Search Results

The Compumedics Neuvo System is intended for measuring recording of the electrical activity of a patient's brain and/or through the attachment of multiple electrodes at various locations to aid in monitoring and diagnosis as routinely found in clinical settings for EEG. The system is intended for the EEG and long/middle/short- latency EP registration in the research environment. The system is intended to be used by qualified/trained EEG technologists and/or physicians. The data acquired must be interpreted by a qualified physician.

The Compumedics Neuvo System is intended for measuring of the electrical activity of a patient's brain and/or through the attachment of multiple electrodes at various locations to aid in monitoring and diagnosis as routinely found in clinical settings for EEG. The system is intended for the EEG and long/middle/short-latency EP registration in the research environment. The system is intended to be used by qualified/traincd EEG technologists and/or physicians. The data acquired must be interpreted by a qualified physician.

The Neuvo Amplifier System is an EEG/ERP/EP amplifier and data acquisition system. The amplifier and data acquisition clectronics are housed in a small enclosure (Headbox) placed near the patient, and into which individual clectrodes, collections of electrodes, may be connected. Additionally a high density electrode cap connector is provided on the Headbox. The Headbox also contains a connector for the interconnect cable to the System Unit.

The System Unit is slightly larger than the Headbox and serves as an interface between up to four Headboxes and the host computer.

The system operates under the software control of a host computer over an Ethernet 100BaseT interface. Data flows from the Neuvo amplifier over this interface.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the Neuvo device's acceptance criteria and study, based on the information available in the 510(k) summary:

Unfortunately, the provided 510(k) summary for the Compumedics Neuvo (K081151) does not contain information about acceptance criteria or specific study results demonstrating performance for the device.

This document primarily serves as a submission for substantial equivalence to a predicate device (SynAmps2 510(k) # K023771) and focuses on describing the device, its intended use, and its classification. Performance data with acceptance criteria is typically detailed in separate sections of a 510(k) submission, such as a "Summary of Design Control Documentation" or "Performance Data," which are not present in the given excerpt.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information. The document focuses on:

• Administrative details: Contact person, date prepared, proprietary and common names, classification, and predicate device.
• Device description: Explanation of the Neuvo system components (amplifier, headbox, system unit, software control).
• Intended Use/Indications for Use: What the device is designed to do (measure electrical activity of the brain to aid in monitoring and diagnosis for EEG, and for EP registration in research).
• FDA correspondence: The letter confirming substantial equivalence.

Without further documentation from the 510(k) submission, it's impossible to answer the specific questions about acceptance criteria, study design, sample sizes, ground truth, or expert involvement.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Summit IP is intended for use in private practices or hospital environments for the detection of human respiratory effort to assist in the diagnosis of sleep disorders or sleep related respiratory disorders. Signals from patient worn thoracic and abdominal sensors are demodulated, amplified and summed to provide electrical signals suitable for connection to the inputs of physiological recording equipment.

The Summit IP unit is only to be used under the direction and supervision of a physician.

The Summit IP unit is not intended for use as life support equipment such as vital signs monitoring in intensive care units.

The Summit IP unit is not intended for use on infant or pediatric patients.

The Compumedics Summit IP consists of a small plastic enclosure with two input sockets for connection to Compumedics respiratory effort bands (Thoracic and Abdominal), and output sockets for the Thoracic, Abdominal and Sum channels. The Sum channel is a weighted surn of the Thoracic and Abdominal signals. The output channels may be connected to the inputs of standard physiological equipment for the purpose of recording or monitoring respiratory effort.

The Summit IP is powered by a user-replaceable 1.5 volt battery and automatically switches on when any or both sensors are connected.

The provided document, a 510(k) summary for the Compumedics Summit IP, does not contain detailed information about a study proving the device meets specific acceptance criteria in the manner requested.

Instead, it focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, primarily through a comparison of technical characteristics and general safety/performance testing. There is no mention of a clinical study, specific performance metrics with acceptance criteria, or an AI component.

However, based on the information provided, here's a breakdown of what can be extracted and what is missing:

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

The document does not provide a formal table of acceptance criteria with corresponding performance results in the context of specific quantitative clinical metrics. The performance claims are primarily based on:

• Substantial Equivalence: The device is deemed substantially equivalent to the Pro-Tech Synchrony™ Summing Amplifier and the respiratory effort sensors of the Compumedics Somté System.
• Compliance with Standards: Successful completion of safety tests to IEC60601-1, electromagnetic emission tests to IEC60601-1-2, and electromagnetic immunity tests to IEC60601-1-2.
• Hardware and Firmware Testing: Compliance tested to hardware and firmware test specifications to ensure conformance to all design requirements.

