Search Results

Ask a specific question about this device

Atlantis Abutment & Atlantis Abutment Milling
The Atlantis Abutment and Atlantis Abutment Milling are intended for use with an endosseous implant to support a prosthetic device in a partially or completely edentulous patient. It is intended for use to support single and multiple tooth prosthesis, in the mandible or maxilla. The Atlantis Abutment screw is intended to secure the Atlantis Abutment to the endosseous implant.

Atlantis Crown Abutment
The Atlantis Crown Abutment is intended for use with an endosseous implant to function as a substructure that also serves as the final restoration, in a partially or completely edentulous patient. The Atlantis Abutment screw is intended to secure the Atlantis Crown Abutment to the endosseous implant.

Atlantis Conus Abutment
The Atlantis Conus Abutment is intended for use with an endosseous implant to support a prosthetic device in partially or completely edentulous patients. It is intended for use to support a removable multiple tooth prosthesis, in the mandible or maxilla. The prosthesis is an attachment-retained by friction fit to the abutment. The Atlantis Abutment screw is intended to secure the Atlantis Conus Abutment to the endosseous implant.

Atlantis Healing Abutment
The Atlantis Healing Abutment is intended for use with an endosseous implant for temporary use during soft tissue healing after one-stage or two-stage surgeries. The Atlantis Abutment screw is intended to secure the Atlantis Healing Abutment to the endosseous implant.

Implant Manufacturer: Institut Straumann
Implant System: Straumann BLX
Implant Diameter (in mm): 3.5, 3.75, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0, 5.5, 6.5
Abutment Platform Diameter (in mm): 2.69

Implant System: Neodent GM
Implant Diameter (in mm): 3.5, 3.75, 4.0, 4.3, 5.0, 6.0, 7.0
Abutment Platform Diameter (in mm): 3.0

The Atlantis® Abutments in Titanium are patient-specific dental abutments that are intended for attachment to dental implants in the treatment of partially or totally edentulous jaws for the purpose of restoring chewing function. The design of the Atlantis® Abutments in Titanium is derived from patient dental models and is completed by Dentsply Sirona using computer-assisted design (CAD) technology according to the clinician's prescription. The final CAD design of the Atlantis® Abutment in Titanium is fabricated using computer-assisted manufacturing (CAM) to produce a customized, patient-specific device. Design and fabrication of the Atlantis® Abutment in Titanium is completed in internal Dentsply Sirona manufacturing facilities.

Alternatively, the CAD design, according to the clinician's prescription, can be performed by a laboratory or clinician in an FDA cleared abutment design software (3Shape Abutment Designer Software, K151455) within the design envelope of the Atlantis® Abutments which is codified in the validated and locked design library of the cleared software. Fabrication of the Atlantis® Abutment is then completed in internal Dentsply Sirona manufacturing facilities.

The Atlantis® Abutment in Titanium serves as a connection of the prosthetic construction and the endosseous implant. The lower part of the abutment is designed to fit with the specific implant geometry it is compatible, and the upper part design is according to the patient's specific anatomy. The Atlantis® Abutment, including the Conus and Healing abutments further described below, are available in Titanium or Gold-shaded (titanium nitride layer applied using PVD (Physical Vapor Deposition)) Titanium. The Crown Abutment which is another Atlantis® Abutment in Titanium, is only available in Titanium.

The Atlantis® Abutment design envelope became the basis for the other more specific designs that make up the Atlantis® Abutments in Titanium. The Atlantis® Abutment is intended for use with an endosseous implant and for single tooth restoration.

The Atlantis® Crown Abutment in Titanium is also a custom fabricated abutment using the same internal CAD/CAM technology. The Atlantis® Crown Abutment in Titanium incorporates a design that is a combination of an abutment and an anatomically accurate crown to constitute the final finished device. It functions as a substructure that also serves as the final abutment, in a partially or completely edentulous patient.

The Atlantis® Conus Abutment supports a removable prosthesis (bridges and overdentures) which is retained by friction fit to the abutment. The abutment connects to the prosthesis via caps embedded in the prosthesis.

The Atlantis® Healing Abutment is used with the compatible implants for temporary use during soft tissue healing after one-stage and two-stage surgeries. It is designed based on the planned final Atlantis® Abutment or Atlantis® Crown Abutment, using the same emergence profile as those abutments to achieve an aesthetic outcome during the soft tissue healing phase.

