Two Fates of Artificial Hearts

Before technology can enter the capital market, it first needs a name.
This name determines how investors understand it, the price the market is willing to pay for it, and the price that regulators and the media will have to pay in the future to correct it back to the facts.
"Artificial heart" is exactly that name.

Intuitively, it points to a revolutionary technology—a replacement for the heart, a means to prolong life, and a breakthrough in medical boundaries. However, in the realities of the healthcare system, this term is not easily applied. It corresponds to extremely high risks, extremely long cycles, extremely rigorous review, and highly limited clinical indications. In other words, "artificial heart" is not just a description, but a technological qualification that must undergo repeated institutional verification before it can be permitted for use.
Once it enters the capital market, the name is no longer just a linguistic issue. It is also a pricing issue, a perception issue, and an institutional issue.

(Image caption) Shenzhen's core healthcare and PMI represent two different fates of the term "artificial heart" in the same era: one amplified in the narrative of capital, the other confirmed by institutional constraints. A mirror never lies—it simply reflects what stands in front of it.

In its "IPO Deconstruction" column, GFM chose to discuss the two companies side-by-side:
One is Shenzhen Core Medical, which is still in the IPO application and review process; the other is PMI, which completed its listing in the United States in 2025 and has one of the very few fully artificial heart products in the world that have entered long-term clinical application.
This combination is not based on a tie on the track, nor is it a simple comparison of superiority or inferiority, but rather because both address the same more fundamental question:
Once the term "artificial heart" enters the capital market, what does it actually mean?

In the prospectuses of core medical companies, "artificial heart" has gradually become a dominant narrative framework—around which are expanded market potential, restated technological capabilities, and a reconstruction of investor perception. However, in regulatory terms and medical classifications, the approved or under-reviewed products still correspond to specific device types with clearly defined boundaries.
PMI's approach presents a different structure. In its context, "artificial heart" is not a market term that can be used arbitrarily, but a name that has only been established under conditions of long-term clinical validation, strict regulatory review, and limited indications. It corresponds not to imagined expansion, but to the establishment of boundaries; not to the amplification of narratives, but to the continuous calibration of risks and reality.
Between these two paths, the term "artificial heart" began to split.
One is the technological narrative amplified in the language of capital; the other is the medical definition confirmed within institutional constraints.

(Image caption) The balance scale—the weight of facts and narrative. Whether a name corresponds to the facts is never a self-evident answer in the capital market. The true weight of technology and the market weight given by narrative require continuous calibration. This is precisely the reason GFM conducted this series of "IPO Deconstruction" analyses.

This kind of division will not be naturally recognized by the market. On the contrary, it is more likely to be amplified in the valuation process, replicated in the dissemination process, and eventually solidify into a widely accepted market consensus that may not correspond to the actual boundaries of the product.
This is precisely why GFM is doing this series of "IPO Deconstruction" analyses—it's not just about examining whether a company is truly innovative, nor is it simply about judging whether the market is overvalued, but rather a more proactive question:
Once technology enters the capital market, who defines its name? Is this name confirmed by clinical practice and regulation, or rewritten by capital and narrative?

In the traditional framework, regulators define compliance, the market sets prices, and the media relays information between the two. However, when professional medical terminology is systematically translated into the language of capital narratives, a gap remains that has not been adequately addressed: the discrepancy between name and entity.
GFM entered this area through a "group breakdown" approach. The IPO paths of the two companies represent two facets of the same structural problem. A single case can only reveal the problem; only through comparison can the system become clear.
Therefore, this series of articles does not deal with the two companies themselves, but rather the three underlying tensions:
The tension between technology and naming; the tension between regulation and narrative; the tension between reality and valuation.

"Artificial heart" is the entry point for this series of articles, and also its core issue.
Whether a name should correspond to the facts—this question is never self-evident in the capital markets. But that's precisely why it deserves continuous scrutiny.