Search Results

The Bipore Accuflex™ Percutaneous Sheath Introducer is recommended for percutaneous introduction of various devices into arteries and/or veins for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures.

The Bipore Accuflex™ Percutaneous Sheath Introducer is a flexible tube designed for the percutaneous introduction of various devices into arteries and/or veins for a variety of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. The product consists of a tube fabricated out of nylon based, flouropolymer lined material, reinforced by a flexible stainless steel wire within the tube. Proximally located on the flexible tube is an integral side port/hemostasis valve and/or female luer connection for attachment to a Touhy Borst adaptor. The side port, which provides a means of introducing contrast media or other fluids, is fabricated from non-DEHP PVC. The hemostasis valve is made from silicone rubber. The Touhy Borst adapter is a separate or connected component purchased from B.Braun. This purchased component is used in a manner consistent with B.Braun specification and premarket clearance. The proximal end contains a 24 karat gold radiopaque marker. The stainless steel coil enables the introducer to kink resistant during normal use. The proximal end may also contain a 45° to 180° radius bend. This pre-bend allows the product to be directed by transferring distal torque to steer the proximal tip. The reinforced tube, through which a vessel dilator or catheter is introduced is available in 5,6,7 and 8 French sizes and in lengths ranging from 5 cm to 110 cm.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for a medical device: "Bipore Accuflex™ Percutaneous Sheath Introducer." This document primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device and does not contain detailed information about acceptance criteria or a specific study proving the device meets them in the context of clinical performance or diagnostic accuracy.

The 510(k) summary states: "Test results indicate that the modified product is in conformance with Bipore specifications and is substantially equivalent to the predicate device." However, it does not elaborate on what specific "Bipore specifications" were used as acceptance criteria, nor does it describe the "test results" or the study methodology, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, or expert involvement usually associated with assessing the clinical performance or diagnostic accuracy of a device.

Therefore, most of the requested information cannot be extracted from this document.

Here's an attempt to answer based only on the provided text, highlighting what is missing:

1. Table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance:

The document mentions "Bipore specifications" are the acceptance criteria, and the reported performance is "conformance" with these specifications. However, the specific metrics and thresholds for these specifications are not provided.

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

• Sample size for the test set: Not specified
• Data provenance: Not specified (e.g., country of origin, retrospective or prospective). The document only states "Test results indicate..." without further detail.

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

This information is not provided. The 510(k) process for this type of device typically relies on engineering and performance testing to ensure substantial equivalence, rather than a clinical study requiring expert-established ground truth for diagnostic accuracy.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

Not applicable/Not specified. There is no mention of a human-read test set or adjudication process.

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

Not applicable/Not specified. This is a medical introducer sheath, not an AI-powered diagnostic device. An MRMC study is not relevant to its type.

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

Not applicable/Not specified. This is not an algorithm-based device.

7. The type of ground truth used:

The "ground truth" for this device's performance would primarily be defined by engineering specifications and performance standards for introducer sheaths (e.g., kink resistance, hemostasis valve integrity, material compatibility, dimensions). The document states "Test results indicate that the modified product is in conformance with Bipore specifications." However, the specific ground truth definitions (e.g., a specific tensile strength value, burst pressure, or flow rate) are not detailed.

8. The sample size for the training set:

Not applicable/Not specified. This device does not use a "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI.

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

Not applicable/Not specified. As above, this concept does not apply to this device type.

Summary of what the document does tell us about the "study":

• The modifications include changes to the exterior dimensions of the hemostasis valve body, additional size offerings (lengths up to 110cm), and an optional polyethylene dilator.
• The modifications aim to improve manufacturability, user handling, and accommodate longer length devices and patient anatomy.
• "Test results" were conducted.
• These "test results" indicate conformance with "Bipore specifications."
• The ultimate conclusion is that the modified product is "substantially equivalent" to the predicate device (Bipore Accuflex™ Percutaneous Sheath Introducer K051513).
• The FDA reviewed these "test results" and agreed with the substantial equivalence determination.

Without access to the actual test reports cited in the original 510(k) submission, the detailed information on acceptance criteria and study methodology requested cannot be provided from this summary document alone.

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

The Bipore AccuFlex ™ Percutaneous Sheath Introducer is recommended for The Dipore Acour Ion and therapeutic procedures.
The Bipore AccuFlex ™ Percutaneous Sheath Introducer is indications for 500: The Diperty of various devices into arteries and/or veins for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures.