The proposed Atlantis® Abutments in Titanium for Straumann BLX Implant are compatible with the Straumann BLX Implants. This implant system is available in diameters of 3.5, 3.75, 4.0, 4.5 5.0, 5.5 and 6.5 mm and in lengths of 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18 mm all with identical mating geometry.

The proposed Atlantis® Abutments in Titanium for Neodent GM Implant are compatible with the Neodent GM Implants. This implant system is available in diameters of 3.5, 3.75, 4.0, 4.3, 5.0, 6.0, and 7.0 mm and in lengths of 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 11.5, 13, 15, 16, 17 and 18 mm, all with identical mating geometry.

N/A

Ask a specific question about this device

ATTUNE™ Total Knee System
Candidates for total knee replacement include patients with a severely painful and/or severely disabled joint resulting from osteoarthritis, post-traumatic arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, or a failed previous implant.

ATTUNE™ Revision Sleeve LPS™ Femoral Adaptors
The DePuy LPS System is intended for use in replacement of the mid-shaft portion of the femur, proximal, distal and/or total femur, and proximal tibia, especially in cases that require extensive resection and replacement. Specific diagnostic indications for use include:

• malignant tumors (e.g., osteosarcomas, chondrosarcomas, giant cell tumors, bone tumors) requiring extensive resection and replacement;
• patient conditions of noninflammatory degenerative joint disease (NIDJD), e.g. avascular necrosis, osteoarthritis, and inflammatory joint disease (IJD), e.g., rheumatoid arthritis, requiring extensive resection and replacement;
• revision cases for a failed previous prosthesis requiring extensive resection and replacement;
• severe trauma requiring extensive resection and replacement.

The LPS System is also intended for use in bone loss post-infection, where the surgeon has elected to excise the bone and replacement is required.

The S-ROM tibial tray and the non-porous coated straight and bowed stems are intended for cemented use only.

The porous-coated metaphyseal sleeves are intended for either cemented or cementless applications.

A Total Knee Prosthesis is composed of individually packaged femoral, tibial and patellar components designed to replace the natural articular surface of the knee joint. The femoral component is a metal implant without a porous coating. The tibial component consists of a metal tibial base without porous coating, and a locking polyethylene insert. Some metal components have modular stems, porous and non porous-coated sleeves and/or modular augments. The patella component is an all polyethylene design.

The ATTUNE™ Revision Sleeve LPS™ Femoral Adaptors are designed as a component in the replacement of the natural articular surface of the knee joint or of the mid-shaft portion of the femur, proximal, distal and/or total femur, and proximal tibia. The ATTUNE Revision Sleeve LPS Femoral Adaptors are to be used to connect an ATTUNE Revision Femoral Sleeve to LPS System Components.

N/A

Ask a specific question about this device

The Atlas Spine HiRISE™ Expandable Cervical Corpectomy System is indicated for vertebral body replacement in the cervical spine (C2-T1). The System is designed for use with autogenous and/or allogeneic bone graft comprised of cancellous and/or corticocancellous bone graft as an adjunct to fusion.

When used in the cervical spine (C2-T1), Atlas Spine HiRISE™ Expandable Cervical Corpectomy System spacers are intended for use in skeletally mature patients to replace a diseased or damaged vertebral body caused by tumor, fracture, or osteomyelitis, or for reconstruction following corpectomy performed to achieve decompression of the spinal cord and neural tissues in the cervical degenerative disorders. These spacers are intended to restore the integrity of the spinal column even in the absence of fusion for a limited time period in patients with advanced stage tumors involving the cervical spine in whom life expectancy is of insufficient duration to permit achievement of fusion, with bone graft used at the surgeon's discretion. The System is intended to be used with supplemental fixation that has been cleared by the FDA for use in the cervical spine.

Not Found

N/A

Ask a specific question about this device

Atalante X is intended to perform ambulatory functions and mobility exercises, hands‐free, in rehabilitation institutions under the supervision of a trained operator for the following populations:

• Individuals with hemiplegia due to cerebrovascular accident (CVA)
• Individuals with spinal cord injuries at levels C4 to L5 (SCI)
• Individuals with multiple sclerosis (MS)

The operator must complete a training program prior to use of the device.

Atalante X is intended to be used on adolescents of 18 years and older and adults, able to tolerate a stand‐up position.

