Search Results

Not Found

The design follows traditional principles of operation for Hearing Aids. The device is manufactured and assembled with equivalent manufacturing practices and performance guidelines.

This document is a 510(k) summary for the "Ethical ComfortAid Hearing Aid" from 1997. It is extremely brief and provides very limited technical detail. As such, it does not contain the kind of detailed information about acceptance criteria, study design, and performance metrics that you are requesting for a modern medical device submission.

Here's a breakdown of what can be extracted and why most of your questions cannot be answered from this document:

What can be extracted:

• Device Name: Ethical ComfortAid Hearing Aid
• Manufacturer: Ethical Hearing Instrument Portsmouth. 0 Fleet Str
• Submission Type: 510(k) Summary/Statement Certification
• Date of Submission: January 24, 1997
• Purpose of Submission: To demonstrate substantial equivalence to predicate devices, as required by the "Safe Medical Devices Act (SMDA)" of 1990.
• General Performance Statement: "Performance of this instrument meets requirements specified by ANSI S3.2-1987."

Why most of your questions cannot be answered from this document:

This document is from 1997, and the regulatory requirements and expectations for detailed clinical study reports, particularly for software-driven AI devices, were vastly different then. This summary focuses on demonstrating "substantial equivalence" based on traditional design, manufacturing practices, and meeting a specific ANSI standard, rather than presenting a detailed clinical study with performance metrics against acceptance criteria using modern methodologies.

Therefore, for almost all of your specific questions, the honest answer based solely on the provided text is: "Not provided in the document."

Let's go through your questions and provide the most accurate answer based on the given text:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance
   • Acceptance Criteria (as implied): "meets requirements specified by ANSI S3.2-1987."
   • Reported Device Performance: "Performance of this instrument meets requirements specified by ANSI S3.2-1987."
   • Note: The document does not provide specific numerical performance metrics, thresholds, or a detailed breakdown of what ANSI S3.2-1987 entails. It only states that the device meets the standard.

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

   • Answer: Not provided in the document. The document refers to "performance guidelines" and "substantial equivalence" rather than a specific clinical test set.

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)

   • Answer: Not provided in the document. This is a hearing aid, not an imaging device, and the context doesn't suggest a need for ground truth established by medical experts in the way AI models require for diagnostic tasks. The performance is assessed against an engineering standard.

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

   • Answer: Not provided in the document.

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

   • Answer: Not applicable and not provided. This is a hearing aid, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.

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

   • Answer: Not applicable. This is a standalone hearing aid, but it's not an algorithm only device in the sense of modern AI. The "performance" refers to its physical and acoustical characteristics meeting the ANSI standard.

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

   • Answer: Not specified. Performance is stated to meet an engineering standard (ANSI S3.2-1987), which implies an objective measurement against defined specifications, rather than a clinical "ground truth" derived from patient outcomes or expert clinical consensus.

8. The sample size for the training set

   • Answer: Not applicable and not provided. This device predates the common use of "training sets" for AI/machine learning in medical devices.

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

   • Answer: Not applicable and not provided. See above.

In summary: The provided 510(k) summary is a very high-level statement of compliance with an engineering standard for a traditional medical device from 1997. It does not offer the granular detail required for a comprehensive modern AI/ML device study report.

Ask a specific question about this device

Not Found

Wizard Loudness Growth Tester

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the "Wizard Loudness Growth Tester" and contains very limited information regarding acceptance criteria and study details. It primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing devices.

Therefore, most of the requested information cannot be extracted from this document. However, I can still structure the answer to highlight what is available and what is missing.

Unable to Extract Most Requested Information:

The provided 510(k) summary is extremely brief and lacks the detailed performance study information typically found in a comprehensive submission. It focuses on declaring substantial equivalence and adherence to a standard, rather than presenting a detailed study with acceptance criteria and results.

Here's an attempt to answer based on the very limited information provided:

Acceptance Criteria and Study for Wizard Loudness Growth Tester

Based on the provided 510(k) summary (196201), the information regarding specific acceptance criteria, detailed study design, and performance metrics is extremely limited. The submission primarily relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing devices and adherence to an industry standard.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Missing Information:

• No specific, quantifiable acceptance criteria (e.g., accuracy, precision, sensitivity, specificity, noise levels) are provided beyond the general statement of meeting the ANSI standard.
• No numerical performance data points (e.g., measured accuracy, specific test results) are reported.

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

Missing Information:

• The document does not mention any specific test set, sample size, or data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective).
• It does not describe any clinical or technical study conducted with a test set of data.

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

Missing Information:

• As no specific test set or study is described, there is no information on experts used to establish ground truth or their qualifications.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Missing Information:

• No adjudication method is mentioned as no specific test set or study is described.

5. If a Multi Reader Multi Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done

Missing Information:

• No MRMC study is mentioned. This device (a Loudness Growth Tester) is an audiological diagnostic instrument, and MRMC studies are more common for imaging interpretation by human readers. The concept of "human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance" does not directly apply to this type of device in the way it would for AI-assisted image analysis.

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

Missing Information:

• The document does not describe any algorithm in the sense of AI or automated decision-making that would require standalone performance evaluation. The device appears to be a traditional diagnostic instrument, not an AI-driven tool.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

Missing Information:

• No ground truth type (e.g., expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data) is mentioned as no specific performance study is detailed. The "ground truth" would likely be the accurate measurement of loudness growth, validated against established audiological principles, but the specific validation method is not described.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Missing Information:

• No training set is mentioned. This device does not appear to be an AI/machine learning device that would typically involve a training set.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set was Established

Missing Information:

• No training set or associated ground truth establishment is mentioned.

Conclusion:

The provided 510(k) summary for the Wizard Loudness Growth Tester is a "summary" in the truest sense, offering minimal detail on performance evaluation beyond a general declaration of meeting ANSI S3.6-1989 and being substantially equivalent to predicate devices. For a more comprehensive understanding of the device's specific acceptance criteria and the studies proving it, one would need to review the full 510(k) submission, if available.

Ask a specific question about this device