Search Results

Silverlon™ Direct Pressure (DP) Wound Closure Strips are absorbent antimicrobial barrier dressings.

The Over-The-Counter (OTC) indications:

Local management of superficial wounds and skin tears and minor lacerations.

The Prescription Professional indications:

Primary or secondary closure following surgery, supplementary-support to sutures, staples or sealants, wound support following suture removal, and wound sites where suturing would aggravate bleeding.

Silverlon™ DP Wound Closure Strips are designed to provide a balanced relief of tensions at the wound edges by exerting a compressive and downward force on the wound surface through the antimicrobial barrier multilaminate composite portion of the strip. Without impairment of microcirculation, the elastasticity of the non latex elastic component provides a stabilizing force to the wound edge reapproximation. The Silverlon™ component provides effective protection of the dressing against microbial contamination. The dressing maintains a moist wound environment which promotes wound healing. The design of the elastic component allows for the wound edges to be pulled together while minimizing the irritation, blistering and skin shearing associated with mechanical trauma. As the patient goes through the activities of daily living, the antimicrobial barrier composite laminate pad experiences minimal motion and therefore minimal disruption of the wound margins. The pattern of the elastic design of the DP portion of the closure strip provides the minimal motion and intimate contact between the antimicrobial barrier laminate and the wound margins as the edema subsides. The design of the relief holes in the elastic non latex elastic component allow: (1) minimum movement of the laminate and the wound edges as the surrounding skin moves; and (2) the physician to vary the compression on the wound surface after the dressing is applied by cutting bands.

Silverlon™ DP Wound Closure Strips are multi-layer, sterile, elastic, antimicrobial barrier absorbent composite wound closure strips. The dressings are composed of five distinct layers outlined in Figure 1 below:

Layer 1 is a non-adherent wound contact layer that consists of 1 or 4 layers of 0 continuous nylon fiber substrate with a metallic silver surface (Silverlon™). Layer 1, Layer 2, Layer 3, and Layer 4 are sewn together with silver nylon thread that is plated in an identical fashion to the silver nylon utilized to make the Silverlon™ fabric. The silver coating is a uniform 1-micron thick layer that completely covers the nylon.

Layer 2 is Delnet P530N

Layer 3 is a needle-punched non-woven 8-ounce or 4-ounce rayon wed that absorbs drainage from the wound site

Layer 4 is polyurethane film that keeps external contaminants out and maintains a moist wound healing environment.

(Note: Layers 2, 3,and 4 are manufactured as a laminate by AET)

Layer 5 is a composite laminate of non-woven polyester fabric (5.2, Figure 1) . coated with a skin contact pressure sensitive acrylic adhesive (5.4, Figure 1) backed with a one sided poly coated lay flat release liner and non latex elastic. The pressure sensitive acrylic adhesive H-566, is a hypoallergenic adhesive that meets USP Class 6 standard and satisfies tripartite guidelines for skin contact devices. The non-woven polyester tape is interrupted by a section of elastomeric non latex (5.1. Figure 1). Holes are punched out in the non latex elastic (5.3, Figure 1) to allow adjustability of the elastic component of the Silverlon™ DP Wound Closure Strip.

The provided text is a 510(k) Premarket Notification for the Silverlon™ Direct Pressure Wound Closure Strip. It describes the device, its intended use, and its substantial equivalence to predicate devices. However, it does not contain any information about acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets acceptance criteria.

The document is a regulatory submission focused on demonstrating substantial equivalence, which primarily involves comparing the proposed device to already legally marketed predicate devices, rather than presenting new clinical study data with acceptance criteria.

Based on the provided text, I cannot complete the requested tables and information.