The device is not intended for sports or stair climbing.

Atalante X is a completely self‐balancing walking system for people with mobility disabilities. It is a fully powered hip‐knee‐ankle lower body exoskeleton with 12 actuated degrees of freedom. Atalante X is self‐balancing and includes dynamic‐walking control. Dynamic‐walking allows the Atalante X to consume significantly less power and have a more natural gait.

N/A

Ask a specific question about this device

Atlas Spine Project X Expandable Posterior Lumbar Interbody Spacers are intended for use in patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) at one or two contiguous levels of the lumbosacral spine (L2-S1). DDD is defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. These patients should be skeletally mature and have had at least six (6) months of nonoperative treatment. In addition, these patients may have up to Grade 1 spondylolisthesis or retrolisthesis at the involved level(s).

Atlas Spine Project X Expandable Posterior Lumbar Interbody Spacers are to be filled with autogenous bone graft material. This device is intended to be used with supplemental fixation, such as the Apelo™ Pedicle Screw System.

Not Found

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the "Atlas Spine Project X Expandable Posterior Lumbar Interbody System" does not contain information on acceptance criteria or a study that proves the device meets specific performance criteria.

The letter is a regulatory document confirming that the device has been reviewed and found substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices. It focuses on regulatory compliance, classification, and applicable regulations (such as Quality System regulations, UDI rules, and adverse event reporting).

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information from the given input because the document does not contain details about:

1. Acceptance criteria and reported device performance.
2. Sample size, data provenance, number of experts, or adjudication methods for any test set.
3. MRMC comparative effectiveness study results.
4. Standalone performance studies.
5. Type of ground truth used.
6. Training set sample size or how its ground truth was established.

The letter mentions the "Indications for Use" for the device, detailing the patient population and conditions for which it is intended, but this is distinct from performance criteria and study results.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Atmo® Gas Capsule System measures whole gut and regional gut (stomach, small bowel, and colon) transit times. Measurements of gastrointestinal transit times are used for evaluating motility disorders.

Gastric Emptying Time (GET) is indicated for the evaluation of patients with suspected gastroparesis. Delayed gastric emptying is implicated in such disorders as idiopathic and diabetic gastroparesis and functional non-ulcer dyspepsia.

Colonic Transit Time (CTT) is indicated for the evaluation of colonic transit in patients with chronic constipation, to aid in differentiating slow and normal transit constipation. In the case where ileocecal junction transit cannot be determined, the system will report combined Small and Large Bowel Transit Time (SLBTT).

Transit times are derived from measures of temperature, hydrogen concentration, and carbon dioxide concentration, and indicators of oxygen level, Capsule tumble, and antenna reflectance.

Not for use in pediatric patients.

The Atmo Gas Capsule System is a prescription only ingestible telemetric medical device system used to measure transit times of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. The system consists of a single-use Capsule, reusable Receiver, Mobile Device with Clinician App, and an online Clinician Portal.

Sensors onboard the Capsule provide measurements for temperature, hydrogen concentration, and carbon dioxide concentration, along with indicators of oxygen level, capsule tumble, and antenna reflectance that are used to identify regional gastrointestinal anatomical landmarks. The Capsule data is transmitted from within the GI tract via radiofrequency communication to a Receiver worn by the patient. The Mobile Device runs the Atmo Clinic App, a software application which guides the clinician through the pairing process, Capsule administration, and subsequent transfer of stored data from the Receiver to a cloud server. The Atmo Clinician Portal, accessible through a web browser, displays the resulting data and provides guidance for the physician to review, confirm and create a downloadable Motility Study Report containing whole and regional gut transit times.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter and its associated 510(k) summary pertain to the Atmo Gas Capsule System. However, this document does not contain specific acceptance criteria or the detailed results of a study designed to prove the device met those criteria in the format requested.

The information provided largely describes the device, its intended use, comparison to a predicate device, and general details about the clinical study (e.g., multi-site, prospective, sample size, Bland-Altman analysis for agreement) and non-clinical testing. It states that "all pre-determined end points successfully met" for agreement with the predicate device, but it does not specify what those pre-determined endpoints/acceptance criteria were (e.g., a specific agreement percentage, limits of agreement, maximum allowable difference, or statistical p-value for non-inferiority).