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

• Not Applicable / Not Provided: The document discusses engineering and compliance testing, not a clinical test set with a sample size of patients/data. There is no mention of "test sets" in the context of patient data in this summary.

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 / Not Provided: This information is relevant to clinical studies involving expert interpretation, which is not described in this 510(k) summary. The ground truth for engineering tests would be derived from physical measurements and adherence to technical specifications.

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

• Not Applicable / Not Provided: This is not applicable to the type of testing described (safety, EMC, hardware/firmware conformance). Adjudication methods are typically used in clinical trials involving human readers.

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 / Not Provided: This document describes a medical device for measuring respiratory effort, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool. No MRMC study or AI component is mentioned.

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

• Not Applicable / Not Provided: As noted above, this device does not involve an algorithm for diagnostic interpretation. It is a signal acquisition and processing device.

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

• For the safety and EMC testing, the "ground truth" would be the objective measurements taken during testing and their comparison against the specified limits and requirements of the referenced IEC standards.
• For hardware and firmware testing, the "ground truth" would be the established design requirements and technical specifications of the device.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not Applicable / Not Provided: This device does not use machine learning or AI, and therefore does not have a "training set" in that context.

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

• Not Applicable / Not Provided: As there is no AI/ML component or training set, this information is not relevant.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Quik gel is intended to enhance electrical conductivity by facilitating transmission of the electrode-to-skin interface. It also helps the electrodes adhere to the patient.

A jellylike mass consisting of salts combined with carbohydrate thickening agent, hypo-allergenic organic emollient, anti-fungal agents all in a aqueous solvent.

This is a 510(k) premarket notification for an electroconductive gel, not an AI-powered medical device. Therefore, most of the requested information regarding acceptance criteria for device performance, ground truth, expert adjudication, multi-reader multi-case studies, and training/test sets is not applicable.

Here's an explanation of why and what information can be extracted:

• Device Type: The device, "Quik Gel, EEG Electrodeconductive Gel," is a physical substance (a gel) intended to improve electrical conductivity and electrode adherence. It's not a software algorithm or an AI-powered diagnostic tool.
• 510(k) Pathway: A 510(k) submission generally focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device. This means the new device is as safe and effective as the predicate, often through comparisons of technological characteristics, intended use, and performance where applicable. For a simple gel, this typically involves material compatibility, electrical impedance measurements, and safety (e.g., biocompatibility, non-irritancy).

Here's a breakdown of the relevant (and irrelevant) sections:

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

• Not Applicable in the provided text: The document explicitly states, "The Quik-Gel® has the same technological characteristics as the predicate device." For this type of device and 510(k), explicit performance acceptance criteria and reported numerical performance in the submission document are usually not detailed for simple physical characteristics when substantial equivalence is claimed based on identical characteristics to a predicate. The focus is on the equivalence rather than novel performance metrics.
• Likely underlying criteria (not in text): For electroconductive gels, typical performance criteria would involve:
  • Electrical Impedance/Conductivity: The gel should reduce skin impedance sufficiently for its intended use (e.g., EEG). This would be measured in ohms.
  • Adherence Properties: The gel should facilitate electrode adhesion.
  • Biocompatibility/Safety: Non-irritating, non-cytotoxic, non-sensitizing.
  • Stability: Shelf life, consistency over time.
  • pH: Within a range suitable for skin contact.

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

• Not Applicable: No clinical or performance test sets in the context of diagnostic accuracy, which would require AI-specific data. The comparison is based on the inherent characteristics of the gel being "the same" as predicate devices.

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: No ground truth establishment for diagnostic performance as this is an electroconductive gel, not a diagnostic AI.

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

• Not Applicable: No test set involving human interpretation requiring 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

• Not Applicable: This is not an AI device.

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

• Not Applicable: This is not an AI device.

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

• Not Applicable: No ground truth for diagnostic performance. The "ground truth" for this device would be its physical and chemical properties matching or performing equivalently to predicate devices for its intended function (e.g., impedance reduction, adherence).

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not Applicable: No training set for an AI model.

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

• Not Applicable: No training set for an AI model.

Summary based on the provided text:

The provided documents describe a 510(k) clearance for an electroconductive gel based on substantial equivalence to predicate devices (K022006 Conductive Gel and TEN20 Conductive K883149). The core argument for acceptance is that the "Quik-Gel® has the same technological characteristics as the predicate device." This means the product is fundamentally similar in composition and function to existing, legally marketed gels, and therefore is presumed to be as safe and effective. No specific performance metrics or studies beyond this declaration of equivalence are detailed in the provided text.

Ask a specific question about this device