Scroll through the flashy websites of neurotechnology startups and a phrase repeats again and again: “minimally invasive.”

“The term is fuzzy, problematic,” said Anna Wexler, a medical ethics and health policy professor at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine. “Is it physical invasiveness? We’re not sure, it’s a fraught term.”

The fuzziness hasn’t stopped most brain-computer interface startups from deploying it in a bid to differentiate their devices from others in development. Synchron, Motif Neuroscience, Precision Neuroscience, and Merge Labs all use it liberally. Journalists sometimes repeat the spin.

This article is exclusive to STAT+ subscribers

Unlock this article — and get additional analysis of the technologies disrupting health care — by subscribing to STAT+.

Already have an account? Log in