Search Results

The EXHALOMETER™ EX100 is intended to measure the tidal volume, minute volume and respiration rate being delivered to the patient via expiratory ports of resuscitation devices such as transport ventilators and resuscitators. The device is primarily used by Emergency Medical Technicians during emergency transport operations and can also be used for intra-hospital transport. The device is used for indicating how well the resuscitator is functioning. In addition, the device is used for periodically checking the adequacy of the ventilation effort of patients who have initiated spontaneous respiration. The EXHALOMETER can also be used for training and developing resuscitation techniques.

The EXHALOMETER™ EX100 is a device that is a self contained and internally powered analyzer designed to connect to a specially designed filter assembly, which in turn, connects to the expiratory port of resuscitation devices such as transport ventilators and resuscitators. The device measures exhaled air from the patient and provides data that indicates the tidal volume, minute volume, and respiration rate being delivered to the patient. The patient does not inhale through the device.

This device is primarily used by Emergency Medical Technicians and has been designed to be rugged enough to reliably operate in environments encountered in emergency transport operation, including a wide range of temperatures, shock and vibration and electro-magnetic fields. The device and its parts have been designed with adequate mechanical strength so that when subjected to mechanical stress caused by normal use such as pushing, impact, dropping, and rough handling, the will device function normally and will present no potential safety hazard to the patient.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the CALDYNE, Inc. EXHALOMETER™ EX100. This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than providing a detailed study report with all the requested information for a comprehensive acceptance criteria and study description. However, I can extract the available information to address your points.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and available study information based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Note: The document states that "Test data also demonstrates that the device is safe and effective and functions according to its indications for use as well as meeting the requirements of the device's design specifications." The table above reflects the specific quantitative performance metrics mentioned within the "Conclusions drawn from the Non-Clinical Tests" section.

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

The document does not specify the sample size used for the test set or the data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective or prospective). It broadly mentions "Test data" but provides no details on the experimental setup or participants.

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

The document does not provide any information about experts used to establish ground truth or their qualifications. The testing appears to be primarily engineering or laboratory-based, focused on comparing device readings against a known standard or "actual value" (which would be considered the ground truth in this context).

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not describe any adjudication method. Given the nature of the measurements (e.g., accuracy of flow, volume), the "ground truth" would likely be established through calibrated reference instruments rather than expert consensus requiring adjudication.

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

A Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is typically performed for diagnostic imaging or interpretation tasks where human readers' performance is being evaluated with and without AI assistance. The EXHALOMETER™ EX100 is a measurement device, not an interpretive AI, so an MRMC study is not relevant here.

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

The testing described appears to be a standalone performance evaluation of the device's measurement capabilities. The "algorithm" here refers to the embedded software that calculates air flow values and rates. The "Conclusions drawn from the Non-Clinical Tests" section directly addresses the device's accuracy in providing these measurements.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The type of ground truth used for the quantitative performance metrics (e.g., expiratory flow, tidal volume, minute volume) would almost certainly be measurements from calibrated reference instruments or standards. For the Viral Filtration Efficiency (VFE) testing, the ground truth would be established through a controlled laboratory experiment with a known challenge concentration of viruses/bacteria.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not mention a training set sample size. This is because the EXHALOMETER™ EX100 is described as a device with embedded software containing algorithms for calculating air flow values, not a machine learning or AI algorithm that requires a "training set" in the conventional sense. The algorithms are likely based on physical principles and engineering formulas, not statistical learning from data.

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

As noted in point 8, there is no mention of a training set in the context of machine learning. The algorithms embedded in the device are presumed to be deterministic and derived from engineering principles. Therefore, the concept of establishing ground truth for a training set does not apply here.

Ask a specific question about this device