Bipore Accuflex™ Percutaneous Sheath Introducer

The provided text is related to a 510(k) submission for a medical device modification, specifically the "Bipore Accuflex™ Percutaneous Sheath Introducer." This type of submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, rather than proving efficacy or performance against extensive clinical criteria. As such, the document does not contain the information requested in your prompt regarding acceptance criteria, study details, human reader performance, or ground truth establishment.

Here's why the requested information is absent and what can be inferred from the document:

• Type of Device and Submission: The device is a "Percutaneous Sheath Introducer," which is a relatively standard medical tool. The submission is an "Abbreviated 510(k) Device modification," indicating that it's for changes to an already cleared device (K964814, the predicate). This regulatory pathway is less stringent than a PMA (Premarket Approval) and typically doesn't require new, comprehensive clinical studies to establish acceptance criteria or performance metrics in the way a novel AI diagnostic or therapeutic device would.

• Focus on Substantial Equivalence: The core of a 510(k) is to demonstrate that the new device is "substantially equivalent" to a legally marketed predicate device. This usually involves comparing design, materials, intended use, and performance characteristics to show they are similar enough that the new device raises no new questions of safety or effectiveness.

• Lack of Performance Study Details: The document mentions "Indications for Use" but does not define specific performance metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, precision) or provide details of studies designed to measure these metrics against a predetermined acceptance criterion. There's no mention of a test set, ground truth, expert opinions, or human reader studies.

Therefore, I cannot populate the table or answer the specific questions based on the provided text. The document is a regulatory communication for a device modification, not a performance study report.

In summary, the provided document does not contain the information required to answer your prompt.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Bipore Balloon Dilation Catheter is intended to be used for multations for out. The Bipos Daily of the iliac, femoral and renal arteries, and for perculariedus thanslaminar angloplace, or the autologous or synthetic arteriovenous dialysis fistulae.

The Bipore Inc. Balloon Dilation Catheter is an over-the-wire double lumen balloon catheter designed for percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) in peripheral arteries, including iliac, femoral, and renal arteries. The catheter consists of a 5 French nylon-based shaft with two lumens. One lumen is for inflation and deflation of the balloon. The other lumen accepts a guidewire for manipulation of the catheter to the site stenosis. Guidewires up to 0.035" diameter may be used. There is a bifurcated proximal juncture that provides access to each lumen. A non-compliant dilation balloon of nylon (11) is at the distal end of the catheter. When inflated, the balloon exerts a controlled radial pressure. Located under the proximal and distal ends of the balloon are radiopaque markers, which provide a reference point for locating the balloon within the vessel. A Teflon™ sleeve is placed over the deflated balloon prior to shipping. This sleeve is designed to protect the balloon in storage and is removed prior to use.

The acceptance criteria and the methods used to demonstrate that the Bipore Balloon Dilation Catheter (with nylon balloon) meets these criteria are described below.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided document outlines several acceptance criteria and implies the device met these criteria for 510(k) clearance, as denoted by the statement: "The proposed device modification meets Bipore, Inc. original device specification." and the fact that the 510(k) was cleared. However, specific numerical performance results for EACH criterion are not explicitly detailed in the provided text. The document primarily focuses on the acceptance criteria thresholds that the new nylon balloon must meet. Based on the clearance, we can infer that the device did meet these criteria.

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

The document states: "The sample size must be sufficiently large enough to yield data that is 95% confident that 99.9% of the balloons will not fail at or below specification." This is a statistical requirement for the sample size, typically indicating a substantial number of units were tested to achieve this confidence level (e.g., for a 95% confidence and 99.9% reliability, a zero-failure test would require at least 299 units). However, the exact numerical sample size used for each test is not explicitly stated.

• Data Provenance: The nature of the tests (material properties, mechanical performance, accelerated aging) indicates that the data was generated through prospective bench testing and in-vitro studies conducted by the manufacturer, Bipore, Inc., in a controlled laboratory environment. The country of origin for the data is not explicitly stated, but given the company's location (Northvale, NJ, USA), it's highly likely the studies were conducted in the USA.

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

This information is not applicable to this submission. The "ground truth" for the performance characteristics of this medical device (a balloon dilation catheter) is established through objective, quantifiable engineering and materials testing (e.g., measuring burst pressure, diameter, inflation time). It does not involve subjective human interpretation of images or clinical data that would require expert consensus.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This is not applicable to this submission. Adjudication methods (like 2+1, 3+1) are used to resolve discrepancies in subjective expert assessments, typically for clinical endpoints or image interpretation. The tests described here are objective, quantitative engineering tests with clear pass/fail criteria.

