Search Results

Ask a specific question about this device

Fine Osteotomy™ is a system intended for open- and closed-wedge osteotomies, treatment of bone and joint deformities, fixation of fractures and malalignment caused by injury or disease, such as osteoarthritis, of the distal femur and proximal tibia.

Fine Osteotomy disposable instrumentation is intended to assist in pre-operative planning and/or in guiding the marking of bone and/or guiding of surgical instruments in non-acute, non-joint replacing osteotomies around the knee.

Fine Osteotomy is a patient-specific device.

The Fine Osteotomy™ System is a patient-specific orthopedic device designed to assist surgeons in planning and performing precise osteotomies around the knee. It utilizes patient imaging data to create 3D anatomical models used for the design of cutting guides and fixation implants tailored to the individual anatomy. The system includes single-use cutting guides manufactured from PA 12 polymer and fixation components made of titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V ELI). The implants are designed to support stable bone fixation following the osteotomy. The device operates without an energy source and relies on mechanical alignment and rigid fixation principles. Minor refinements have been incorporated to improve compatibility with surgical planning and instrument design, without affecting the intended use or fundamental function of the system. The device is supplied non-sterile and includes a combination of patient-specific and reusable components.

This FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the Fine Osteotomy™ system does not contain the detailed information required to describe the acceptance criteria and the specific study that proves the device meets those criteria.

The document primarily focuses on the regulatory aspects of the 510(k) submission, confirming substantial equivalence to a predicate device. While it mentions "non-clinical testing" was performed, it provides a high-level summary and lacks the specific data points requested in your prompt.

Here's a breakdown of why the requested information cannot be extracted from this document:

• Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance: The document states, "All tests confirmed that the device meets applicable requirements and continues to perform as intended." However, it does not specify what those "applicable requirements" or performance metrics are, nor does it provide a table of actual results against specific acceptance criteria.
• Sample Size and Data Provenance: The document does not mention sample sizes for any tests, nor the country of origin of data, or whether it was retrospective or prospective.
• Experts for Ground Truth Establishment: There is no mention of experts, ground truth establishment, or any details related to human interpretation or readings.
• Adjudication Method: Not applicable as there's no mention of expert review or ground truth establishment requiring adjudication.
• Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Study: The document explicitly states, "No clinical testing was necessary, as the modifications do not alter the intended use, safety, or effectiveness of the device." Therefore, no MRMC study was conducted. There is no information about human readers or AI assistance.
• Stand-alone (Algorithm Only) Performance: While the device has a software component("support usability through a software update"), the document does not break down performance specific to an algorithm's standalone performance. It focuses on the overall system (hardware and software).
• Type of Ground Truth Used: Not applicable, as no ground truth for diagnostic accuracy is discussed. The testing mentioned appears to be related to mechanical/dimensional properties and software verification.
• Training Set Sample Size: No information about a training set is provided, as the document mainly describes the device and its regulatory clearance process, not its development or training of any AI/ML components.
• How Ground Truth for Training Set was Established: Not applicable as no training set is discussed.

Conclusion:

This 510(k) clearance letter for Fine Osteotomy™ is a regulatory approval document. It confirms that the device is substantially equivalent to a previously cleared predicate and that non-clinical testing was sufficient to demonstrate this. However, it does not provide the detailed scientific study results, acceptance criteria, ground truth methodology, or clinical performance metrics (especially for diagnostic accuracy or human-AI interaction) that you are requesting. These details would typically be found in a more comprehensive clinical study report or a detailed design verification and validation document, which are not part of this public FDA clearance letter.

Ask a specific question about this device

The MTS (MIC Test Strip) Sulbactam-Durlobactam 0.004/4-64/4 μg/ml is a quantitative method intended for the in vitro determination of antimicrobial susceptibility of bacteria. MTS consists of specialized paper impregnated with a pre-defined concentration gradient of an antimicrobial agent, which is used to determine the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) in μg/ml of antimicrobial agents against bacteria as tested on agar media using overnight incubation and manual reading procedures. MTS Sulbactam- Durlobactam at concentrations of 0.004/4-64/4 μg/ml should be interpreted at 16-20 hours of incubation.

