Search Results

Fetal & Maternal Monitor (Model: F15A, F15A Air) is intended for providing Non-Stress testing or fetal monitoring for pregnant women from the 28th week of gestation. It is intended to be used only by trained and qualified personnel in antepartum examination rooms, labor and delivery rooms.

Fetal & Maternal Monitor (Model: F15A, F15A Air) is intended for real time monitoring of fetal and maternal physiological parameters, including non-invasive monitoring and invasive monitoring:

Non-invasive physiological parameters:

• Maternal heart rates (MHR)
• Maternal ECG (MECG)
• Maternal temperature (TEMP)
• Maternal oxygen saturation (SpO2) and pulse rates (PR)
• Fetal heart rates (FHR)
• Fetal movements (FM)
• FTS-3

Note: SpO2 and PR are not available in F15A Air.

Invasive physiological parameters:

• Uterine activity
• Direct ECG (DECG)

The F15A series fetal and maternal monitor can monitor multiple physiological parameters of the fetus/mother in real time. F15A series can display, store, and print patient information and parameters, provide alarms of fetal and maternal parameters, and transmit patient data and parameters to Central Monitoring System.

F15A series fetal and maternal monitors mainly provide following primary feature:

Non-invasive physiological parameters:

• Maternal heart rates (MHR)
• Maternal ECG (MECG)
• Maternal temperature (TEMP)
• Maternal oxygen saturation (SpO2) and pulse rates (PR)
• Fetal heart rates (FHR)
• Fetal movements (FM)
• FTS-3

Note: SpO2 and PR are not available in F15A Air.

Invasive physiological parameters:

• Uterine activity
• Direct ECG (DECG)

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter and summary for the Fetal & Maternal Monitor (F15A, F15A Air) do not contain the detailed information necessary to fully answer all aspects of your request regarding acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them.

The document focuses primarily on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device (Edan Instruments, Inc., F9 Express Fetal & Maternal Monitor, K173042) through comparison of intended use, technological characteristics, and conformance to various safety and performance standards. It mentions "functional and system level testing to validate the performance of the devices" and "results of the bench testing show that the subject device meets relevant consensus standards," but it does not specify quantitative acceptance criteria for each individual physiological parameter (e.g., FHR accuracy, SpO2 accuracy) nor the specific results of those tests beyond stating that they comply with standards.

Specifically, the document does not include information on:

• A table of acceptance criteria with specific quantitative targets for each parameter and the reported device performance values against those targets. It only states compliance with standards.
• Sample sizes used for a "test set" in the context of clinical performance evaluation (it mentions "bench testing," but this is typically laboratory-based and doesn't involve patient data in a "test set" sense for AI/algorithm performance validation).
• Data provenance for such a test set (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective).
• Number or qualifications of experts used to establish ground truth.
• Adjudication methods.
• Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) studies or human reader improvement data with AI assistance.
• Standalone (algorithm-only) performance, as this is a monitoring device, not a diagnostic AI algorithm.
• Type of ground truth (beyond "bench testing" which implies engineered signals or controlled environments).
• Sample size for a training set or how ground truth for a training set was established. This device is a traditional medical device, not an AI/ML-driven diagnostic or interpretative algorithm in the way your request implies.

Therefore, based solely on the provided text, I can only address what is present or infer what is missing.

Here's a breakdown based on the available information:

Analysis of Acceptance Criteria and Performance Testing based on Provided Document

The provided 510(k) summary focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device (F9 Express Fetal & Maternal Monitor, K173042) by showing that the new device (F15A, F15A Air) has the same intended use and fundamentally similar technological characteristics, with any differences not raising new safety or effectiveness concerns.

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

The document does not provide a specific table with quantitative acceptance criteria for each physiological parameter (e.g., FHR accuracy, SpO2 accuracy) and the corresponding reported performance values obtained in testing. Instead, it states that the device was assessed for conformity with relevant consensus standards. For example, it lists:

• IEC 60601-2-37:2015: Particular requirements for the basic safety and essential performance of ultrasonic medical diagnostic and monitoring equipment (relevant for FHR).
• ISO 80601-2-61:2017+A1:2018: Particular requirements for basic safety and essential performance of pulse oximeter equipment (relevant for SpO2).
• ISO 80601-2-56:2017+A1:2018: Particular requirements for basic safety and essential performance of clinical thermometers for body temperature measurement (relevant for TEMP).
• IEC 60601-2-27:2011: Particular requirements for the basic safety and essential performance of electrocardiographic monitoring equipment (relevant for MECG/DECG).

