Search Results

The Global Healthcare's Vaginal Speculum is intended to be used for general vaginal operation in which it is inserted into the vagina to expose the cervix.

Not Found

The provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification letter from the FDA for a Global Healthcare Vaginal Speculum, issued on January 17, 2002. This type of document confirms substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device.

It is important to note that this document is for a medical device (vaginal speculum), not an AI/ML-powered or software-based medical device. Therefore, the detailed acceptance criteria and study information requested (e.g., sample sizes for training/test sets, ground truth establishment, expert adjudication, MRMC studies, standalone performance) are not applicable to the traditional medical device approval process reflected here.

The FDA's decision for this device is based on substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices, implying that its safety and effectiveness are similar. The letter does not describe specific performance studies in the way one would for an AI/ML product.

Therefore, I cannot provide a detailed response for the requested sections relevant to AI/ML device studies because the provided document does not contain that information.

However, I can extract the relevant information that is present:

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

Since this is a traditional medical device demonstrating substantial equivalence, there isn't a table of quantitative acceptance criteria and reported device performance in the same way an AI/ML product would have (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, AUC). Instead, the acceptance is based on:

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. The approval is not based on a clinical trial with a "test set" in the context of an AI/ML model. It relies on a comparison to existing 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. Ground truth, in the context of AI/ML, refers to expert-labeled data. This is not how traditional medical devices are evaluated for substantial equivalence.

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

• Not Applicable.

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 a physical device, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.

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

• Not Applicable. This is a physical device.

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

• Not Applicable. For this traditional device, the "ground truth" is its established function and safety record compared to existing, legally marketed devices.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not Applicable. There is no "training set" for a physical medical device.

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

• Not Applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device