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 done. This type of study is relevant for evaluating the performance of AI-powered diagnostic tools where human readers (e.g., radiologists) interpret cases with and without AI assistance. The Bipore Balloon Dilation Catheter is a physical medical device, and its performance is assessed via engineering and material tests, not through human interpretation of cases.

6. If a Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Was Done

This question is not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not a software algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" for this device modification is based on objective and quantifiable engineering specifications and material properties. This includes measurements of:

• Burst pressure (maximum pressure before rupture)
• Dimensional accuracy (balloon diameter at specific pressures)
• Time-based performance (inflation/deflation time)
• Mechanical strength (tensile strength)
• Fatigue resistance (performance after multiple cycles)
• Stability over time (shelf life after accelerated aging)

These are measured directly from the physical device under controlled conditions.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This question is not applicable. This submission details a modification to a physical medical device. There is no "training set" in the context of machine learning algorithms. The material (Nylon 11) itself is characterized, and the manufacturing process is validated, but there isn't a "training set" of data in the AI sense.

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

This question is not applicable for the reasons outlined in point 8. The "ground truth" for the design and manufacturing process of the catheter's components is established through established engineering principles, material science, and quality control procedures to ensure components meet their intended specifications.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Bipore Balloon Dilatation Catheter is recommended for percutaneous transluminal angioplasty of the iliac, femoral, and renal arteries, and for the treatment of obstructive lesions of autologous or synthetic arteriovenous dialysis fistulae.

The Bipore PTA Balloon Dilatation Catheter is also indicated for post deployed stent expansion. Use of the Bipore Balloon Dilatation Catheter for post-deployed stent expansion was demonstrated on the bench with the Cordis Palmaz™ stent*.

The Bipore Balloon Dilatation catheter is a double lumen balloon catheter for percutaneous transluminal angioplasty in peripheral vessel. One lumen is for inflation and deflation of the balloon; the other lumen is used to pass the catheter over a guide wire to locate the balloon at the site of stenosis. This submission adds two balloon sizes to the existing product line, as follows, and does not affect the safety or effectiveness of the device.

The document provided is a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device, the Bipore Balloon Dilatation Catheter. It outlines the device's description, indications for use, and confirms substantial equivalence to a predicate device. However, it does not contain the detailed acceptance criteria and study results typically found in reports specifically designed to prove a device meets acceptance criteria for efficacy or performance in a clinical setting.

The "Testing included" section only mentions "Rated Burst pressure within the stent" and "Balloon Fatigue within the stent." These are likely engineering or bench tests for device integrity and durability, not clinical performance metrics.

Therefore, many of the requested details cannot be extracted from this document.

Here's a breakdown of what can and cannot be answered based on the input:

1. Table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

Explanation: The document only lists "Rated Burst pressure within the stent" and "Balloon Fatigue within the stent" under "Testing included." It does not provide the specific acceptance criteria (e.g., minimum burst pressure, number of cycles for fatigue) nor the actual performance results (e.g., "device achieved X burst pressure," "device endured Y fatigue cycles"). These details would typically be found in an engineering report or a full test report, which is not part of this 510(k) summary.

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

Cannot be determined from the provided document.

Explanation: The document refers to "bench" testing, implying laboratory-based engineering tests rather than clinical trials with patient data. As such, concepts like "test set," "data provenance," "country of origin," "retrospective," or "prospective" do not apply in the usual clinical sense. The sample size for the devices tested on the bench (e.g., number of catheters subjected to burst pressure or fatigue tests) is not mentioned.

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 / Cannot be determined from the provided document.

Explanation: This question pertains to studies involving human interpretation or assessment, often in diagnostic imaging or clinical outcomes. The mentioned "bench" testing does not involve human experts establishing ground truth in this manner.

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

Not applicable / Cannot be determined from the provided document.

Explanation: Adjudication methods are used in studies where multiple human readers or evaluators independently assess data, and a process is needed to resolve discrepancies. This is not relevant to the "bench" testing described.

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 MRMC comparative effectiveness study was mentioned or performed.

Explanation: The device is a physical medical device (balloon dilatation catheter), not an AI-powered diagnostic or assistive technology. Therefore, an MRMC study comparing human reader performance with and without AI assistance is not relevant.