Acceptance Criteria (Inferred from standards compliance): The acceptance criteria are implicitly the performance requirements specified within these listed consensus standards. These standards set limits for accuracy, precision, response time, and other performance metrics for each type of measurement.

Reported Device Performance: The document states: "The results of the bench testing show that the subject device meets relevant consensus standards." This implies that the measured performance statistics (e.g., accuracy, bias, precision) for each parameter fell within the acceptable limits defined by the respective standards. However, the specific measured values are not provided in this summary.

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

The document mentions "Bench Testing" which implies laboratory-based testing using simulators, controlled signals, or phantoms, rather than a "test set" involving patient data. There is no information provided regarding:

• Sample size (e.g., number of recordings, duration of recordings, number of simulated cases) for the bench tests for each parameter.
• Data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective or prospective) as this is not a study involving patient data collection for performance validation.

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)

This is not applicable and not provided. For a traditional physiological monitor, ground truth for bench testing is typically established using:

• Calibrated reference equipment/simulators: e.g., ECG simulators to generate known heart rates, SpO2 simulators to generate known oxygen saturation levels.
• Physical standards/phantoms: e.g., temperature baths at known temperatures.
• Known physical properties: e.g., precise weights for pressure transducers.

Clinical experts are not involved in establishing ground truth for bench performance of these types of physiological measurements.

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

This is not applicable and not provided. Adjudication methods are relevant for human expert review of complex clinical data (e.g., medical images for AI validation) to establish a consensus ground truth. For bench testing of physiological monitors, ground truth is objectively determined by calibrated instruments or defined physical parameters.

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

This is not applicable and not provided. An MRMC study is typically performed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of AI-assisted human interpretations versus unassisted human interpretations for AI-driven diagnostic devices. The Fetal & Maternal Monitor is a physiological monitoring device, not an AI-assisted diagnostic imaging or interpretation system. It measures and displays physiological parameters; it does not provide AI-driven assistance for human "readers" to interpret complex clinical information.

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

The device is a monitor that directly measures physiological parameters. It is not an "algorithm only" device in the sense of an AI model providing a diagnostic output. Its performance (e.g., FHR accuracy) is its standalone performance, as it directly measures these parameters. The document states "functional and system level testing to validate the performance of the devices," which would represent this type of standalone performance for the measurement functionalities. However, specific quantitative results are not given, only compliance with standards.

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

As explained in point 3, the ground truth for bench testing of physiological monitors is established using calibrated reference equipment/simulators and physical standards.

8. The sample size for the training set

This is not applicable and not provided. This device is a traditional physiological monitor, not a machine learning model that requires a "training set." Its algorithms for parameter measurement are based on established physiological principles and signal processing techniques, not on statistical learning from large datasets.

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

This is not applicable and not provided for the same reasons as point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device

The monitors are intended to be used for monitoring, storing, recording, and reviewing of, and to generate alarms for, multiple physiological parameters of adults and pediatrics (including neonates). The monitors are intended for use by trained healthcare professionals in hospital environments.

The monitored physiological parameters include: ECG, respiration (RESP), temperature (TEMP), functional oxygen saturation of arterial hemoglobin (SpO₂), pulse rate (PR), non-invasive blood pressure (NIBP), invasive blood pressure (IBP), carbon dioxide (CO2), and cardiac output (C.O.).

The arrhythmia detection and ST Segment analysis are intended for adult patients.

The NIBP monitoring supports iCUFS algorithm and iFAST algorithm. The iCUFS algorithm is intended for adult, pediatric and neonatal patients. The iFAST algorithm is intended for adult and pediatric patients (≥3 years of age). Both measurement algorithms are also intended for use with pregnant women, including pre-eclamptic patients. NIBP MAP is not applicable to pregnant women.

The Spot Temp with T2A module can only measure temperature of adult and pediatric (> 1 year of age) patients.

The monitors are not intended for MRI environments.

The cardiac output (C.O.) is only intended for adult patients.

The CX&UX series Patient Monitor including CX10/CX12/CX15/UX10/UX12/UX15 can perform long-time continuous monitoring of multiple physiological parameters. Also, it is capable of storing, displaying, analyzing and controlling measurements, and it will indicate alarms in case of abnormalities so that doctors and nurses can respond to the patient's situation as appropriate.