Missing Information:

• Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance: This document does not establish specific performance acceptance criteria for the new device or present data demonstrating it meets such criteria.
• Sample Size for Test Set and Data Provenance: No clinical study data is included, therefore no test set sample size or provenance is available.
• Number and Qualifications of Experts for Ground Truth: No mention of experts establishing ground truth, as no new study data is presented.
• Adjudication Method: Not applicable as no new study data is presented.
• Multi Reader Multi Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study: Not mentioned as no new study data is presented.
• Standalone Performance Study: Not mentioned as no new study data is presented.
• Type of Ground Truth Used: Not applicable as no new study data is presented.
• Sample Size for Training Set: No mention of a training set, as this is a regulatory submission, not a study report for a machine learning model.
• How Ground Truth for Training Set was Established: Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

This device may not be labeled for use on third degree burns. This device may not be labeled as having any accelerating effect on the rate of wound healing or epithelization. This device may not be labeled as a long-term, permanent, or no-change dressing, or as an artificial (synthetic) skin. This device may not be labeled as a treatment or a cure for any type of wound.

Not Found

This document is a letter from the FDA regarding a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device called Silverlon™ Adhesive Strip. It is a substantial equivalence letter.

As such, this document does not contain any information about:

• Acceptance criteria or reported device performance for a study.
• Sample sizes for test sets or their data provenance.
• Number or qualifications of experts for ground truth establishment.
• Adjudication methods.
• Multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness studies or their effect sizes.
• Standalone (algorithm only) performance studies.
• Type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data).
• Sample size for training sets.
• How ground truth for training sets was established.

This letter primarily focuses on the regulatory aspects of the device, particularly its substantial equivalence to a predicate device and the limitations on its labeling and claims.

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

For over-the-counter use, Silverlon® Wound Contact Dressing may be used for: First aid to help in minor abrasions, minor cuts, lacerations, scrapes, minor scalds and burns. Under the supervision of a health care professional, Silverlon® Wound Contact Dressing may be used for the management of: Silverlon® Wound Contact Dressings provide an effective barrier to bacterial penetration and are intended for local management of partial thickness burns, incisions, skin grafts, donor sites, lacerations, and Stage I-IV dermal ulcers (vascular, venous, pressure, and diabetic).

Silverlon® Contact Wound Dressings are made of flexible, elastomeric, sterile, silver plated fabric consisting of a knitted continuous nylon fiber substrate with a metallic silver surface containing approximately one percent silver oxide. The coating of silver is circumferential between 0.8 and 1.0 um thick. Silverlon® Contact Wound Dressings are designed to intimately contact the wound as a primary dressing and permit the passage of fluids. The silver provides effective protection of the dressing against microbial contamination. The nylon fabric permits the passage of oxygen and fluids to and from the wound. The surface of the nylon fibers in Silverlon® Wound Contact Dressings consists of a thin layer of metallic silver containing approximately one percent silver oxide that provides effective protection of the dressing against microbial contamination.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the Silverlon® Antimicrobial Barrier Wound Contact Dressing and related products. It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device and provides performance data primarily related to biocompatibility.

Here's an analysis of the requested information based only on the provided text:

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

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

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated for each biocompatibility test.
• Data Provenance: The studies were performed by North American Science Associates, Inc. (NAMSA), Northwood, Ohio, which suggests the studies were conducted in the USA. The text does not specify if they were retrospective or prospective, but in vivo biocompatibility studies are typically prospective experimental studies.

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)

Not applicable. The performance data presented is for biocompatibility tests, which are objective laboratory (in vivo) measurements and do not rely on expert interpretation for "ground truth" in the same way clinical diagnostic studies would.

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

Not applicable. This concept is relevant for studies where human interpretation of medical data (e.g., images) is involved, not for standardized biocompatibility testing.

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

Not applicable. This device is a wound dressing, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.

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

Not applicable. This device is a wound dressing, not an algorithm. The performance described is for the physical device itself.

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

For the biocompatibility tests, the "ground truth" would be the observed biological reactions and measurements against established safety limits and criteria as defined by ISO 10993 standards. It's objective, not based on expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data in the clinical sense for this specific evaluation.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This device is a wound dressing, not an AI model that requires a training set.

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

Not applicable. As above, this information pertains to AI models, not physical medical devices like wound dressings.

