Search Results

The EASYGLUCO Blood Glucose Monitoring System is used for the quantitative measurement of glucose level in whole blood as an aid in monitoring the effectiveness of diabetes management in the home and in clinical settings. The EASYGLUCO Blood Glucose Monitoring System is for testing outside the body (in vitro diagnostic use only). Testing sites include the traditional fingertip testing along with alternate site testing on the arm, palm, thigh, and calf.

The EASYGLUCO Blood Glucose Monitoring System is an in vitro diagnostic device designed for measuring the concentration of glucose in whole blood, which is used with the EASYGLUCO Test Strips. The test principle is: This device is an in vitro diagnostic product intended for the measurement of glucose concentration in human blood. The principle of the test relies upon a specific type of glucose in the blood sample, the dehydrogenase glucose that reacts to electrodes in the test strip. The test strip employs an electrochemical signal generating an electrical current that will stimulate a chemical reaction. This reaction is measured by the Meter and displayed as your blood glucose result.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the EASYGLUCO Blood Glucose Monitoring System. It does not contain the detailed study information required to answer all the questions. The document focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to predicate devices and provides basic device description and intended use.

Therefore, I can only address the questions for which information is available in the provided text.

Here's a breakdown of the information that cannot be provided from the given document:

• A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: This detailed information is typically found in the full submission, not the summary.
• Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance: Not mentioned in the summary.
• Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not mentioned in the summary.
• Adjudication method for the test set: Not mentioned in the summary.
• If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance: This device is a blood glucose monitor, not an AI-assisted diagnostic imaging device, so an MRMC study is not applicable.
• If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: As a blood glucose monitor, its primary function is standalone measurement, but the specific performance study details are not provided.
• The type of ground truth used: While the principle of "in vitro diagnostic product intended for the measurement of glucose concentration in human blood" implies comparison to a reference method, the specific ground truth used in a validation study is not detailed.
• The sample size for the training set: Not mentioned in the summary. The device's operation doesn't suggest a traditional "training set" in the context of machine learning, but rather calibration/validation data.
• How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not mentioned in the summary.

Based on the provided text, here's what can be extracted:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

The provided text does not contain a table of acceptance criteria or reported device performance data. The 510(k) summary states that the submission provides "sufficient data to understand the basis for a determination of substantial equivalence," implying that such data would be in the full submission.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

This information is not available in the provided 510(k) summary.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience)

This information is not available in the provided 510(k) summary. Given that this is an in vitro diagnostic device for glucose measurement, "experts" in this context would likely be reference laboratory personnel performing comparative measurements, rather than medical specialists interpreting images.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set

This information is not applicable/not available in the context of an in vitro diagnostic blood glucose monitor. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are typically used in studies involving subjective interpretation of medical images or other diagnostic tests where there's potential for inter-observer variability. For a quantitative device like a blood glucose meter, validation involves comparing its output against a reference method, not expert adjudication of its readings.

5. If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done, as this device is a blood glucose monitoring system, not an AI-assisted diagnostic imaging system that involves human readers interpreting results.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done

The EASYGLUCO Blood Glucose Monitoring System is designed as a standalone device for measuring glucose concentration. The device itself performs the measurement and displays the result without direct human intervention in the measurement process beyond sample application. The 510(k) summary implies that its performance was validated in this standalone capacity, but the details of such a study are not provided.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.)

The document doesn't explicitly state the specific "ground truth" used. However, for a blood glucose monitoring system, the ground truth would typically be established by a highly accurate laboratory reference method for glucose measurement (e.g., hexokinase method or isotope dilution-mass spectrometry) on the same blood samples used for device testing.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not available in the provided 510(k) summary.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established

This information is not available in the provided 510(k) summary.

Ask a specific question about this device

The FREEDOM Blood Glucose Monitoring System is used for the quantitative measurement of glucose level in whole blood as an aid in monitoring the effectiveness of diabetes management in the home and in clinical settings. The FREEDOM Blood Glucose Monitoring System is for testing outside the body (in vitro diagnostic use only). Testing sites include the traditional fingertip testing along with alternate site testing on the arm, palm, thigh and calf.

The FREEDOM Blood Glucose Monitoring System is an in vitro diagnostic device designed for measuring the concentration of glucose in whole blood, which is used with the FREEDOM Test Strips.

The test principle is:

This device is an in vitro diagnostic product intended for the measurement of glucose concentration in human blood. The principle of the test relies upon a specific type of glucose in the blood sample, the dehydrogenase glucose that reacts to electrodes in the test strip. The test strip employs an electrochemical signal generating an electrical current that will stimulate a chemical reaction. This reaction is measured by the Meter and displayed as your blood glucose result.

This is an in vitro diagnostic device, not an AI/ML device, so many of the requested categories (e.g., number of experts, adjudication method, MRMC study, sample size for training set) are not applicable. The information provided focuses on the device's accuracy against established references, which is typical for this type of device.

