Search Results

The °AirRay® Subdural Cortical Electrodes (Strips and Grids) are intended for temporary (

The ° AirRay® Subdural Cortical Electrodes Subdural electrodes are single patient use, disposable, sterile devices. The electrodes are invasive as they are placed in contact with the brain. The electrodes provide the patient contact device. The electrodes connect to the user's recording, monitoring and stimulation/response equipment. The electrodes are used under the supervision of a physicians in the areas of biopotential recording, monitoring and stimulation/response studies understand the use of subdural electrodes.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the CorTec AirRay Subdural Cortical Electrodes. This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, rather than proving the device meets specific acceptance criteria through a clinical study.

Therefore, much of the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, a test set, ground truth establishment for a test set, expert involvement, and comparative effectiveness studies is not present in this document, as these are typically part of a different type of submission (e.g., a PMA or De Novo) or a more detailed clinical study report, which is not included here.

However, the document does contain information about biocompatibility testing, which does have acceptance criteria for physical and chemical characteristics, and the results of those tests. I will focus on that section for the table, as it is the only part that directly addresses acceptance criteria and performance against them.

Here's a breakdown of what can be extracted and what is not available:

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

The document provides a "Biocompatibility Summary Table" with test methods, results, and conclusions. The acceptance criteria are implicitly "Pass" for each test, indicating that the device's performance met the required biological safety standards.

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

• Sample Size: The document mentions that "All biocompatibility studies were conducted in compliance with Good Laboratory Practices (GLP), 21 CFR Part 58." While specific numbers for each test are not listed, the document states, for example, that the "4-week brain implantation study was conducted in rabbits" and "Both male and female animals were used." This implies a typical sample size used in GLP studies for animal testing, which adheres to specific guidelines for statistical significance (though exact numbers are often not in a 510(k) summary).
• Data Provenance: The studies were conducted on the "finished, sterilized device." The location of the studies (e.g., country) is not explicitly stated beyond the submitter's location in Germany. These are prospective tests performed specifically for this submission.

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

• Biocompatibility Ground Truth: For the implantation study, it is stated that "The macroscopic and microscopic evaluations were performed by a board certified veterinary pathologist." This pathologist served as the expert for establishing the "truth" (i.e., the presence or absence of adverse tissue reactions) in that specific test. For other biocompatibility tests (cytotoxicity, sensitization, etc.), these are standardized laboratory assays with defined pass/fail criteria, so the "ground truth" is established by the assay's results per validated protocols, interpreted by qualified lab personnel.
• For human clinical performance (not applicable to this 510(k) summary): No information is provided as this is a device clearance based on substantial equivalence and non-clinical testing.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

• For the biocompatibility studies, standard GLP practices and validated test protocols are followed. Results are typically reviewed and signed off by the study director and relevant subject matter experts (e.g., the veterinary pathologist). There's no "adjudication" in the sense of multiple human readers disagreeing on clinical image interpretation, as this is laboratory 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:

• No. This device is a passive implant (subdural cortical electrodes) and is not an AI-powered diagnostic device. Therefore, a MRMC study of human reader performance with or without AI assistance is not applicable and was not conducted.

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

• No. This device does not have an algorithm or software component that operates in a standalone capacity. It is a physical medical device. The document explicitly states "Contains Software/Firmware: No".

7. The type of ground truth used:

• For the biocompatibility studies, the ground truth was laboratory test results and expert pathological evaluation (specifically for the implantation study). This is empirical data derived from standardized biological and chemical tests.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable. This device is not an AI/ML device that requires a training set. The clearance is based on substantial equivalence to a predicate device and non-clinical performance testing.

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

• Not applicable. As a non-AI/ML device, there is no training set and therefore no ground truth established for one.

In summary, the provided document focuses on the physical and biological safety of the device through non-clinical testing, particularly biocompatibility. It is a substantial equivalence submission, comparing the new device to an existing predicate rather than demonstrating clinical efficacy through a structured clinical study with human patients and expert review of clinical outcomes/interpretations.

Ask a specific question about this device