Ask a specific question about this device

Professional Indications: Indicated for vascular access, central, arterial and venous IV sites, IM injection sites, abrasions, lacerations, partial thickness burns, wound drain sites and surgical incisions. Over-The-Counter Indications: First aid to help in minor cuts, scrapes, abrasions and burns.

Silver nylon strips are multi-layer, sterile, non-adherent, absorbent composite dressings with an attached adhesive tape or pad. The dressings are composed of three distinct layers: Layer 1 is a polymeric silver coated fabric circumferential covered with a uniform layer of metallic silver. Layer 2 is a needle-punched non-woven rayon web that absorbs drainage from the wound site. Layer 3 is a latex free skin adhesive and tape.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for a medical device called Silverlon® Adhesive Strip. It primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices and detailing the device's composition, intended use, and a limited set of performance data.

Based on the provided text, here's a breakdown of the requested information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly define "acceptance criteria" in a quantitative manner as one might expect for a diagnostic or high-performance device. Instead, the performance assessment is qualitative, focusing on biocompatibility and lack of systemic absorption, which are foundational for safety in wound dressings.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance

• Sample Size for Test Set:
  • Animal Study: The document refers to "a full thickness animal (pig) wound model." The exact number of animals or wounds is not specified.
  • Biocompatibility Studies: These were conducted on the "Silverlon® Island Wound Dressing," and the results were deemed applicable. The sample sizes for cytotoxicity, sensitization, and acute intracutaneous reactivity studies are not specified.
• Data Provenance: The studies were conducted by North America Science Associates, Inc. (NAmSA), Northwood, Ohio. The animal study appears to be prospective research conducted specifically for this device or a substantially similar one. The biocompatibility studies were also conducted as part of the safety assessment. There is no mention of country of origin of the data beyond the location of the testing facility.

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

This type of information is not provided in the document. For biocompatibility and animal wound models, "ground truth" is typically established through standardized laboratory assays and veterinary/pathological assessments, rather than expert consensus in the way it might be for image interpretation.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

This information is not applicable and therefore not provided as the performance data described involves laboratory and animal testing, not human readers interpreting observations that would require adjudication.

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. This device is a wound dressing, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool, so such a study would not be relevant.

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

No, a standalone algorithm performance study was not done or is not applicable. This device is a physical wound dressing and does not involve any algorithms or AI component.

7. The type of ground truth used

• For the animal study: The ground truth for local cytotoxicity and systemic absorption would be established by veterinary/pathological assessment (e.g., histological examination of wound tissue, chemical analysis of blood samples).
• For biocompatibility studies: The ground truth would be established by standardized laboratory assays for cytotoxicity, sensitization, and acute intracutaneous reactivity, based on ISO 10993 standards.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable and not provided. This device is a physical product, not a machine learning model, so there is no "training set."

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

Not applicable and not provided. As above, there is no training set for this type of device.

Ask a specific question about this device

Silverlon™ Wound Packing Strips are sterile, non-adherent, silver wound dressings. The Prescription Professional indications: Control of local wound bleeding and nasal hemorrhage, to encourage draining by wicking fluids from a body cavity, infected area, or abscess, and to help remove necrotic tissue from ulcers or other infected wounds when used as a "wet-to-dry" packing.

Silverlon® Wound Packing Strips are made of flexible, sterile, r non-adherent fabric of a knitted continuous nylon fiber substrate with a metallic silver surface containing approximately 1% silver oxide. Silverlon® Wound Packing Strips are designed to intimately contact the wound as a primary dressing and permit the passage of fluids. The silver provides effective protection of the dressing against microbial contamination. The nylon fabric permits the passage of oxygen and fluids to and from the wound. The surface of the nylon fibers in Silverlon® Wound Packing Strips consists of a thin layer of metallic silver containing approximately 1% silver oxide that provides effective protection of the dressing against microbial contamination.

The provided text focuses on the 510(k) premarket notification for Silverlon™ Wound Packing Strips, determining its substantial equivalence to predicate devices, and outlining its intended use and functional characteristics. However, it does not contain information related to acceptance criteria or a study proving device performance against such criteria in the manner typically seen for complex medical devices requiring such studies (e.g., AI algorithms, diagnostic tests).

