needed before treating these as operating businesses in this segment.

An ID-deduplicated archive snapshot, not the whole market, current recognition or operating results.

The parent set, All public archive records, contains 19,297 records. This cohort contributes 1,301 (6.7%); 17,996 records remain after excluding it.

Ratio of label participation, not market share; multi-label counts overlap.

Excluding this cohort, the recorded industry label Biomedicine covers 819/17,996 remaining records (4.6%), an absolute gap of 64.8 percentage points from this cohort.

The full reporting jurisdiction distribution has 34 labels; the top 3 contain 470/1,301 records (36.1%).Other known labels contain 831 records.

For 1,301 records with known labels, the effective category count is 12.8, versus 34 actual labels. Definitions and scope are in the methodology.

The table shows ten labels; 24 others are included in the calculations above.

Record counts do not rank supply capability or economic size.

The largest intersection, Jiangsu × Biomedicine, contains 151 records, or 68.9% of the 219 records carrying the Jiangsu label.

A cell contains company IDs carrying both labels. It does not establish procurement, supply or investment relationships between firms. Multi-label cells may overlap.

This page displays 8 of the full cross-tab’s 146 non-empty cells; the other 138 remain in the analysis.

Non-empty fields are not necessarily accurate or supported by originals.

Counts concern existing reviewed bilingual excerpts, not re-certification of originals or entire reports.

A rule hit prioritises review; it does not establish that the entire field is wrong. One record can trigger several rules.

An ID may match several fields, so counts may exceed the cohort total. Matches establish search relevance only.

Among the translated non-broad query terms, “medical devices” has the most matches: 1,134/1,301. Name, product and sub-industry fields match 90, 615 and 966 records respectively; the largest field is sub-industry label. Fields can overlap, and a term remains a search link rather than verified business activity.

Selected broad terms and specific segment terms, not the full query. Terms and fields can overlap and must not be summed. Counts show lexical sensitivity; no records are removed without primary evidence.

3 candidates match only a name, or lose all product-field matches after the full company name is removed while sub-industry also has no hit. This transparent string test locates copied company descriptions; it does not establish that a company does not operate the business.

1 records have a documented classification-consistency question. Original counts remain 1,301; excluding these records leaves 1,300 in the sensitivity calculation. The study does not reclassify firms or treat label conflicts as operating changes.

283 of this cohort’s 1,301 records link through existing company-ID mappings to 2026 lists from all jurisdictions (21.8%). This intersection measures list linkage, not successful recognition or company growth.

List rows and company IDs are separate counts, not new firms or final recognition.

Device research must verify the specific product scope

The Advanced medical devices label covers 878 records (67.5% of this cohort). This archive clue raises a verification question about Specific devices with corresponding product and quality-technical documents; it does not establish that these companies already deliver it.

Shared records with High End Medical Device Keyword Candidate Study: 949; records in this cohort but outside that set: 352. The intersection/union ratio is 72.3%, a measure of label overlap rather than business collaboration. Read comparison

Shared records with Biomedicine and medical devices / Complete systems and use-case applications Supply-chain Study: 613; records in this cohort but outside that set: 688. The intersection/union ratio is 29.7%, a measure of label overlap rather than business collaboration. Read comparison

Stable-ID samples, not rankings; metrics use the full cohort.