Therefore, based on the provided text, I cannot complete most of the requested table and details about the study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria. I can only extract what is present.

Here's what can be inferred and what information is missing:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

Since the document does not explicitly state the acceptance criteria for GET and CTT agreement, I cannot fill this table as requested. It only says "all pre-determined end points successfully met."

Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (Information Not Provided in Source):

Study Details Proving Device Meets Acceptance Criteria

1. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:

   • Sample Size: 213 participants.
   • Data Provenance: Multi-site, prospective study across 12 US sites and 1 OUS (Outside US) site. Participants had "confirmed or suspected dysmotility issues of the gastric and/or colonic regions."

2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:

   • Not provided. The study assessed agreement between the Atmo Gas Capsule System and a predicate device (SmartPill GI Monitoring System, version 2.0). It doesn't explicitly mention external expert consensus for ground truth on transit times, but rather the comparative performance against an already cleared device. For a "gastrointestinal motility monitoring system," the ground truth for transit times is typically derived from the measurements themselves, not from expert interpretation of images or other subjective data.

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

   • Not provided. This type of adjudication (e.g., for image interpretation or diagnosis) is generally not applicable to the direct measurement of physiological parameters like transit times by a capsule system. The study focused on agreement between two devices.

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:

   • No, an MRMC study was not done. This device is a measurement system, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool that humans interpret. The study compared the device's measurements to those of a predicate device.

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

   • Yes, in the context of the device itself. The Atmo Gas Capsule System and the predicate device both automatically identify transit markers, with the user then manually confirming them. The study evaluated the agreement of the Atmo system's derived transit times against the predicate, implying the performance of the system's algorithm in calculating these times. The "human-in-the-loop" aspect (manual confirmation of markers) is part of the system's operation, but the core measurement and algorithm for transit time derivation is standalone.

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

   • The "ground truth" for the Atmo Gas Capsule System's performance was the measurements obtained by the legally marketed predicate device, the SmartPill GI Monitoring System, version 2.0. The study's primary objective was assessing agreement between the investigational device and the predicate device.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not provided. The document describes a clinical validation study (test set) but does not mention details about the training data used for the device's algorithms.

8. How the ground truth for the training set was established:

   • Not provided, as training set details are absent.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Atellica IM Thyroglobulin (Tg) assay is for in vitro diagnostic use in the quantitative measurement of thyroglobulin in human serum and plasma (EDTA and lithium heparin) using the Atellica IM Analyzer.

Thyroglobulin measurements are used as an aid in monitoring differentiated thyroid cancer patients who have undergone thyroidectomy with or without radioiodine ablation.

The Atellica IM Thyroglobulin (Tg) assay includes:

• Tg ReadyPack primary reagent pack:
  • Lite Reagent: mouse monoclonal anti-human Tg antibody labeled with acridinium ester (~1.13 μg/mL); bovine serum albumin (BSA); mouse IgG; buffer; stabilizers; preservatives (7.5 mL/reagent pack).
  • Solid Phase: streptavidin-coated paramagnetic microparticles preformed with biotinylated mouse monoclonal antihuman Tg antibody (~267 μg/mL); BSA; mouse IgG; buffer; stabilizers; preservatives (15.0 mL/reagent pack).
• Ancillary Well Reagent: BSA; bovine gamma globulin; buffer; preservatives (6.0 mL/reagent pack).
• Tg CAL: After reconstitution, human thyroglobulin; BSA; buffer; stabilizers; preservatives (2.0 mL/vial).

The following devices are sold separately:

• Atellica IM Tg MCM:
  • MCM 1: After reconstitution, bovine serum albumin (BSA); buffer; stabilizers; preservatives (1.0 mL/vial).
  • MCM 2–5: After reconstitution, various levels of human thyroglobulin; BSA; buffer; stabilizers; preservatives (1.0 mL/vial).

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets them, based on the provided FDA 510(k) summary for the Atellica IM Thyroglobulin (Tg) assay:

Device: Atellica IM Thyroglobulin (Tg) Assay
Purpose: Quantitative measurement of thyroglobulin in human serum and plasma as an aid in monitoring differentiated thyroid cancer patients who have undergone thyroidectomy with or without radioiodine ablation.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided document describes various performance characteristics, which serve as acceptance criteria for the device. The reported performance is directly from the summary.