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

Not applicable.

Explanation: The device is a physical medical instrument, not an algorithm. Standalone algorithm performance is not relevant.

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

Not applicable in the clinical sense for the described tests.

Explanation: For the "Rated Burst pressure" and "Balloon Fatigue" tests, the "ground truth" would be engineering specifications and physical properties measured against those specifications (e.g., a pressure gauge reading, a cycle counter). This isn't "expert consensus," "pathology," or "outcomes data" as typically used in medical device performance evaluation for clinical effectiveness.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable (no training set mentioned).

Explanation: This question relates to machine learning models, which are not involved in the description of this physical medical device's testing.

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

Not applicable (no training set mentioned).

Explanation: This question also relates to machine learning models, which are not involved.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Bipore PTA catheters are indicated for percutaneous transluminal angioplasty of the illac, femoral, and renal arteries, and for the treatment of obstructive lesions of autologous or synthetic arteriovenous dialysis fistulae.

The Birgore, Inc. PTA Balloon Dilatation Catheter is also indicated for post-deployed stent expansion. Use of the Signe Dilatation Catheter for post-deployment sten expansion was demonstrated on the bench with the Cordi's Palmaz™ stent *.

All sterts must be implanted and deployed according to the stent manufacturer's indications, contraindications, and instructions for use.

The Bipore Balloon Dilatation Catheter is a double lumen balloon catheter for percutaneous transluminal angioplasty in peripheral vessel. One lumen is for inflation and deflation of the balloon; the other lumen is used to pass the catheter over a guide wire to locate the balloon at the sire of stenosis. This submission adds two balloon sizes to the existing product line, as follows, and does not affect the safety or effectiveness of the device.

This is a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device (Bipore Balloon Dilatation Catheter), not an AI/ML device. Therefore, many of the requested categories regarding AI/ML performance, such as sample size for training data, ground truth establishment for training data, number of experts for ground truth, and MRMC studies, are not applicable.

However, I can extract information related to the device's acceptance criteria and the studies performed to demonstrate its safety and effectiveness based on the provided text.

Here's the breakdown:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance for Bipore Balloon Dilatation Catheter

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document describes in vitro functional tests and biocompatibility tests performed on the device. While specific quantitative acceptance criteria (e.g., "burst pressure must exceed X psi") are not explicitly listed in numerical form, the completion of these tests with acceptable results implies that the device met pre-defined performance standards for each. The document states that "it has been demonstrated that the Bipore Balloon Dilatation Catheter product line extensions are safe and effective for their intended use," which serves as the overall reported performance.

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

The document does not explicitly state the sample sizes for the functional and biocompatibility tests.
The provenance of the data is bench testing (in vitro) for functional tests and laboratory testing for biocompatibility, carried out by the manufacturer, Bipore, Inc. There is no indication of human subject data, retrospective or prospective studies.

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

Not applicable. This device is not an AI/ML device, and the "ground truth" for its performance is established through standard engineering and laboratory testing protocols rather than expert consensus on images or clinical data.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. This device is not an AI/ML device relying on human interpretation or adjudication for its performance evaluation. Performance is determined by objective physical and chemical tests.

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

No. This is not an AI/ML device, and MRMC studies are not relevant to its evaluation.

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

Not applicable. This is a physical medical device (balloon catheter), not an algorithm or software.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" for this device's performance is established by objective measurements and observations from validated in vitro functional tests and standard biocompatibility assessments. For instance, a balloon burst test has a physical burst pressure as its ground truth, not an expert's opinion. Similarly, biocompatibility is assessed against established biological response criteria.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an AI/ML model that requires a training set.

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

Not applicable. No training set is used for this physical device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Bipore AccuFlex™ Percutanous Sheath Introducer is designed to be used for the percutaneous introductionn of various devices into arteries and/or veins for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures.

The Bipore AccuFlex™ Percutaneous Sheath Introducer is a wire-reinforced flexible tube with an integral side port/hemostasis valve at the proximal end.

The provided text describes a medical device, the Bipore AccuFlex™ Percutaneous Sheath Introducer, and summarizes its safety and effectiveness for a 510(k) submission. However, the document does not contain the specific information required to complete your request regarding acceptance criteria and performance studies for an AI/ML powered device.