Minor differences from the predicate device are limited to some modifications of monitoring parameter specifications. These updates do not change the fundamental scientific technology of the cleared predicate device and thus do not raise any questions about the safety and effectiveness of the subject device.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter details the device's technical specifications and comparisons to predicate devices, along with the non-clinical performance data and adherence to various IEC and ISO standards. However, it explicitly states: "Clinical data: The subject device did not require new clinical studies to support substantial equivalence."

This means that the submission for this Patient Monitor device (CX10, CX12, CX15, UX10, UX12, UX15) relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device (Edan Instruments, Inc., Patient Monitor Model iX10, iX12, iX15, K232962) through non-clinical performance testing and software verification/validation, rather than new clinical trials or studies involving human patients.

Therefore, the requested information regarding acceptance criteria and studies that prove the device meets acceptance criteria through clinical performance (e.g., sample size for test set, expert involvement, MRMC studies, ground truth establishment for test/training sets, effect size of human reader improvement with AI) cannot be extracted from this document, as such clinical studies were explicitly not required for this 510(k) submission.

The document focuses on demonstrating that the new device's technical specifications and performance are similar to the predicate device, and that it complies with relevant safety and performance standards through bench testing.

Here's what can be extracted from the provided text regarding acceptance criteria and the type of study performed, specifically focusing on the non-clinical aspects:

Device: Patient Monitor (CX10, CX12, CX15, UX10, UX12, UX15)

The acceptance criteria for this device are implicitly tied to its performance meeting the standards and accuracy specifications of the predicate device and relevant international standards. Since no new clinical studies were conducted, the "proof" comes from non-clinical bench testing and software validation.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (Non-Clinical/Bench Testing)

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

• Sample Size: Not applicable in terms of human subjects or patient data test sets, as "new clinical studies" were not required. The "test set" refers to bench testing and functional system-level validation. The specific number of test cycles or a detailed breakdown of test cases for bench testing is not provided in this summary.
• Data Provenance: The data primarily originates from Edan Instruments Inc. (Shenzhen, Guangdong, China) through internal engineering and quality assurance processes for non-clinical bench testing and software validation. It is not patient data, so concepts like "retrospective or prospective" do not apply.

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

• Not applicable for clinical ground truth: Since no clinical studies were performed requiring human interpretation or diagnosis for a test set, no medical experts (e.g., radiologists) were used to establish ground truth in this context.
• Internal experts: Bench testing and software validation would have involved engineers and quality assurance professionals, whose qualifications are implicit in the quality system (21 CFR Part 820) but not specified in detail here.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

• Not applicable: Adjudication methods (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) are relevant for clinical studies involving multiple readers. This was not a clinical study. Bench testing relies on established technical specifications and standard compliance.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was Done:

• No: No MRMC study was performed as no new clinical studies were required or conducted. Therefore, there's no effect size of human readers improving with AI assistance. The device is a patient monitor, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.

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

• Yes (for the technical components): The "performance testing-Bench" effectively represents a standalone evaluation of the device's functional components (ECG, NIBP, SpO2, etc.) and software against defined technical specifications and standards. The "software verification and validation testing" also represents a standalone evaluation of the algorithm and software functions. The specific algorithms (e.g., iCUFS, iFAST for NIBP, arrhythmia analysis logic) are tested independently for their accuracy against known inputs or reference standards as part of bench testing.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

• Technical/Reference Standards: For the bench testing, the "ground truth" would be derived from:
  • Reference standards/simulators: Calibrated medical equipment, physiological simulators, and test signals (e.g., known ECG waveforms, simulated blood pressure readings, temperature standards) are used to provide the "true" values against which the device's measurements are compared.
  • Defined specifications: The device's internal design specifications and the requirements of the referenced IEC/ISO standards serve as the "ground truth" for compliance testing.
• Not clinical ground truth: No expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data from real patients were used for establishing ground truth for this submission.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

• Not applicable: The device is a patient monitor, not a machine learning/AI algorithm that typically undergoes a distinct "training" phase with a large dataset. Its functionality is based on established physiological measurement principles and programmed algorithms. Any internal calibration or algorithm refinement would be part of the product development process, not a dedicated "training set" in the AI/ML sense.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established:

• Not applicable: As there was no "training set" in the context of an AI/ML model, the concept of establishing ground truth for it does not apply to this 510(k) submission.