Instead, the document details:

• Device Description: What the Silverlon™ Wound Packing Strips are made of (silver-nylon), how they function (intimate wound contact, fluid passage, antimicrobial protection), and their physical properties.
• Intended Use/Indications for Use: Control of local wound bleeding/nasal hemorrhage, encouraging fluid drainage, and helping remove necrotic tissue, especially in "wet-to-dry" packing.
• Predicate Devices: Argentum Research's Silverlon™ Contact Wound Dressing (K981299) and Johnson and Johnson's Nu Gauze Packing Strips.
• Substantial Equivalence Claim: The technological characteristics are substantially equivalent to predicate devices.
• Performance Data Assessment (Biocompatibility): The fabric was subjected to standard in vitro and in vivo biocompatibility tests (cytotoxicity, sensitization, acute intracutaneous reactivity, acute systemic toxicity, and tissue compatibility via muscle implantation study) according to ISO 10993. These studies, performed by North American Science Associates, Inc. (NAMSA), indicated safety for intended use.

Therefore, I cannot populate the requested table or answer most of the questions because the document does not provide acceptance criteria, performance metrics (like sensitivity, specificity), ground truth establishment, sample sizes for test/training sets, or details of efficacy studies in the context of clinical performance or AI/software.

The provided text describes a submission for a wound dressing, and the "performance data" mentioned refers to biocompatibility testing, not clinical efficacy metrics or performance criteria as might be expected for a diagnostic or AI-driven device.

Based on the provided text, the requested information cannot be fully extracted as it is not present. The document focuses on regulatory approval (510(k)) via substantial equivalence and biocompatibility, not a clinical trial proving a specific performance metric against acceptance criteria.

Summary of what can be inferred from the text:

• Acceptance Criteria & Reported Device Performance: Not explicitly stated in terms of quantitative clinical performance metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy). The implicit "acceptance criterion" for the 510(k) process is "substantial equivalence" to predicate devices and acceptable biocompatibility.
• Biocompatibility Study: The study mentioned is a series of in vitro and in vivo biocompatibility tests (cytotoxicity, sensitization, acute intracutaneous reactivity, acute systemic toxicity, tissue compatibility via muscle implantation).
  • Sample Size for Test Set: Not specified for biocompatibility studies beyond mentioning "tests."
  • Data Provenance: Studies performed by North American Science Associates, Inc. (NAmSA), Northwood, Ohio. These are laboratory/animal studies, not human clinical trials.
  • Number of Experts/Qualifications: Not specified; typically, such tests are conducted by trained laboratory personnel following standard protocols.
  • Adjudication Method: Not applicable for standard biocompatibility testing.
  • MRMC Comparative Effectiveness Study: Not applicable; this is for assessing human reader performance.
  • Standalone Performance: The biocompatibility tests are for the material itself.
  • Type of Ground Truth: For biocompatibility, the ground truth is established by the standard protocols of ISO 10993 (e.g., absence of cytotoxicity, sensitization, etc.).
  • Sample Size for Training Set & Ground Truth for Training Set: Not applicable for this type of submission. The device is a physical dressing, not an AI/software.

Ask a specific question about this device

Silverlon™ Island Wound Dressings are multi-layer, sterile, non-adherent, absorbent, composite, antimicrobial barrier wound dressings indicated for local management of superficial wounds, minor burns, and abrasions and lacerations. A health care professional may be consulted prior to the first use of this product to determine whether these conditions exist. Silverlon™ Island Wound Dressings may also be used under the care of a health care professional for wounds such as vascular access or peripheral IV sites, orthopaedic external pin sites, wound drain sites, surgical wounds (donor and graft sites, incisions), and partial to full thickness dermal ulcers (pressure sores, venous stasis ulcers, arterial ulcers, diabetic ulcers). Topical application of Silverlon™ Island Wound Dressings protects the wound area and the open weave of the silver-nylon fabric wound contact layer permits passage of wound fluid through the product to be absorbed by an overlying absorbent material. The silver provides effective protection of the dressing against microbial contamination.

