Search Results

For adult use. The Gereonics Ultra-Piezo Limb Movement Sensor (LMS) is used to detect periodic limb movements for recording or monitoring on a physiological amplifier. The LMS is intended for use in sleep disorders studies.

The Pro-Tech predicate device and the Gereonics Ultra-Piezo Limb Movement Sensor (LMS) utilize a piezo disc (sometimes referred to as a piezo element, diaphragm or bender). There is no external voltage supply -- the sensor directly converts motion to voltage. The piezo disc and output resistor convert minute taps to voltage. A lengthy lead wire extends from this assembly and terminates with two electrode style safety connectors. The LMS is applied to the patients limb using 3M Coban LF Latex Free Self-Adherent Wrap. The sensor is reusable and the self-adherent wrap is disposable. The predicate device is applied using a reusable Velcro strap with a pouch that holds the LMS.

The provided document describes the Gereonics Ultra-Piezo Limb Movement Sensor (LMS) and its comparison to a predicate device (Pro-Tech PLM SENSOR). The study conducted is primarily a comparative performance and temperature test to demonstrate substantial equivalence, rather than establishing specific acceptance criteria for a new clinical performance claim.

Here's a breakdown of the information based on your request:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state formal "acceptance criteria" in a quantitative sense with specific thresholds that the device had to meet. Instead, the study aimed to show similarity to the predicate device.

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

• Sample Size: The document does not specify a numerical sample size for the "test set" in terms of number of devices or number of human subjects. The comparative tests refer to "the Pro-Tech test unit" and "the Gereonics LMS." This implies a very small sample, likely one unit of each for the bench tests.
• Data Provenance: The study was conducted by Gereonics, Inc., the manufacturer of the device. The data is retrospective in the sense that it's a comparison to an existing predicate device. No country of origin for diverse patient data is relevant as human subjects data is not presented.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth and Qualifications

Not applicable. This study did not involve human expert review to establish ground truth for clinical cases. It was a bench-testing comparison of device performance.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. There was no need for adjudication as the study focused on objective measurements from bench testing, not subjective interpretations of clinical data by multiple experts.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

No. A Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not conducted. This study's purpose was to demonstrate substantial equivalence through technical comparison, not to evaluate human reader performance with or without AI assistance.

6. Standalone Performance Study

Yes, a standalone performance assessment akin to an algorithm-only evaluation was implicitly done through the bench tests. The "Comparative Performance Test" and "Comparative Temperature Test" assessed the Gereonics LMS's direct output (voltage, waveform, temperature coefficient) and compared it to the predicate without human intervention in the signal interpretation.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth for this study was the performance of the predicate device (Pro-Tech PLM SENSOR) as measured through controlled bench tests and a simple "tapping on the floor" test. The goal was to show that the Gereonics LMS performed "similarly" or "identically" under these conditions.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. This device is a passive, non-software-driven sensor. There is no "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI algorithms. Its function is based on piezoelectric principles, not learned from data.

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

Not applicable. As there is no training set for this device, no ground truth needed to be established in this context.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Gereonics Ultra-Piezo Respiratory Effort Sensor is intended for use in sleep disorders studies to measure respiratory effort for monitoring or recording on a physiological recording system. The Ultra-Piezo Respiratory Effort Sensor is NOT intended for use as an Apnea Alarm.

Not Found

This document is a 510(k) clearance letter from the FDA for the Gereonics Ultra-Piezo Respiratory Effort Sensor. It does not contain the detailed information required to describe the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets those criteria.

The letter confirms that the device is substantially equivalent to a legally marketed predicate device, allowing it to be marketed. However, it does not include:

• A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance.
• Details on sample size, data provenance, number/qualifications of experts, or adjudication methods for a test set.
• Information about MRMC studies, standalone algorithm performance, or the type of ground truth used.
• Information about the training set size or how its ground truth was established.