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

The provided 510(k) summary does not explicitly state acceptance criteria in a quantitative table format nor reported device performance in a similar table. However, based on the nature of blood glucose monitoring systems and the reference to substantial equivalence to predicate devices, the acceptance criteria would implicitly involve the device demonstrating accuracy and precision comparable to or better than the predicate devices and meeting relevant ISO standards for blood glucose monitoring.

From the information provided, it states that the device measures "the concentration of glucose in whole blood" and is "an aid in monitoring the effectiveness of diabetes management." The device claims "substantial equivalence to the LifeScan, Inc., OneTouch® Ultra®" and others. This implies that the performance (accuracy, precision) of the FREEDOM Blood Glucose Monitoring System must be within acceptable limits relative to these established predicate devices.

Implicit Acceptance Criteria (based on common standards for IVD blood glucose meters) & Reported Device Performance:

Note: The 510(k) summary itself does not contain a detailed performance study report with specific accuracy or precision statistics for the FREEDOM Blood Glucose Monitoring System. The claim of "substantial equivalence" is the primary basis for market clearance, implying that the detailed performance data submitted to the FDA (but not included in this summary) demonstrated comparable performance to the predicate devices.

Study Details

1. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:
   The provided summary does not include specific details about the sample size used for performance testing or the provenance of the data (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective). For an in vitro diagnostic device like a blood glucose meter, the test set would typically involve human blood samples across a range of glucose concentrations, tested against a reference method.

2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:
   This is not applicable for a blood glucose monitoring system. The "ground truth" for blood glucose measurements is established by a highly accurate and precise laboratory reference method (e.g., an enzymatic hexokinase method on a laboratory analyzer), not by human expert opinion.

3. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:
   This is not applicable. Adjudication methods involving multiple human readers are used for subjective interpretations (e.g., image analysis, clinical diagnoses). For quantitative measurements like blood glucose, the reference method provides a definitive quantitative value, not a subjective interpretation requiring adjudication.

4. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance:
   This is not applicable. An MRMC study is relevant for AI/ML devices that assist human readers in tasks like image interpretation. This device is a standalone in vitro diagnostic system for measuring a biochemical analyte. It does not involve human readers or AI assistance in interpretation.

5. If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:
   Yes, this is implicitly a standalone performance study. The FREEDOM Blood Glucose Monitoring System is an "algorithm only" type of device in the sense that it performs a chemical and electrical measurement and provides a numerical output without human interpretation being part of its diagnostic function. Its performance is evaluated on its ability to accurately and precisely provide glucose concentrations compared to a reference standard. The product description emphasizes the electrochemical signal and its measurement by the meter, displayed as a blood glucose result.

6. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.):
   The ground truth would be established by a highly accurate and precise laboratory-based reference method for glucose measurement, such as a hexokinase enzymatic method or isotope dilution-mass spectrometry (IDMS), performed on a clinical laboratory analyzer.

7. The sample size for the training set:
   This is not applicable in the context of traditional in vitro diagnostic devices like blood glucose meters. There is no "training set" in the machine learning sense. The device's electrochemical principles and algorithms are fixed during design and manufacturing. Performance is validated through testing on clinical samples, not by iterative training.

8. How the ground truth for the training set was established:
   As there is no training set in the AI/ML sense, this question is not applicable. The device's operating principles and internal calibration are established during its engineering design, and its accuracy is validated against a definitive laboratory reference standard.

Ask a specific question about this device

The EASYGLUCO™ Monitoring System is used by individuals with diabetes. It is for the quantitative measurement of glucose levels in whole blood, as an aid in monitoring the effectiveness of diabetes management in the home and in clinical settings.

The EASYGLUCO™ Monitor is an in vitro diagnostic device designed for measuring the concentration of glucose in whole blood, which is used with the EASYGLUCO™ Test Strips. The test principle is: This device is an in vitro diagnostic product intended for the measurement of glucose concentration in human blood. The principle of the test relies upon a specific type of glucose in the blood sample, the dehydrogenase glucose that reacts to electrodes in the test strip. The test strip employs an electrochemical signal generating an electrical current that will stimulate a chemical reaction. This reaction is measured by the Meter and displayed as your blood glucose result.

The provided text does not contain detailed information about acceptance criteria or specific study results for the EASYGLUCO™ device. The document is a 510(k) summary for an in vitro diagnostic device, primarily focusing on establishing substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

Therefore, I cannot extract the requested information regarding:

• A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance
• Sample size used for the test set or data provenance
• Number of experts or their qualifications for ground truth establishment
• Adjudication method
• MRMC comparative effectiveness study
• Standalone performance
• Type of ground truth used
• Sample size for the training set
• How ground truth for the training set was established

The available information only describes the device, its intended use, and its substantial equivalence to other blood glucose monitoring systems. It does not include performance data or study design details.

Ask a specific question about this device