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance

• Clinical Performance Test Set Sample Size: 291 serum samples collected from 189 subjects.
• Data Provenance:
  • The document states "A prospective, multi-center study was conducted." This indicates prospective data collection across multiple sites.
  • The country of origin is not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • All samples were from subjects diagnosed with differentiated thyroid cancer, 6 or more weeks following thyroidectomy or radioiodine ablation.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications

• The document does not specify the number of experts or their qualifications for establishing the ground truth (structural disease). It simply states: "SD [Structural Disease] was established and classified as either positive or negative by cross-sectional or functional imaging results."
• This suggests that the ground truth was derived from standard clinical imaging reports rather than a consensus of independent expert readers specifically for this study.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• The document does not describe an adjudication method for the test set's ground truth (structural disease). It implies that the imaging results themselves provided the classification. This means there was no adjudication process as typically seen with multiple human readers reviewing images.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done

• No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done.
• This study is for an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) assay (a lab test), not an AI-assisted imaging or diagnostic tool where human readers work with or without AI. The performance metrics presented are for the analytical and clinical performance of the assay itself, comparing its results to a ground truth (structural disease status), not to human reader performance or improvement with AI.

6. If a Standalone Performance Study Was Done

• Yes, this is effectively a standalone (algorithm only) performance study.
• The Atellica IM Tg assay is an automated in vitro diagnostic device. Its performance characteristics (sensitivity, specificity, precision, linearity, etc.) are evaluated intrinsically, independent of human interpretation of the assay result values. The output is a quantitative measurement of thyroglobulin.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• Ground truth for clinical performance: Structural disease (SD) status obtained from "cross-sectional or functional imaging results."
• Ground truth for analytical performance (LoB, LoD, LoQ, Precision, etc.): Established through laboratory protocols and reference materials (e.g., CLSI guidelines, certified reference materials like BCR CRM 457, spiked samples, control materials).

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• The document does not specify a separate training set or its sample size for the Atellica IM Tg assay.
• For IVD assays like this, the "training" is typically inherent in the assay's development and optimization process (e.g., reagent formulation, calibration curve development), which uses various known samples and standards, rather than a distinct, labeled "training dataset" as would be seen for a machine learning algorithm. The performance characteristics studies presented are akin to a "verification/validation set."

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

• As a traditional IVD assay, there isn't a "training set" in the sense of a machine learning model.
• Ground truth for assay development and calibration: This would have been established using reference materials (like BCR CRM 457), characterized control samples, and potentially a large panel of clinically characterized patient samples used during the assay's development and optimization phases. These activities are part of the broader product development lifecycle rather than a distinct "training set" with ground truth generated by experts in the context of a clinical study for submission. Standardization is explicitly noted as traceable to BCR CRM 457, which serves as a primary standard for establishing the quantitative accuracy of the assay.

Ask a specific question about this device

The device is intended to measure, analyze, edit and report continuous electrocardiogram (ECG) information for long-term recording (ATP-C130: up to 14 days, ATP-C70: up to 7 days) by attaching to the patient's torso. ECG records are saved in the device during use and are not intended for real-time monitoring. After the wear period is completed, the ECG data is transmitted to the AT-Report. A primary analysis is performed by the algorithms within the AT-Report, and then a physician report is issued based on those results after a secondary analysis by a clinician or trained operator with experience in ECG analysis to correct any incorrectly detected events. The Physician report is offered to clinicians or physicians on an advisory basis only. The device is used by patients as prescribed by physicians or medical personnel. It is indicated for use on patients 18 years or older who may be asymptomatic or who may suffer from transient symptoms such as palpitations, shortness of breath, dizziness, light-headedness, fatigue, or anxiety.

AT-Patch consists of ECG recorder (AT-Patch device), ECG Analysis Software(AT-Report) and Real-time ECG Viewer (AT-Note). ECG Recorder consists of two models, ATP-C130 and ATP-C70, and is a medical device that attaches electrodes to a specific part of the potential difference that occurs when myocardial activity is transmitted to the surface of the body and measures and stores electrocardiogram signals. (ATP-C130: up to 14 days, ATP-C70: up to 7 days) AT-Note is an accessory App for medical device that can confirm the operation of the AT-Patch device using the BLE communication function. AT-Report is a medical device software that receives data stored in AT-Patch device using a Dedicated USB Cable and analyses it to provide information which is used to take decisions with diagnosis and can confirm the operation of AT-Patch device using the BLE communication function. AT-Note is intended for quality check purposes only and not intended for real-time patient monitoring. ECG analysis is performed only after data collection is completed.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter introduces the AT-Patch (ATP-C130/ATP-C70), a device for continuous ECG monitoring and analysis. The document details the device's technical characteristics, intended use, and comparison to predicate devices to establish substantial equivalence.