Testing with MTS Sulbactam-Durlobactam at concentrations of 0.004/4-64/4 μg/mL is indicated for Acinetobacter baumannii calcoaceticus complex as recognized by the FDA Susceptibility Test Interpretive Criteria (STIC).

The MTS Sulbactam-Durlobactam 0.004/4-64/4 μg/mL has demonstrated acceptable performance with the following organisms:

Acinetobacter baumannii calcoaceticus complex

MTS Sulbactam-Durlobactam 0.004/4 - 64/4 μg/mL is made of special high-quality paper impregnated with a predefined concentration of gradient sulbactam across 15 two-fold dilutions like those of a conventional MIC method and durlobactam at a fixed concentration of 4 μg/mL. One side of the strip is labeled with the sulbactam-durlobactam code (SUD) and the MIC reading scale in μg/mL. When the MTS is applied onto an inoculated agar surface, the performed exponential gradient of antimicrobial agent diffuses into the agar for over an hour. After 16-20 hours incubation, a symmetrical inhibition ellipse centered along the strip is formed. The MIC is read directly from the scale in terms of μg/mL at the point where the edge of the inhibition ellipse intersects the MIC Test Strip. The MIC Test Strip (MTS) is single use only.

Sulbactam-durlobactam is an intravenous beta-lactam combination antibiotic used to treat hospital-acquired pneumonia and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia caused by susceptible isolates of Acinetobacter baumannii-calcoaceticus complex.
MTS is supplied in 3 different packaging options (no additional reagents are included). There is a 10- test box, a 30- test box and a 100-test box.

Here is a description of the acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets those criteria, based on the provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the MTS Sulbactam-Durlobactam device:

Device: MTS Sulbactam-Durlobactam 0.004/4 - 64/4 µg/mL (SUD)
Intended Use: Quantitative method for in vitro determination of antimicrobial susceptibility of Acinetobacter baumannii calcoaceticus complex using MIC Test Strips with manual reading after overnight incubation.

1. Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The study evaluated the performance of the MTS Sulbactam-Durlobactam device against a reference broth microdilution MIC method. The primary metrics for performance were Essential Agreement (EA) and Category Agreement (CA), along with an analysis of errors (very major, major, minor). While explicit "acceptance criteria" percentages are not directly stated in the summary, typical FDA criteria for AST systems are implied by the reported results. The guidance document referenced "Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Antimicrobial Susceptibility Test (AST) Systems, August 28, 2009" would contain the specific acceptance thresholds. Based on the provided summary, the device performance is reported as follows:

Table of Device Performance

Implied Acceptance Criteria (based on typical FDA AST requirements, generally >90% for EA and CA, and strict limits on major/very major errors):
The reported performance values of 97.3% EA and 92.7% CA, along with very low major errors and zero very major errors, indicate that the device met the acceptance criteria as determined by the FDA. Specifically, the zero very major errors are critical for patient safety, as they avoid situations where a resistant infection might be incorrectly identified as susceptible, leading to inappropriate treatment.

2. Sample Size and Data Provenance

• Test Set Sample Size: 588 isolates for the combined clinical and challenge organism groups.
• Data Provenance:
  • Clinical Testing: Performed at three (3) sites. The precise country of origin is not explicitly stated for the clinical sites, but the submitter (Liofilchem s.r.l.) is based in Italy, and their contact person for the 510(k) is in Westlake, Ohio, USA. The FDA clearance suggests testing was appropriate for the US market.
  • Challenge Isolate Testing: Performed at one site (Laboratory Specialists, Inc., which is the 510(k) preparer's company in Westlake, Ohio).
  • Nature of Data: The data combines retrospective (challenge isolates specifically selected to ensure MIC range coverage, including resistant isolates) and prospective (fresh clinical isolates tested at multiple sites) elements.

