Search Results

The Gambro Posiclear filter is intended to remove bacteria, endotoxin, and particulate matter from water used for hemodialysis. It is intended for use in dialysis water treather systems as a final stage of filtration after RO or DI treatment to help control bacteria and endotoxin levels in purified water distribution systems. This filter is not intended as a primary means of water purification for hemodialysis

The Gambro Posiclear filter consists of a encapsulated, micro porous pleated nylon membrane in a polypropylene housing designed to filter endotoxins, bacteria and particulates from water intended to be used for hemodialysis

This 510(k) summary describes a medical device called the Gambro Posiclear Filter, a water purification subsystem for hemodialysis. The summary details the device's intended use and compares its technological characteristics to a predicate device. However, it does not provide specific acceptance criteria or a detailed study report that would allow for a comprehensive description as requested in the prompt.

Based on the provided text, here's what can be extracted and what cannot:

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

This information is not explicitly provided in the document. The document states: "In vitro performance testing was performed to establish and compare performance characteristics to the predicate devices." and "In vitro performance data / specifications are included in the labeling." This indicates that such data exists, but it is not included in the provided 510(k) summary. We can infer the general performance goals from the "Intended Use" section.

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

This information is not provided in the document. The general statement "In vitro performance testing was performed" does not include details on sample size or data provenance.

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 information is not applicable as this device is a physical filter being tested for performance (e.g., filtration efficacy), not an AI or diagnostic device that requires expert-established ground truth for a test set.

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

This information is not applicable for the same reason as point 3.

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 information is not applicable as this device is a physical filter, not an AI-assisted diagnostic or interpretation tool.

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

This information is not applicable as this is a physical filter, not an algorithm.

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

For this device, the "ground truth" would be established by direct measurement of the water quality (e.g., bacterial count, endotoxin levels, particulate matter) before and after filtration, using established laboratory testing methods. This is an objective, quantifiable ground truth determined by scientific assays, not expert consensus or pathology in a medical imaging context.

8. The sample size for the training set:

This information is not applicable as this is a physical device undergoing performance testing, not an AI model requiring a training set.

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

This information is not applicable for the same reason as point 8.

In summary of what is provided and what is not:

The provided 510(k) summary confirms that "In vitro performance testing was performed to establish and compare performance characteristics to the predicate devices" and that the "Gambro Posiclear filters indicates that they are safe, effective, and perform as well as the predicate devices". However, the detailed data of this testing, including specific acceptance criteria, sample sizes, and the numerical results showing performance against those criteria, are stated to be "included in the labeling" but are not present in this summary. The comparison to the predicate device implies that the performance targets were at least equivalent to, if not better than, the established performance of the legally marketed predicate device.

Ask a specific question about this device