Search Results

The ClearLink Controlled Phototherapy Equipment are medical ultraviolet devices, which are intended for use, by or under the direction of a physician, for therapeutic treatment for individuals who require ultraviolet radiation for diagnosed skin disorders. When equipped with blue lamps the ClearLink Controlled Phototherapy Equipment is intended for use for the treatment of mild to moderate acne vulgaris.

The ClearLink Controlled Phototherapy Equipment are medical ultraviolet devices, which are intended for use, by or under the direction of a physician, for therapeutic treatment for individuals who require ultraviolet radiation for diagnosed skin disorders. The ClearLink Phototherapy Equipment delivers treatment, with Narrow Band UVB, Broad Band UVB and/or UVA ultraviolet light. Treatments are controlled through the ClearLink Software interface. Access to this interface and stored information is restricted to individuals who have been established by the physician as authorized operators. Authorized operators program treatments in joules based on established treatment protocols governed by the patient's skin type, condition, minimum erythemal dose (M.E.D.), and treatment frequency.

The provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification for the "ClearLink Controlled Phototherapy Equipment." This type of submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than proving a device meets specific technical performance acceptance criteria through the kind of rigorous, independent study typically associated with AI/software as a medical device (SaMD).

Therefore, this document does not contain the information requested regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving a device meets them in the context of an AI/SaMD. This device is a phototherapy unit, and its substantial equivalence is based on its construction, intended use, energy sources, and control system updates, rather than diagnostic performance metrics.

Specifically, the document does not provide:

• A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance (in the sense of AI performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, AUC).
• Any details about a test set sample size, data provenance, or ground truth establishment by experts for diagnostic purposes.
• Information on Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) studies or standalone algorithm performance.

The "Performance Standards" section (page 6) explicitly states: "The ClearLink controlled phototherapy equipment performance data is the same as or very similar to that of the claimed predicate device. The ultraviolet light tubes and cabinet construction used in the production of the predicate device and the ClearLink controlled phototherapy equipment are the same. The only difference between the predicate flex devices and the link devices is the substitution of the link controller for the flex controller for actual entry of doses. The rest of the devices (materials, construction, treatment modality, patient safety, etc., remains exactly the same."

This statement highlights that the performance here refers to the physical and functional constancy with the predicate device, not the diagnostic accuracy or efficacy evaluation of an AI component.

In summary, none of the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, study design parameters (sample size, experts, ground truth, MRMC), or training set details for an AI/SaMD are present in this document because it is not an AI/SaMD submission.

Ask a specific question about this device

The 3 Series NeoLux, full body phototherapy device, is a medical ultraviolet cabinet, which is intended for the treatment of psoriasis, vitiligo, and atopic dermatitis (eczema) on all skin types (1 - VI).

The 3 Series NeoLux Phototherapy Unit is a full body medical ultraviolet device, which is intended for use, by or under the direction of a physician, for therapeutic treatment for individuals who require ultraviolet radiation for diagnosed skin disorders. The 3 Series NeoLux Phototherapy Unit delivers a 360 degree full body treatment, with spectral output at peak wavelengths of 311 nm (Narrow Band UVB) and/or 350 nm (UVA), through an array of 24-48 fluorescent lamps. Treatments are controlled through the Soft Touch Software interface. Access to this interface and stored information is restricted to individuals who have been established by the physician as authorized operators. Authorized operators program treatments in joules based on established treatment protocols governed by the patient's skin type, condition, minimum erythemal dose (M.E.D.), and treatment frequency.

The provided document describes the Daavlin 3 Series NeoLux Phototherapy Unit, a medical device for dermatologic disorders. However, it is a 510(k) summary for substantial equivalence to a predicate device, not a study demonstrating the device meets specific acceptance criteria in terms of clinical performance or diagnostic accuracy. Instead, it focuses on demonstrating that the new device is as safe and effective as a previously cleared device. Therefore, a direct answer to the request to populate a table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance related to a diagnostic or clinical outcome study, and details about sample sizes, ground truth establishment, or multi-reader studies, cannot be fully provided from this document.

The document does however, provide information regarding performance standards and non-clinical testing for compliance with electrical and EMC standards.

Here's an analysis based on the available information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

As this is a 510(k) for a phototherapy unit based on substantial equivalence, the "acceptance criteria" are primarily related to safety, electrical performance, and functional equivalence to the predicate device. It is not a diagnostic device with performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or AUC.