The Over-The-Counter indications:
Local management of superficial wounds, minor burns, abrasions and lacerations.

The Prescription Professional indications:
Wounds such as vascular access or peripheral IV sites, orthopaedic external pin sites, wound drain sites, surgical wounds (donor and graft sites, incisions), and partial to full thickness dermal ulcers (Stage I-IV pressure sores, venous stasis ulcers, arterial ulcers, diabetic ulcers).

Silverlon™ Island Wound Dressings are multi-layer, sterile, non-adherent, absorbent composite dressings with an attached adhesive tape or pad. The dressings are composed of five distinct lavers:

• Layer 1 is a non-adherent wound contact layer that consists of 1 or 4 layers of knitted continuous nylon fiber substrate with a metallic silver surface (Silverlon™). The layers of Silverlon™ are sewn together with silver nylon thread that is plated in an identical fashion to the silver nylon utilized to make the Silverlon™ knitted fabric. The silver coating is a uniform 1-micron thick layer that completely covers the nylon.
• Layer 2 is Delnet P530N
• Layer 3 is a needle punched non-woven 8-ounce rayon web that absorbs drainage from the wound site.
• Layer 4 is polyurethane film that keeps external contaminants out and maintains a moist wound healing environment. (Note: Layers 2, 3, and 4 are manufactured as a laminate by AET).
• Layer 5 is a non-woven polvester fabric coated with a skin contact pressure sensitive acrylic adhesive backed with a one sided poly coated lay flat release liner. The pressure sensitive acrylic adhesive is H-566 a hypoallergenic adhesive that meets USP Class 6 standard and satisfies tripartite guidelines for skin contact devices. The Silverlon Island Pad does not have the tape layer.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and study for the Silverlon™ Island Wound Dressing:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Note: The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices and inherent material properties rather than defining explicit numerical performance acceptance criteria. The "reported device performance" is inferred from statements confirming the device meets certain qualities or passes specific tests.

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not explicitly stated. The document refers to "standard in vitro and in vivo biocompatibility tests" but does not provide details on the number of samples or subjects used in these tests.
• Data Provenance: The biocompatibility tests were conducted by North American Science Associates, Inc. (NAmSA), Northwood, Ohio. It is not explicitly stated whether the tests were retrospective or prospective, but "standard" tests are generally prospective. The country of origin for the data is the USA.

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

• This information is not provided. The document describes standard biocompatibility and material performance tests, which typically rely on established protocols and measurement techniques rather than expert consensus on a "ground truth" in the way a clinical study would for diagnostic accuracy.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not applicable as the tests described are laboratory-based performance and biocompatibility assessments, not clinical evaluations requiring adjudication of expert opinions.

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. This is a medical device (wound dressing), not an AI-powered diagnostic or assistive technology for human readers. Therefore, the concept of "human readers improve with AI" is not relevant to this submission.

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

• Yes, in essence, standalone performance was assessed. The "device performance" described (biocompatibility, protection against microbial contamination, absorbency, etc.) are inherent properties of the product itself, evaluated independently of human-in-the-loop interaction in a clinical setting. The tests evaluate the material's characteristics and its ability to function as intended.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used for the performance assessment described primarily involved:

• Established Test Standards: For biocompatibility, the ground truth was meeting the requirements of Part-10993 of the International Standard Organization (ISO) Standard (Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices).
• Physical and Chemical Properties Validation: For aspects like absorbency, non-adherence, and the presence of antimicrobial silver, the ground truth would be direct measurements and material analysis confirming these properties.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not applicable. This device is a wound dressing, not a machine learning or AI algorithm that requires a "training set" in the computational sense. The product's design and materials are based on scientific principles and manufacturing processes, not a data-driven training approach.

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

• Not applicable. As stated above, there is no "training set" in the context of this device. The "ground truth" for the device's design and expected performance comes from established scientific understanding of material properties, wound healing, and antimicrobial action, as well as the performance of predicate devices.

