Search Results

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

The Red Light is intended to treat full face wrinkles.
The Blue Light is intended to treat mild to moderate inflammatory acne.
The Yellow Light is intended to treat wrinkles.

The GLAM LED light therapy mask is a home use wearable light emitting diode phototherapy device whose purpose is to produce an even, cool, narrow band of light for the treatment of full face wrinkles and mild to moderate acne of the face. The outer shell of the mask is manufactured from Polyethylene terephthalate (PET). The inner shell is a clear Polycarbonate (PC). The Light emitting diodes are mounted behind the clear Polycarbonate. The LEDs generate the light. The ear hooks are made of Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) and the silicone goggle protect the eyes from LED lights. Unfold the ear hooks and place the mask on your face, the mask will automatically activate the light therapy mode. The LEDs produce blue, red and yellow light in the visible spectrum (Blue:415nm +/- 10nm, Yellow: 590nm +/-10nm, Red: 625nm +/-10nm.). The device works by emitting the specified wavelengths to treat full face of wrinkles or to treat mild to moderate inflammatory acne. Press the touch switch on the right ear hook twice to select the light therapy mode you want to use. Each mode operates in a 15-minute cycle. After 15 minutes, the device automatically deactivates the light mode and enters the standby mode.

This FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the GLAM LED Facial Mask (TB-2386F) does not include any information regarding clinical testing, acceptance criteria for device performance related to efficacy (e.g., wrinkle reduction or acne treatment), or studies comparing the device's performance against such criteria.

The letter focuses on the substantial equivalence based on:

• Technological Comparison: Comparing light wavelengths, power density, and treatment time to predicates.
• Safety Standards Compliance: Verification through non-clinical tests (electrical safety, EMC, biocompatibility, photobiological safety, software verification).

Therefore, I cannot provide details on the specific acceptance criteria for efficacy or a study proving the device meets those criteria from the provided document. The 510(k) summary explicitly states: "No animal or clinical study is included in this submission."

However, if we were to hypothesize what acceptance criteria and a study might look like for a device with these indications, and then illustrate what would be missing from this document:

Hypothetical Acceptance Criteria and Performance Study (Not Found in Provided Document):

Since the provided document explicitly states no clinical study was included, the following tables and sections represent what would typically be expected for a device claiming therapeutic efficacy, but none of this information is present in the provided 510(k) clearance letter.

Hypothetical Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (If Clinical Data Existed)

Ask a specific question about this device

Powder-Free Vinyl Exam Gloves, clear is a disposable device intended for medical purposes that is worn on the examiner's hand to prevent contamination between patient and examiner.

The subject device is a powder free vinyl patient examination glove, provided as non-sterile and disposable device. It is provided with clear color. Available in four sizes small, medium, large, and extra - large users can choose the most suitable option.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter and summary describe the regulatory approval process for "Powder-Free Vinyl Exam Gloves, clear." This is a Class I medical device, and the clearance is based on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, K220469, "Disposable Vinyl Examination Glove."

The study described is not a clinical study involving human patients or complex AI algorithms necessitating multi-reader, multi-case (MRMC) studies or expert adjudication of medical images. Instead, it's a non-clinical performance study focused on the physical, chemical, and biological properties of the gloves.

Therefore, many of the requested points related to AI performance, human reader improvement, and complex ground truth establishment for medical diagnosis are not applicable to this type of device and study.

Here's the breakdown of the information that is applicable:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance for Powder-Free Vinyl Exam Gloves, Clear

The acceptance criteria and device performance are primarily based on non-clinical testing according to recognized industry standards (ASTM and ISO). The goal is to demonstrate that the subject device meets the same performance specifications as the predicate device.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• Sample Size: The document does not specify a precise numerical sample size (e.g., number of gloves) for each non-clinical test. However, it indicates that testing was performed according to the specified ASTM and ISO standards, which inherently define the necessary sample sizes and methodologies for ensuring statistical validity within their respective contexts (e.g., AQL for the water leak test).
• Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin for the data. Given the "Basic Medical Technology Inc." is located in Ontario, CA (presumably California, USA) and the predicate device manufacturer is a Chinese company (CHIFENG HUAWEI MEDICAL SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.), the testing could have been performed either in the US, China, or accredited labs elsewhere.
• Retrospective or Prospective: This testing is inherently prospective as it involves the manufacturing and testing of new device samples to demonstrate compliance with standards.