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. This document describes a medical device, not a diagnostic algorithm or AI system that uses medical image data for a test set. The substantial equivalence relies on design, function, and safety testing, not on a clinical test set of patient data with ground truth.

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

• Not applicable. As stated above, there is no test set of patient data requiring expert ground truth in this submission.

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

• Not applicable. No test set of patient data.

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-assisted diagnostic device.

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

• Not applicable. This is a phototherapy unit, not an algorithm.

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

• Not applicable. No ground truth for clinical outcomes data is discussed in this 510(k) summary, as it is based on substantial equivalence to a predicate device for its intended use, rather than proving new clinical efficacy through trials. The "ground truth" for the device's performance is adherence to electrical and safety standards, and functional equivalence to the predicate.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML-driven device that requires a training set.

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

• Not applicable. No training set exists for this device.

Summary based on the provided document:

The Daavlin 3 Series NeoLux Phototherapy Unit is a medical ultraviolet device intended for the treatment of psoriasis, vitiligo, and atopic dermatitis. Its acceptance criteria for FDA clearance (via 510(k)) were primarily based on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a previously cleared predicate device (the 3 Series SP/PC Phototherapy Unit, K063621).

The study that proves the device meets the "acceptance criteria" (i.e., substantial equivalence) is the comparison of the new device's design, materials, manufacturing, indications for use, and performance characteristics (e.g., spectral output, electrical requirements) to that of the predicate device, along with non-clinical performance testing for adherence to recognized electrical and safety standards (IEC 60601-1-2:2007, IEC 60601-1:2012, and IEC 60601-2-57:2011). The document explicitly states that the new device is "identical in nearly every aspect" to the predicate, with the only differences being changes in exterior cosmetics and lamp covering. This implies that the performance in these non-clinical tests was successful and confirmed the device's safety and functional equivalence to the predicate.

Ask a specific question about this device

The ML24000 UVA-1 Phototherapy Unit is a full body medical ultraviolet device, which is intended for use, by or under the direction of a physician, for therapeutic treatment for individuals who require ultraviolet or visible radiation for diagnosed skin disorders.

The ML24000 UVA-1 Phototherapy Unit is a microprocessor controlled full body ultraviolet light source, with spectral output at peak wavelengths of 370-390 nm. It is intended for use by or under the direction of a physician, for the treatment of diagnosed skin disorders. The desired dose is selected using the operator interface located on the front panel of the device. The ML24000 UVA-1 Phototherapy Unit delivers full body phototherapy, wherebv Philips CLEO HPA 1018 Medium Pressure Lamps, which surround the patient, deliver the specified dose of UVA-1.

The provided text does not contain information about acceptance criteria and a study proving a device meets these criteria in the typical sense of a clinical or performance study for an AI/CADe device. Instead, the document is a 510(k) summary for a phototherapy unit, focusing on its substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

Therefore, most of the requested information cannot be extracted directly from this document.

Here's an attempt to answer the questions based only on the provided text, indicating where information is not available:

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

   The document does not explicitly present acceptance criteria in a quantitative format typical for AI/CADe devices (e.g., sensitivity, specificity thresholds) nor does it report performance metrics against such criteria. The "Performance Data" section states: "The ML24000 UVA-1 Phototherapy Unit performance data is the same as or very similar to that of the claimed predicate devices. The UV lamps and cabinet construction used in the production of the predicate device and the ML24000 UVA-1 Phototherapy Unit are similar." This implies equivalence through comparison rather than meeting specific performance thresholds.

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

   Not applicable. This is a medical device (phototherapy unit), not an AI/CADe system relying on a "test set" of data for algorithm evaluation in the conventional sense. The "performance data" refers to the physical characteristics and operation of the device being similar to existing cleared devices, not algorithmic performance on a dataset.

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 for a test set is not relevant for this type of device submission.

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

   Not applicable. Adjudication methods for test sets are not relevant for this type of device.

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 device is a phototherapy unit, 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 device does not have an algorithm in the context of an AI/CADe system.

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

   Not applicable. Ground truth is not relevant for this type of device submission. The "ground truth" for a phototherapy unit would be its physical specifications, spectral output, safety, and efficacy in treating skin conditions, which are established through general medical knowledge and clinical practice guidelines, not a specific dataset ground truth.

8. The sample size for the training set

   Not applicable. There is no "training set" for this kind of medical device.

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

   Not applicable. There is no "training set" or corresponding ground truth for this device.

Ask a specific question about this device