Patient-specific setup
Classification performance may depend on individual baseline data, calibration periods, or patient-specific parameters.
Discuss licensing Patient-independent intelligence that integrates seamlessly into your workflow.
Designed to sit behind compatible ECG hardware so established monitor, patch, and wearable workflows can remain intact.
Arrhyva is positioned as a software intelligence layer. The commercial question is not whether a partner should replace its platform—it is whether a patient-independent classifier could strengthen an existing ECG workflow.
Classification performance may depend on individual baseline data, calibration periods, or patient-specific parameters.
One architecture designed to classify a new patient without storing patient-specific training parameters.
Each pathway begins with a different product and regulatory question. The site now surfaces that question before asking a prospect to contact Arrhyva.
Explore a classification layer for Holter and long-duration monitoring workflows.
Evaluate patient-independent classification within continuous remote-monitoring pipelines.
Assess integration with hospital ECG systems, reporting tools, and connected monitoring environments.
Investigate PVC and PAC classification pathways for ECG-enabled consumer hardware.
The public site should make the result easy to understand without presenting it as a cleared clinical claim.
Open the evidence frameworkMIT-BIH evaluation with patient-separated records. Independent replication and product-specific validation remain necessary.
From a patient’s first recording to clinical review and connected hospital systems, Arrhyva is designed to support the broader cardiac-care environment.



A qualified partner should be able to see the proposed workflow in seconds.
Compatible hardware input
Structured cardiac signal
Beat classification layer
Review, reporting, or product output
The process is deliberately NDA-first and evaluation-led.
Define the product environment, intended use, and evaluation question.
Put an NDA in place before patent-sensitive or architectural details are shared.
Review public research context, methodology, limitations, and validation priorities.
Plan an evaluation using an appropriate proprietary or representative dataset.
Map software interfaces, workflow, regulatory responsibilities, and success criteria.
Discuss licensing, field restrictions, or co-development with qualified counsel.
Define the product environment, intended use, and evaluation question.
Put an NDA in place before patent-sensitive or architectural details are shared.
Review public research context, methodology, limitations, and validation priorities.
Plan an evaluation using an appropriate proprietary or representative dataset.
Map software interfaces, workflow, regulatory responsibilities, and success criteria.
Discuss licensing, field restrictions, or co-development with qualified counsel.
Begin with product fit, evidence requirements, and the intended evaluation pathway.