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

• Not Applicable: For this type of non-clinical device (medical gloves), "ground truth" is not established by medical experts interpreting images or clinical data. Instead, it's established by the physical and chemical properties of the material as measured by standardized laboratory methods. The "experts" would be the accredited laboratory personnel performing the tests according to the ASTM and ISO standards, not medical professionals like radiologists.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not Applicable: Adjudication methods (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) are used for resolving discrepancies in expert interpretations of complex data (like medical images). This is a physical product testing scenario where results are quantitative measurements against objective criteria, so no adjudication by multiple human observers is required.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

• Not Applicable: An MRMC study is relevant for evaluating the impact of AI algorithms on human reader performance in tasks like diagnostic imaging. This device is a pair of medical gloves; there is no AI component or human reader interpretation task involved.

6. Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Study

• Not Applicable: This pertains to AI algorithm performance evaluation. There is no AI algorithm in "Powder-Free Vinyl Exam Gloves, clear." The "standalone" performance here refers to the device's physical and biological properties.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• The "ground truth" for this device is based on objective, standardized measurements of its physical properties (e.g., dimensions, tensile strength, elongation, hole detection) and biological compatibility (e.g., cytotoxicity, irritation, sensitization), as defined by internationally recognized ASTM and ISO standards. It is not based on expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data in the clinical sense.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not Applicable: This is not an AI/machine learning device. Therefore, there is no "training set" in the context of an algorithm. The manufacturing process of the gloves would have its own quality control and process validation, which might involve data collection analogous to a training set for process refinement, but this is distinct from AI model training.

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

• Not Applicable: As there is no AI training set, this question is irrelevant.

Ask a specific question about this device

The glove is a disposable device intended for medical purposes that is worn on the examiner's hand to prevent contamination between patient and examiner.

Gloves were tested for use with Chemotherapy drugs, Fentanyl Citrate, Simulated Gastric acid and Xylazine in Fentanyl Citrate in accordance with ASTM D6978-05 Standards Practice for assessment of Medical Glove to Permeation by chemotherapy drugs.

Nitrile Powder-Free Exam Gloves Tested for Use with Chemotherapy Drugs, Opioid Fentanyl Citrate, Simulated Gastric Acid and Xylazine in Fentanyl Citrate is a Class I patient examination glove and specialty chemotherapy gloves, that made from synthetic nitrile latex. They are pink color, non-sterile, powder-free, fingertip textured, ambidextrous with beaded cuff, and single use only, and come in different sizes- XS, S, M, L, XL and XXL.

The device meets all the specifications in ASTM D6319-19, Standard specification for Nitrile Examination Gloves. Additionally, the gloves have been been tested for biocompatibility and permeability to chemotherapy drugs, Fentanyl Citrate, Gastric Acid and Xylazine in Fentanyl Citrate.

This document describes the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria for a medical device submitted for FDA 510(k) clearance.

The device in question is Nitrile Powder-Free Exam Gloves Tested for Use with Chemotherapy Drugs, Opioid Fentanyl Citrate, Simulated Gastric Acid and Xylazine in Fentanyl Citrate.

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance Study

The acceptance criteria for this device are primarily based on established industry standards for medical examination gloves and specific permeation resistance tests for various chemical substances. The study conducted to prove the device meets these criteria is a series of non-clinical performance tests.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

The document does not explicitly state the specific sample sizes (number of gloves) used for each individual test. However, it indicates that the tests were conducted according to established ASTM and ISO standards, which typically specify appropriate sample sizes for such tests to ensure statistical validity.

The data provenance is through non-clinical testing performed in accordance with recognized international and national standards (ASTM, ISO). This implies the data were prospectively generated for the purpose of this submission. The country of origin of the data is not specified, but the use of international standards suggests a globally accepted testing methodology.