In summary, this 510(k) clearance relies on demonstrating that the new Patient Monitor is substantially equivalent to a previously cleared predicate device, primarily through robust non-clinical bench testing and software validation, proving compliance with established medical device standards and functional specifications. No new clinical studies with patient data were required or conducted for this specific submission.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Acclarix AX8 Series Diagnostic Ultrasound System is intended for use by a qualified physician or allied health professional for ultrasound evaluations in hospitals and clinics.
The Acclarix AX8 Series Diagnostic Ultrasound System clinical applications include Abdominal, Gynecology, Obstetric, Cardiac, Small parts, Urology, Peripheral vascular, Musculoskeletal, Pediatric, Neonatal, Adult Cephalic, Thoracic/Pleural and Trans-esophageal Cardiac.
The Modes of Operation for Acclarix AX8 Series include B mode, M mode, Doppler mode, Harmonic Imaging, Elastography Imaging, Contrast imaging and their combination modes.
The Acclarix AX9 Series Diagnostic Ultrasound System is intended for use by a qualified physician or allied health professional for ultrasound evaluations in hospitals and clinics.
The Acclarix AX9 Series Diagnostic Ultrasound System clinical applications include Abdominal. Gynecology, Obstetric, Cardiac, Small parts, Urology, Peripheral vascular, Musculoskeletal, Pediatric, Neonatal, Adult Cephalic, Thoracic/Pleural and Trans-esophageal Cardiac.
The Modes of Operation for Acclarix AX9 Series include B mode, M mode, Doppler mode, Harmonic Imaging, Elastography Imaging, Contrast imaging and their combination modes.

The Acclarix AX8 Series & Acclarix AX9 Series Diagnostic Ultrasound System is a software controlled Diagnostic Ultrasound System, which consists of a main unit along with associated transducers. It is intended for use by a qualified physician or allied health professional for ultrasound evaluations in hospitals and clinics. This system is a Track 3 device to acquire and display ultrasound data in various imaging modes.

The provided text focuses on the 510(k) summary for the Edan Instruments Inc. Acclarix AX8 and AX9 Series Diagnostic Ultrasound Systems. It primarily addresses the substantial equivalence to a predicate device and outlines non-clinical performance data. It explicitly states "Clinical data: Not applicable," which means that no clinical studies were performed to establish acceptance criteria or demonstrate device performance against clinical metrics.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving the device meets them because such a study involving clinical data and performance metrics is explicitly stated as "Not applicable" in the document.

However, I can extract information about the non-clinical testing performed:

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

Since no clinical acceptance criteria or performance metrics were reported, this table cannot be created as requested in the context of clinical performance. The document only states that the device complies with certain electrical safety, EMC, and performance standards.

Regarding the other requested information, the document states "Clinical data: Not applicable." Therefore, the following points cannot be addressed from the given text:

• 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 due to lack of clinical data.
• 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 due to lack of clinical data.
• 4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable due to lack of clinical 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. The device is a diagnostic ultrasound system, and the document doesn't mention AI assistance or MRMC studies.
• 6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable. The device is an ultrasound system, not an AI algorithm intended for standalone performance.
• 7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc): Not applicable due to lack of clinical data.
• 8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable as no clinical training data is mentioned.
• 9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable as no clinical training data is mentioned.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Edan Acclarix AX8 Ultrasound system is intended for use by a qualified physician or allied health professional for ultrasound evaluations. Specific clinical applications include: Abdominal Gynecology (including endovaginal) Obstetric Cardiac Small parts (Breast, Testes, Thyroid, etc.) Urology Musculoskeletal Peripheral vascular Intra-operative

The Acclarix AX8 is a portable laptop diagnostic ultrasound system, intended for use by a qualified physician or sonographer for ultrasound evaluation in Point of Care environments such as Emergency Departments, Interventional procedures and mobile imaging centers, which applies advanced technologies such as HPRF, Dual screen display, Panorama, Spatial Compounding Imaging, Frequency Compounding Imaging, Multi-Beam-Forming, Speckle Resistance Imaging (eSRI), One-Key Optimization, B-Steer, Digital Zoom, Needle Visualization, etc. Various image parameter adjustments, 15 inch LCD display with 10 inch touch screen and 5 inch track pad and diverse probes are configured to acquire and display clear and stable ultrasound images.

The provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification for the Edan Instruments Acclarix AX8 Diagnostic Ultrasound System. This type of submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than proving effectiveness through clinical studies against specific acceptance criteria for diagnostic performance.

Therefore, the document does not contain the detailed information requested regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving the device meets those criteria, specifically concerning advanced diagnostic performance (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy) for a given clinical task.

