Search Results

Intended as a moisturizer for vaginal dryness and personal lubrication of the vaginal entry to enhance condom use and the responsiveness (ease and comfort) during intimate sexual activity.

SENSUA! is a clear, colorless personal lubricant composed of: purified water. Propylene glycol, L-arginine, Hydroxyethyl cellulose, Methylparaben and other ingredients.

This document is a 510(k) summary for a personal lubricant called "SENSUA! Personal Lubricant". It is not a study about a medical device that utilizes an algorithm or AI. Therefore, it does not contain the information required to answer the questions about acceptance criteria, device performance, sample sizes for test and training sets, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, or standalone performance.

The document discusses the device's general information, predicate devices, description, and intended use as a moisturizer for vaginal dryness and personal lubrication. It also confirms that the device has been tested for condom compatibility and preservative effectiveness to demonstrate substantial equivalence to predicate devices. However, no specific performance metrics or studies are detailed in relation to these tests.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Aware™ Pad is indicated as an aid for performing breast self-examination.

Aware TM Pad is a thin polyurethane bladder, 9.5 inches in diameter containing a small quantity of silicone fluid. The very thin nature of the polyester polyurethane allows the pad to conform to the shape of the tissues underlying it. The very low coefficient of friction property of the silicone fluid in combination with the very thin and flexible bladder, provides easy sliding between the upper and lower surfaces of the bladder. Therefore, when properly used between the finger and the soft breast tissues of the patient, a reduction of friction is observed.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the Aware™ Pad, a device indicated as an aid for performing breast self-examination. This document is a regulatory submission for market clearance and does not contain a study proving the device meets specific acceptance criteria in the way a clinical trial or performance study would for a diagnostic or therapeutic device.

Instead, the submission focuses on demonstrating "substantial equivalence" to a legally marketed predicate device, the Sensor Pad® (K973450). This process does not typically involve the detailed performance studies or pre-defined acceptance criteria that would be seen for higher-risk devices or novel technologies.

Therefore, many of the requested information points (acceptance criteria, specific study details, ground truth, expert qualifications, sample sizes for test/training, MRMC studies, standalone performance) are not applicable or not provided within the scope of this 510(k) summary.

Here's a breakdown based on the information available in the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Not Applicable. The 510(k) submission for the Aware™ Pad does not define explicit performance acceptance criteria and does not report detailed performance metrics from a study in the same way a diagnostic device would. The primary "performance" assessed is its technological characteristics demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

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

Not Applicable/Not Provided. A "test set" in the context of device performance testing for the Aware™ Pad is not described in this 510(k) summary. The submission relies on establishing substantial equivalence based on technological characteristics and intended use.

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

Not Applicable/Not Provided. The concept of "ground truth" established by experts for a test set is not presented for this device given the nature of the 510(k) submission and the device's function.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not Applicable/Not Provided. As there is no described test set or expert evaluation detailed, an adjudication method is not relevant or described.

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

No. A Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not conducted or reported for the Aware™ Pad in this 510(k) summary. This type of study is typically used for imaging or diagnostic devices to assess reader performance. The Aware™ Pad is a simple aid for self-examination, not a diagnostic tool requiring such rigorous clinical validation.

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

Not Applicable. The Aware™ Pad is a physical device (a pad to aid tactile examination), not an algorithm or software. Therefore, the concept of "standalone algorithm performance" is not relevant.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

Not Applicable/Not Provided. For this device, ground truth in the sense of a clinical outcome or diagnostic truth is not defined. The basis for market clearance is "substantial equivalence" to an existing device, implying that the predicate's effectiveness is already established for its intended use as an aid for breast self-examination.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Not Applicable/Not Provided. The Aware™ Pad is a physical device and does not involve AI/machine learning, and therefore does not have a "training set" in the context of algorithm development.

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

Not Applicable/Not Provided. As there is no training set, this question is not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device