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

This information is not applicable (N/A) as the device is a physical product (medical glove) and the performance is evaluated through objective, standardized laboratory tests (e.g., measuring permeation time, tensile strength, dimensions) rather than expert interpretation of images or clinical data. There is no "ground truth" established by human experts in the context of diagnostic accuracy for this type of device.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not applicable (N/A) for the same reason as above. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are relevant for studies involving human interpretation (e.g., radiology reads) where discrepancies need to be resolved. The tests performed for this device are 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

This information is not applicable (N/A). This document pertains to the clearance of a physical medical device (gloves), not an AI algorithm or a diagnostic imaging device that would involve human readers.

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

This information is not applicable (N/A). As mentioned, this is a physical medical device, not a software algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" for this device's performance is established by objective, quantitative measurements obtained through standardized laboratory testing methodologies (ASTM and ISO standards). For example:

• Permeation: Measured breakthrough time of specific chemicals through the glove material.
• Physical Properties: Measured tensile strength, elongation, length, width, and thickness.
• Biocompatibility: Observed biological responses (e.g., irritation, sensitization, systemic toxicity) in controlled in-vitro or in-vivo (animal) tests as per ISO standards.
  This is not based on expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data in the clinical sense, but rather on direct physical and chemical testing.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not applicable (N/A). This device is a manufactured product that undergoes performance and biocompatibility testing. There is no "training set" in the context of machine learning. The manufacturing process is designed and validated to consistently produce gloves meeting the specified criteria.

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

This information is not applicable (N/A) as there is no training set for this device. The "ground truth" for the device's design and manufacturing is derived from the established standards (ASTM, ISO) that define the performance characteristics expected of such gloves. Quality control during manufacturing ensures conformity to these standards.

Ask a specific question about this device

The MicroScan Dried Gram-Negative MIC/Combo Panel is used to determine quantitative and qualitative antimicrobial agent susceptibility of colonies grown on solid media of rapidly growing aerobic and facultative anaerobic gram-negative bacilli. After inoculation, panels are incubated for 16-20 hours at 35°C ± 1°C in a non-CO2 incubator, and read either visually or with MicroScan instrumentation, according to the Package Insert.

This particular submission is for the addition of the antimicrobial cefepime at concentrations of 0.12-64 µg/mL to the test panel. Testing is indicated for Enterobacterales, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Aeromonas spp., as recognized by the FDA Susceptibility Test Interpretive Criteria (STIC) webpage.

The MicroScan Dried Gram-Negative MIC/Combo Panels with Cefepime (CPE) (0.12-64µg/mL) has demonstrated acceptable performance with the following organisms:

Enterobacterales (Enterobacter spp., Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Proteus mirabilis, Citrobacter koseri, (formerly Citrobacter diversus), Citrobacter freundii complex (Citrobacter freudnii, Citrobacter werkmanii and Citrobacter youngae), Klebsiella oxytoca, Morganella morganii, Proteus vulgaris, Providencia stuartii, Providencia rettgeri, Serratia marcescens)

Pseudomonas aeruginosa

Aeromonas spp.

MicroScan Dried Gram-Negative MIC/Combo Panels are designed for use in determining quantitative and qualitative antimicrobial agent susceptibility of colonies grown on solid media of rapidly growing aerobic and facultative anaerobic gram-negative bacilli.

The principle of MicroScan panels with antimicrobial susceptibility tests are miniaturizations of the broth dilution susceptibility test that have been diluted in broth and dehydrated. Various antimicrobial agents are diluted in broth to concentrations bridging the range of clinical interest. Panels are rehydrated with water after inoculation with a standardized suspension of the organism. After incubation in a non-CO2 incubator for 16-20 hours, the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) for the test organism is read by determining the lowest antimicrobial concentration showing inhibition of growth.

The product is single-use and intended for laboratory professional use.

Device Performance Acceptance Criteria and Study Details for MicroScan Dried Gram-Negative MIC/Combo Panels with Cefepime

Based on the provided FDA 510(k) Clearance Letter, the device in question is the MicroScan Dried Gram-Negative MIC/Combo Panels with Cefepime (CPE) (0.12-64 µg/mL), which is an Antimicrobial Susceptibility Test (AST) System. The study described focuses on demonstrating the substantial equivalence of this new configuration (with Cefepime) to a predicate device.