The Bipore AccuFlex™ is a physical medical device (a sheath introducer), not an AI/ML powered device. The "Safety and Performance" section lists general potential complications for this type of product, and the "Conclusion" states that safety and effectiveness are based on "technological characteristics, and mechanical tests." This indicates a traditional medical device approval process, likely involving engineering bench tests and possibly animal or human clinical studies to assess its physical properties and safety during use, rather than a performance study comparing an algorithm's output to ground truth.

Therefore, I cannot extract the following information because it is not present in the provided text:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: The document mentions "mechanical tests" but does not detail their specific acceptance criteria or the quantitative results.
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable as it's not a data-driven device.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable.
4. Adjudication method for the test set: Not applicable.
5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done: Not applicable.
6. If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable.
7. The type of ground truth used: Not applicable.
8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

To answer your prompt, you would need a document describing the validation of an AI/ML model, not a traditional medical device like the Bipore AccuFlex™ Percutaneous Sheath Introducer.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Bipore Balloon Dilatation Catheter is indicated for Transluminal Percutaneous Angioplasty (PTA) of the iliac, femoral, and renal arteries, and for the treatment of obstructive lesions of autologous or synthetic arteriovenous dialysis fistulae.

The Bipore Balloon Dilatation Catheter is a double lumen balloon catheter for percutaneous transluminal angioplasty in peripheral vessels. One lumen is for inflation and deflation of the balloon; the other lumen is used to pass the catheter over a guidewire to locate the balloon at the site of stenosis.

The Bipore Balloon Dilatation Catheter will be offered in three balloon sizes and one shaft length, as follows:
Inflated Balloon Diameter (mm): 6, 8, 10
Balloon Length (cm): 4, 4, 4
Catheter Size (Fr): 5, 5, 5
Usable Length (cm): 100, 100, 100

The provided text is a summary of a 510(k) premarket notification for the "Bipore Balloon Dilatation Catheter" from 1996. It describes the device, its intended use, and lists some in vitro functional tests and biocompatibility tests performed.

However, the document does not contain the detailed information necessary to answer all the questions regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving those criteria. Specifically, it lacks:

• Quantitative acceptance criteria values. It lists the types of tests performed (e.g., "Balloon Burst"), but not the specific thresholds for passing those tests (e.g., "Balloon Burst pressure > X atm").
• Reported device performance values. While it mentions tests were performed, it doesn't provide the results of these tests (e.g., "Balloon Burst pressure was Y atm").
• Information about a specific study to prove device performance against acceptance criteria. The document states "The following in vitro functional tests were performed..." and "The following biocompatibility tests were performed...", implying tests happened, but it doesn't describe these as a formal "study" with the characteristics you've requested (e.g., sample size, ground truth establishment, expert involvement, MRMC study, etc.). This is a medical device, not an AI/ML-driven diagnostic, so many of your questions, particularly those about experts, ground truth, and AI-assistance, are not applicable in this context.

Below is an attempt to answer the questions based on the limited information provided, acknowledging the significant gaps.

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

Note: The document concludes the device is "safe and effective for its intended use" based on these tests, implying all criteria were met, but specific numerical values for criteria and performance are not given.

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

The document does not specify the sample size for the in vitro or biocompatibility tests. It also does not discuss "data provenance" in the context of geographical origin or retrospective/prospective nature, as these tests are laboratory-based device characterization.

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

This question is not applicable to the type of device and testing described. The tests are in vitro functional and biocompatibility tests, which rely on established laboratory protocols and measurements, not human expert interpretation of data points to establish a "ground truth."

4. Adjudication method for the test set

This question is not applicable. Adjudication methods like "2+1" or "3+1" are used in studies involving human interpretation or subjective assessment where consensus is needed. For in vitro and biocompatibility testing, results are typically objective measurements or observations against predetermined criteria.

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 question is not applicable. The device is a physical medical device (balloon catheter) and does not involve AI or human readers for its operation or performance evaluation as described.

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

This question is not applicable. The device is a physical medical device (balloon catheter) and does not involve an algorithm.

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

For the in vitro functional tests, the "ground truth" would be established physical measurements and engineering specifications. For biocompatibility tests, the "ground truth" would be established biological and toxicological standards and observations. These are objective measures, not expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data in the way these terms are typically used for diagnostic or predictive devices.

8. The sample size for the training set

This question is not applicable. There is no "training set" for physical device testing in the context of machine learning or AI.

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

This question is not applicable for the reasons stated above.

Ask a specific question about this device