Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K001003
    Device Name
    Z-NET
    Manufacturer
    Date Cleared
    2001-12-10

    (621 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    880.6190
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Why did this record match?
    Applicant Name (Manufacturer) :

    DEMITE LIMITED

    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    Z-Net reduces for up to 15 months house dust mites and their allergens in bedding, a leading cause of allergenic rhinitis, allergenic asthma, and allergenic eczema. Reductions are based on comparisons with untreated bed covers.

    Device Description

    The Z-Net allergy control device consists of a mattress cover and pillow cover created from polyester impregnated with permethrin. The treated fabric reduces the levels of house dust mites (HDM) and their allergens in the mattress and pillow which, in turn, provides relief to individuals suffering from atopic allergies.

    AI/ML Overview

    Here's an analysis of the provided text to fulfill your request:

    Acceptance Criteria and Study Proving Device Meets Criteria:

    Based on the provided 510(k) summary, the device is the Z-Net mattress and pillow covers, which are polyester impregnated with permethrin, intended to reduce house dust mites (HDM) and their allergens. The primary acceptance criterion is the long-term reduction of HDMs and their allergens in mattresses.

    1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

    Acceptance Criteria (Intended Use)Reported Device Performance
    Reduction of house dust mites and their allergens in bedding for up to 15 months, leading to relief from allergenic rhinitis, allergenic asthma, and allergenic eczema. Reductions are based on comparisons with untreated bed covers. (Stated in "Indications For Use" and "Intended Use" sections)"The results of the test confirmed that the use of permethrin-impregnated mattress covers reduces HDMs in bedding." This effectiveness was established over a study period that included samples collected at one month, two months, five months, fifteen months, and twenty-four months, implying the demonstrated reduction for at least 15 months. Comparisons were made between the test and placebo groups. (Stated in "Performance Data" section)

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

    • Sample Size: Not explicitly stated as a number of subjects or items. The study refers to "test and placebo groups" and "dust samples" collected over time. It does not provide the specific count of mattresses, pillows, or homes involved.
    • Data Provenance: The primary study was conducted at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), indicating international data (United Kingdom). The study was prospective, described as a "two-year, double-blind study."

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

    • The document does not mention the number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set.
    • It refers to the LSHTM laboratory conducting the analysis of dust samples, suggesting laboratory technicians or researchers with expertise in dust mite and allergen quantification. Specific qualifications (e.g., allergist, microbiologist, with X years of experience) are not provided.

    4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

    • The document describes the primary study as a "two-year, double-blind study." This indicates that neither the participants (those using the covers) nor the researchers/analysts were aware of whether they were in the permethrin-treated group or the placebo group. This blinding serves as a form of "adjudication" against bias in data collection and initial analysis, but it's not an adjudication method in the sense of multiple experts independently reviewing findings. No other multi-expert adjudication method (like 2+1 or 3+1) is mentioned.

    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, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This device is a physical product (mattress/pillow cover) and not an AI-based diagnostic tool. Therefore, the concept of "human readers improving with AI vs without AI assistance" is not applicable here.

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

    • No, a standalone algorithm-only performance study was not done. As mentioned above, this is a physical device, not an algorithm.

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

    • The ground truth was established through direct measurement of biological markers:
      • Quantification of "House Dust Mites (HDM)"
      • Quantification of "HDM allergens"
      • These measurements were derived from "dust samples" collected from mattresses.

    8. The sample size for the training set:

    • Not applicable. This device is a physical product that works through a chemical impregnation, not a machine learning or AI model. Therefore, there is no "training set" in the context of algorithm development.

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

    • Not applicable. As there is no training set for an AI/algorithm, no ground truth was established for it.
    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1