Given the nature of the device (an AST System), the "acceptance criteria" are typically related to the accuracy of determining Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) and the resulting categorical agreement (Susceptible, Intermediate, Resistant) compared to a reference method. The "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" refers to the performance evaluation conducted for the 510(k) submission.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

For AST systems, the key performance metrics are Essential Agreement (EA) and Categorical Agreement (CA) when compared to a CLSI (Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute) frozen reference panel. The FDA document "Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Antimicrobial Susceptibility Test (AST) Systems; Guidance for Industry and FDA", dated August 28, 2009, likely outlines the specific acceptance criteria thresholds for EA and CA. While the exact numerical acceptance criteria are not explicitly stated in the provided text, the performance "demonstrated acceptable performance" implies meeting these pre-defined thresholds.

Important Note: The document highlights some instances where the performance was "outside of essential agreement" for Enterobacterales with Prompt inoculation and "below 90%" for Aeromonas spp. with turbidity inoculation and WalkAway read method. These discrepancies are "mitigated with a limitation" in the product labeling, suggesting that while initial performance in those specific conditions did not meet implicit criteria, the overall robust performance with other methods/organisms, coupled with labeling limitations, made the device acceptable for clearance.

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

• Sample Size: The document does not explicitly provide a total number for the test set sample size (e.g., number of isolates tested). It refers to "contemporary and stock Efficacy isolates and stock Challenge strains" used for external evaluations.
• Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin of the data. It mentions "external evaluations," which generally implies testing conducted at clinical sites or contract research organizations. The study appears to be retrospective in the sense that it uses "stock Efficacy isolates and stock Challenge strains" which are pre-existing collections of bacterial isolates. It also mentions "contemporary" isolates, suggesting some recent collection. It implies a laboratory-based performance study rather than a clinical trial with patient outcomes.

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

This type of device (AST System) does not typically rely on human expert interpretation for establishing the "ground truth" of the test set. The ground truth for antimicrobial susceptibility testing is established by a reference method, which for this device is stated as a "CLSI frozen Reference Panel."

Therefore:

• Number of Experts: Not applicable in the context of creating the ground truth for AST.
• Qualifications of Experts: Not applicable.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

As the ground truth is established by a reference method (CLSI frozen Reference Panel), there is no human adjudication method like 2+1 or 3+1 typically used for image-based diagnostics. The device's results are directly compared to the quantitatively or qualitatively determined results from the CLSI reference method.

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

There is no indication that an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was performed. This type of study is not relevant for this device, which is an automated or manually read laboratory diagnostic for antimicrobial susceptibility, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool that aids human readers in interpretation. The device itself performs the susceptibility test.

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

Yes, the performance data presented is effectively standalone performance of the device (MicroScan Dried Gram-Negative MIC/Combo Panels with Cefepime). The device "read either visually or with MicroScan instrumentation" and its performance (Essential Agreement, Categorical Agreement) is directly compared to the reference standard. The "human-in-the-loop" would be the laboratory professional reading the results, and the study evaluates the accuracy of the device itself in producing those results. Where visual reads are mentioned, it's about the device's ability to produce clear inhibition patterns for visual interpretation, not a human independently interpreting raw data without the device.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used was established by a CLSI frozen Reference Panel. This is a recognized and standardized method for determining antimicrobial susceptibility, often involving broth microdilution or agar dilution methods where organisms are tested against known concentrations of antimicrobials. It is a highly controlled and quantitative method to determine the true MIC value against which the device's performance is compared.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not mention a training set or any details about its sample size. This is consistent with the nature of the device. AST systems are generally rule-based or empirically derived systems based on established microbiological principles, rather than machine learning models that require distinct training sets. The development of such panels involves extensive empirical testing during the R&D phase to ensure the correct concentrations and formulations, but this isn't typically referred to as a "training set" in the context of an AI/ML model.

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

As no training set (in the AI/ML sense) is indicated, this point is not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device