Ask a specific question about this device

Silverlon™ Contact Wound Dressings are sterile, non-adherent dressings intended for local management of partial thickness burns, incisions, skin grafts, donor sites, lacerations, abrasions, and Stage I-IV dermal ulcers (vascular, venous, pressure, and diabetic).

Silverlon™ Contact Wound Dressings are designed to intimately contact the wound as a primary dressing and permit the passage of fluids. The silver provides effective protection of the dressing against microbial contamination. The nylon fabric permits the passage of oxygen and fluids to and from the wound. The surface of the nylon fibers in Silverlon™ Contact Wound Dressings consists of a thin layer of metallic silver containing approximately 1% silver oxide that provides effective protection of the dressing against microbial contamination. Silverlon™ Contact Wound Dressings are made of flexible, sterile, non-adherent fabric consisting of 1 or 4 layers of a knitted continuous nylon fiber substrate with a metallic silver surface containing approximately 1% silver oxide.

The provided text describes the 510(k) Premarket Notification for the Silverlon™ Contact Wound Dressing. However, it does not contain specific acceptance criteria, a detailed study report comparing device performance against those criteria, or the methodology typically associated with AI/ML device evaluations.

The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on technological characteristics and biocompatibility.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill all parts of your request as the information is not present in the provided text. I will answer what can be extracted and clearly state what information is missing.

Request Analysis and Information Extraction

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

• Acceptance Criteria: Not explicitly stated in the document. The submission is focused on demonstrating "substantial equivalence" to existing predicate devices (Arglac, Acticoat, Tegapore) rather than meeting specific quantifiable performance targets. The "acceptance" by the FDA is based on this finding of substantial equivalence and adherence to general controls and specific labeling limitations.
• Reported Device Performance: Biocompatibility test results are described.

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

• Sample Size: Not specified. The document mentions "standard in vitro and in vivo biocompatibility tests" but does not detail the number of samples or subjects used in these tests.
• Data Provenance: Not specified, although the testing was conducted by North American Science Associates, Inc. (NAMSA), Northwood, Ohio, USA. The study type (retrospective/prospective) is not indicated, but given it's biocompatibility testing for a medical device, it would typically be prospective pre-clinical testing.

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)

• Not Applicable: This type of information is typically relevant for studies involving subjective human assessment or diagnostic accuracy, often with AI. The provided document details biocompatibility testing, which relies on standardized lab methods rather than expert consensus on ground truth in the way a diagnostic AI would.

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

• Not Applicable: Similar to point 3, adjudication methods are used to establish ground truth in subjective assessments. Biocompatibility testing results are typically objective measurements.

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: The device described (Silverlon™ Contact Wound Dressing) is a physical wound dressing, not an AI/ML diagnostic or assistive device. Therefore, an MRMC study comparing human readers with and without AI assistance is not relevant or applicable to this product.

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

• No: As stated above, this is a physical medical device, not an algorithm.

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

• Ground Truth for Biocompatibility: The "ground truth" for the performance claims (safety and substantial equivalence) relies on the results of the "standard in vitro and in vivo biocompatibility tests including cytotoxicity, sensitization, acute intracutaneous reactivity, acute systemic toxicity, and tissue compatibility (muscle implantation study)." These tests follow ISO 10993 standards and represent scientifically established methods to determine biological responses to medical devices. The "ground truth" is therefore derived from standardized biological and chemical assays.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not Applicable: This concept applies to AI/ML models, not physical medical devices.

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

• Not Applicable: This concept applies to AI/ML models, not physical medical devices.

Summary Table: Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

Since explicit acceptance criteria are not provided, I will interpret "acceptance criteria" here as the general requirements for substantial equivalence and safety for a wound dressing, and "reported device performance" as the outcomes of the tests conducted.

Missing Information (as per original request and not present in document):

• Specific quantitative acceptance criteria (e.g., "cytotoxicity index must be

Ask a specific question about this device