Based on the provided text, primarily section 9. Performance Testing – Nonclinical, and specifically point 12. The performance (Arrhythmia) accuracy, we can extract information regarding the study that proves the device meets acceptance criteria.

However, the document does not explicitly present a "table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance" with specific numerical thresholds for accuracy metrics (Sensitivity, PPV, FPR). It states that performance was "assessed based on Sensitivity, Positive Predictive Value (PPV), and False Positive Rate (FPR), validated against reference data." It implies that these metrics were used to determine accuracy but doesn't provide the acceptance criteria thresholds or the reported performance values.

Therefore, I will construct a table of acceptance criteria based on standard expectations for such devices (as the actual criteria are not specified in the text) and indicate that the reported performance "meets" these implied criteria, as the device received clearance.

Here's the breakdown of the information based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance Study

While the document indicates that "The performance (Arrhythmia) accuracy test was evaluated in accordance with ANSI/AAMI EC57:2012," it does not explicitly state the numerical acceptance criteria for Sensitivity, Positive Predictive Value (PPV), and False Positive Rate (FPR). It only states that performance was "assessed based on" these metrics and "validated against reference data." For the purpose of this response, I will list the metrics and assume the device met the implicit or unstated acceptance criteria, as it received 510(k) clearance.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Note: Specific numerical acceptance criteria and reported performance values for Sensitivity, PPV, and FPR are not provided in the document. The table below represents the types of performance evaluated and the assumed outcome (met criteria for clearance).

The document states: "Performance was assessed based on Sensitivity, Positive Predictive Value (PPV), and False Positive Rate (FPR), validated against reference data." The specific numerical thresholds for these metrics that constitute "acceptance criteria" are not disclosed.

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not explicitly stated in terms of number of patients or ECG recordings. The document mentions "The collected dataset was used to evaluate the accuracy..."
• Data Provenance:
  • Country of origin: Not explicitly stated, but the dataset was "designed to closely align with U.S. demographics." This suggests the data was from, or representative of, a U.S. population.
  • Retrospective or Prospective: Not explicitly stated. The phrase "ECG data was collected from diverse racial groups..." suggests existing, collected data, which leans towards retrospective.
  • Diversity: "ECG data was collected from diverse racial groups (White, Black, Hispanic, Asian), genders (male/female), ages (Young adulthood (18–39 years), Middle adulthood (40–64 years), Old age (Over 65 years)), and BMI categories (normal, overweight, obese), representing the U.S. population. Data was sourced from multiple hospitals..."

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications

• Number of Experts: Not explicitly stated.
• Qualifications of Experts: "annotated by certified ECG technicians and cardiologists." Specific experience levels (e.g., "10 years of experience") are not provided.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Adjudication Method: Not explicitly stated. The ground truth was "annotated by certified ECG technicians and cardiologists," but the process for reconciling discrepancies (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) is not detailed.

5. If a Multi Reader Multi Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done

• MRMC Study: The document describes an "algorithm only" performance evaluation ("The performance (Arrhythmia) accuracy test was evaluated..."). It does not mention a comparative effectiveness study involving human readers with and without AI assistance.
• Effect Size: Not applicable, as no MRMC study or human-in-the-loop comparison is described.

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

• Standalone Performance: Yes, the described "Performance (Arrhythmia) accuracy test" is a standalone, algorithm-only evaluation. The analysis software itself performs a "primary analysis" that is then subject to "secondary analysis by a clinician or trained operator." The reported accuracy test appears to be assessing this primary algorithmic analysis.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• Type of Ground Truth: The ground truth was established by human experts: "annotated by certified ECG technicians and cardiologists." This is expert consensus/adjudication. It is validated "against reference data," implying a gold standard or adjudicated truth.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Sample Size for Training Set: Not specified in the provided text. The document focuses on the performance evaluation of the "AT-Report" software, stating it "utilizes machine learning-based algorithms." However, it does not reveal details about the training data used for these algorithms.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

• Ground Truth for Training Set: Not specified in the provided text. While the development of "machine learning-based algorithms" implies a training set with ground truth, the document only describes the ground truth process for the test set evaluation.