This type of information would typically be found in the 510(k) submission itself, which is a much more extensive document than this clearance letter. The letter is merely the FDA's formal response indicating approval.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Gereonics Ultra-Piezo Respiratory Effort Sensor is intended for use in sleep disorders studies to measure respiratory effort for monitoring or recording on a physiological recording system. The Ultra-Piezo Respiratory Effort Sensor is NOT intended for use as an Apnea Alarm.

The Gereonics Ultra-Piezo Respiratory Effort Sensor is intended for use in Sleep Disorders Testing for the measurement of respiratory effort and frequency. It is designed for use with a bioamplifier attached to a physiological recording system. The Respiratory Effort Strap Sensor utilizes a processed polyvinylidene fluoride plastic film sensor as the detector for breathing motion. The small breathing deflection of the human body, typically measured on the stomach (abdomen) or chest (thorax), creates a small voltage in the piezoelectric plastic film sensor. There is no external voltage supply -- the sensor stressed by inhalation and exhalation directly converts motion to voltage. A passive low pass electronic filter is connected directly to the sensor and filters out frequencies above 15 Hertz to minimize noise and allow breathing frequencies to be monitored. The output from the passive filter, typically +/- 200 to 300 microvolts at 0.1 Hz, is connected to a bioamplifier in the physiological recording system where the signal is amplified for monitoring or recording. The sensor is secured to the body using a one inch wide strap system of Velcro hook and elastic loop material.

The provided text describes a medical device, the Gereonics Ultra-Piezo Respiratory Effort Sensor, and its equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices. However, it does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets those criteria in the way typically found for performance-based medical devices.

Instead, the submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing devices on the market (Pro-Tech, Inc.'s Crystal Trace Respiratory Effort Sensor and an EPMS, Inc. product). This means that the device is deemed safe and effective because it is very similar to devices that have already been cleared by the FDA.

Therefore, many of the requested items (e.g., sample sizes, ground truth establishment, MRMC studies, standalone performance) are not applicable to this type of 510(k) submission, as it relies on a comparison rather than a de novo performance study against defined acceptance criteria.

Here's a breakdown of the information that is available and what is not:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance Study (Not Applicable for this Submission Type)

The document explicitly states the device is cleared based on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, not on a performance study against specific acceptance criteria. This section would typically contain information from a prospective clinical trial or detailed engineering verification/validation tests. Such information is not present in the provided text.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Not directly applicable. The submission does not define specific "acceptance criteria" in terms of performance metrics (like sensitivity, specificity, accuracy) that the device had to meet through a dedicated study. Instead, the "acceptance" was based on demonstrating similar design, composition, and function to previously cleared devices.

The table provided in the text compares features for substantial equivalence:

Reported Device Performance: The document states the device provides a "Comparable voltage output" to the predicate device (Pro-Tech). This is the closest statement to performance, but it's a comparative statement rather than a specific performance metric against a defined threshold. The typical output is described as "+/- 200 to 300 microvolts at 0.1 Hz."

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

Not applicable. No test set or clinical study data is described or referenced for the Gereonics device in this document, as the submission relies on substantial equivalence. Data provenance for performance testing is therefore not provided.

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

Not applicable. No test set requiring expert ground truth establishment is described.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. No test set is described.

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

No. No MRMC study is mentioned. The clearance is based on substantial equivalence to existing devices, not a study of human readers' improvement with or without AI assistance.

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

Not applicable. This device is a passive sensor, not an AI algorithm. No standalone performance study (in the context of an AI algorithm) was conducted or is relevant. The device output is intended to be amplified and monitored/recorded by a physiological recording system.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

Not applicable. Pertaining to the Gereonics device itself, no ground truth data (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes) was used for a performance study. The ground truth for its "performance" is implicitly the established performance of the legally marketed predicate devices it is compared to for substantial equivalence.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. This device does not involve machine learning or AI, and therefore does not have a "training set."

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

Not applicable. As above, no training set exists for this device.

Ask a specific question about this device