Instead, the document highlights:

• Substantial equivalence: The device is claimed to be substantially equivalent to predicate devices (Acclarix AX8 r.10 Diagnostic Ultrasound System/K150999 and U50 Diagnostic Ultrasound System/K142511).
• Compliance with safety and technical standards: The device complies with standards like IEC 60601-1 (Electrical Safety), IEC 60601-1-2 (Electromagnetic Compatibility), and acoustic output testing guidelines, as well as biocompatibility standards (ISO 10993 series).
• Intended Use and Clinical Applications: The document lists the intended use as "Diagnostic ultrasound imaging or fluid flow analysis of the human body" and specifies various clinical applications (e.g., Abdominal, Gynecology, Obstetric, Cardiac, Small parts, Urology, Musculoskeletal, Peripheral vascular, Intra-operative).

Missing Information:

The document explicitly states: "Clinical testing is not required." This means there is no study presented in this document that would provide acceptance criteria for diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, etc., nor a study proving the device meets such criteria for a specific clinical task.

Therefore, I cannot provide the following information based on the given text:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: No such criteria or performance metrics for diagnostic effectiveness are detailed.
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: No clinical test set or data provenance is mentioned as clinical testing was not required.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable as no clinical test set is described.
4. Adjudication method: Not applicable.
5. MRMC comparative effectiveness study: Not conducted. The focus is on substantial equivalence to existing devices.
6. Standalone performance (algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance): This is not an AI-driven diagnostic algorithm but a general-purpose ultrasound imaging system, so this concept does not apply in the context of this document.
7. Type of ground truth used: Not applicable as diagnostic performance metrics (which require ground truth) are not provided.
8. Sample size for the training set: Not applicable as this is not an AI algorithm requiring a training set in the sense of machine learning for diagnostic tasks.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

Summary of available information:

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

• Acceptance Criteria for Substantial Equivalence: Demonstrated "same intended use, similar product design, same performance effectiveness, performance safety as the predicate device" (K150999 and K142511).
• Reported Device Performance:
  • Safety Standards Compliance: IEC 60601-1, IEC 60601-1-2, IEC 60601-2-37, ISO 10993-1, -5, -10, -12, AIUM, NEMA UD 2, UD 3.
  • Acoustic Output: Track 3: MI, TIS, TIC, TIB (TI Range 0-6.0), Derated ISPTA: 720W/cm2 maximum, Mechanic Index ≤ 1.9 maximum or Derated ISPPA 190 W/cm2 max. Ophthalmic use: TI = Max (TIS_as, TIC) ≤1; ISPTA.3 ≤ 50m/W/cm2; and MI < 0.23. (Same as predicate)
  • Patient Contact Materials: Complies with ISO 10993. (Same as predicate)
  • Modes of Operation: B-Mode, M-Mode, Color, PDI/DPDI, PW, CW. (Same as predicate)
  • Measurements: B-Mode: Distance, Circ/Area, Angle, Volume, Stenosis ratio; M-Mode: Distance, Time, Slope and Heart Rate; D-Mode: Velocity, RI, Time, PI, Heart Rate, Auto Trace PG, S/D, ΔV, Acceleration, PHT, VTI. (Same as predicate)
  • Transducer Types: Convex Array, Linear Array, Endocavity-Micro Convex Array, Phased Array. (Same as predicate)
  • Transducer Frequency: 2.5-15.0 MHz. (Same as predicate)
  • Physical Specifications: 407mm (W) x 388mm (L) x 77mm (H), Weight: 9.1Kg (with rechargeable battery, without power adaptor or transducers). (Same as predicate)
  • Power Requirements: 100-240V, 50/60Hz. (Same as predicate)
  • Rechargeable Battery: Yes. (Same as predicate)

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

• None provided for diagnostic performance as "Clinical testing is not required."
• "Non-clinical test" references compliance with electrical safety, EMC, acoustic output, and biocompatibility standards. The document does not specify sample sizes or data provenance for these technical tests in detail.

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, as no clinical test set for diagnostic performance requiring expert ground truth is described.

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

• Not applicable, as no clinical test set for diagnostic performance is described.

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 MRMC study was done. This is a general ultrasound system, 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 defines the capabilities of the ultrasound system itself, not an algorithm's standalone performance.

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

• Not applicable. Diagnostic performance metrics requiring ground truth are not provided.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable. This is not an AI algorithm in the machine learning sense that requires a training set for diagnostic image analysis.

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

• Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device