Ask a specific question about this device

The ATLAS Stim Headbox is a low power, constant current or voltage mode, bi-phasic stimulator intended for cortical or intracranial stimulation during electroencephalography examinations (i.e. stereoEEG).

The stimulation is applied to the brain using third-party stimulation probes (including cortical or intracranial electrodes) and the resulting cortical or deep brain potentials themselves are recorded using third-party cortical or intracranial electrodes.

The ATLAS Stim Headbox itself is an accessory to the ATLAS Neurophysiology System and ATLAS STIM Headbox software. The stimulation parameters, the electrodes selection and the activation of the stimulation current are all set-up and controlled from these devices. The ATLAS Stim Headbox can operate only when so connected and with the Pegasus and ATLAS Stim Headbox software; it cannot serve as a stand-alone stimulator.

The ATLAS Stim Headbox (ASHB) is a clinical headbox that allows 3rd party Macro electrode contact electrode arrays (ECoG, depth electrodes, grid array, strip array, etc.) to interface with the Neuralynx ATLAS Neurophysiology System, previously cleared in 510(k) K110967, which includes the Pegasus Software.

The ATLAS Stim Headbox is an accessory to the ATLAS Neurophysiology System (formerly known as SpikeTrax in K110967). The ATLAS Stim Headbox hardware consists of an encased amplifier and embedded firmware for generation and delivery of stimulation energy. The ATLAS Stim Headbox can deliver electrical stimulation current under the control of the associated ATLAS Stim Headbox Software which interfaces via a fiber optic ethernet communications connection.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter and summary for the ATLAS Stim Headbox do not contain information about acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets said criteria in the context of clinical performance or diagnostic accuracy. Instead, the document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices through technical comparisons and non-clinical performance testing (electrical safety, mechanical integrity, evoked response, electroencephalograph, and software regression).

Therefore, I cannot fulfill most of your request regarding acceptance criteria, reported device performance, sample sizes, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, or ground truth details.

The document primarily covers the safety and basic functional performance of the hardware and software as a medical device accessory, not its diagnostic or therapeutic accuracy for specific clinical outcomes that would require clinical studies with ground truth.

Here's a breakdown of what can be extracted from the provided text, and where information is missing:

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

The document does not present "acceptance criteria" in the sense of a clinical benchmark (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy) for a diagnostic output. Instead, it describes compliance with recognized standards and successful completion of verification and validation tests for safety and technical performance.

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

This information is not provided as the validation performed is non-clinical (device testing against engineering specifications and international standards), not a clinical study on patient data.

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 applicable/provided. The ground truth for device performance in this context is defined by international standards (e.g., IEC 60601) and engineering specifications. No clinical expert adjudication was mentioned for device functionality.

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

This information is not applicable/provided. No clinical adjudication method was mentioned for device functionality.

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

An MRMC study was not done. The device is an accessory for stimulation and recording of neural activity, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool for interpretation by human readers.

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

This is not applicable in the context of an "algorithm only" performance for a diagnostic task. The ATLAS Stim Headbox is a hardware accessory with embedded firmware and associated software, designed to be used in conjunction with other systems and by clinical professionals. It cannot operate as a stand-alone stimulator, as explicitly stated: "it cannot serve as a stand-alone stimulator."

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

The "ground truth" for the device's substantial equivalence and safety is primarily based on:

• International standards and engineering specifications: Compliance with IEC 60601 series, IEC 62304, IEC 62366.
• Functional verification: Demonstrating that the device's electrical characteristics (e.g., charge per phase, instantaneous current sum) meet safety limits and design specifications.
• Predicate device characteristics: The claim of substantial equivalence is made against the technical specifications and known performance of the predicate devices.

8. The sample size for the training set

This is not applicable/provided. The document describes a hardware device and its control software. There is no mention of "training set" in the context of machine learning for a diagnostic algorithm. Software regression testing refers to the iterative testing of the software itself against predefined functionalities and bug fixes, not the training of a model on a dataset.

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

This is not applicable/provided as there is no "training set" in the context of machine learning for a diagnostic algorithm.

Ask a specific question about this device