3. Experts Used for Ground Truth and Qualifications

This section does not directly apply as the device is an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) for antimicrobial susceptibility testing, not an imaging AI device requiring expert interpretation of images. The "ground truth" for antimicrobial susceptibility is established by a standardized laboratory method (broth microdilution) rather than human expert consensus on subjective data.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Adjudication methods (like 2+1, 3+1, etc.) are typically used in studies involving human interpretation or subjective assessments. For this AST device, the ground truth is established by a quantitative, objective laboratory method (CLSI broth microdilution guidelines). Therefore, no human adjudication method was employed for establishing the ground truth of the MIC values. Minor discrepancies or errors between the device and the reference method are simply categorized as such (major, minor, very major errors).

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

An MRMC study is not applicable to this type of device. The MTS Sulbactam-Durlobactam is a manual antimicrobial susceptibility test system that determines the MIC directly. It is not an AI-assisted diagnostic imaging system where human readers interpret data with or without AI assistance. The performance is assessed by comparing the device's MIC readings to a gold standard laboratory method, not by comparing human reader performance.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance

This concept is applicable, and the study provided details on the standalone performance of the MTS Sulbactam-Durlobactam device. The "performance data" table (Essential Agreement, Category Agreement, and Error Rates) directly refers to the device's ability to accurately determine MIC values and susceptibility categories when compared to the reference method, essentially its "algorithm-only" performance in the context of an IVD. There is no "human-in-the-loop" component for interpretation; the user manually reads the MIC from the strip.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used for this study was reference broth microdilution MIC method, conducted according to CLSI M7-A11 guidelines. This is a well-established and standardized laboratory method for determining antimicrobial minimum inhibitory concentrations, considered the gold standard for AST.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not specify a separate "training set" sample size for the development of the MTS Sulbactam-Durlobactam device. For IVDs like AST systems, the "training" typically refers to the initial development and optimization of the test strip's design, antimicrobial gradient, and manufacturing process to reliably produce specific drug concentrations and diffusion patterns. This is primarily a chemical and engineering development process, not a machine learning training process with a distinct data set. The 588 isolates discussed are for the performance validation (test set) rather than initial model training.

9. How Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

As noted above, a distinct "training set" and associated "ground truth establishment" in the machine learning sense are not described for this type of medical device. The "ground truth" for the performance validation was established by the CLSI broth microdilution reference method. For the initial development and optimization phase of such a device, the "ground truth" would implicitly be the accurate and precise measurement of drug concentration gradients and their biological effect on various bacterial strains, guided by established AST principles and drug properties.

Ask a specific question about this device

The KLS Martin Ixos system is indicated for use in forearm fractures, osteotomies, and arthrodeses. This system is intended for adults, as well as adolescents (12-21 years) and children (2-12 years) in which growth plates have fused or in which growth plates will not be crossed by fixation.

The KLS Martin Ixos System consists of metallic plates used in conjunction with bone screws and locking pins intended for the internal fixation, alignment, stabilization, and reconstruction of the distal radius and/or ulna. Plates are manufactured from Ti-6Al-4V and are available in various shapes and dimensions. The system also includes the necessary instruments to facilitate placement of the implants. The manufacturing process, sterilization methods, materials and packaging are identical to those of the cleared predicate device, KLS Martin LINOS Wrist System (K222624).

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the KLS Martin Ixos System does not contain the information requested regarding acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets those criteria for an AI/software device.

This document describes a metallic bone fixation appliance, not a software or AI medical device. The "Non-Clinical and/or Clinical Tests Summary & Conclusions" section explicitly states "Clinical Performance Data: Not Applicable" and details mechanical performance testing (in accordance with ASTM F382) and MR compatibility testing (per various ASTM standards). These are standard tests for orthopedic implants to demonstrate their static and dynamic strength, and safety in an MRI environment.

Therefore, I cannot extract the following information as it is not present in the provided text:

• A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance (for AI/software).
• Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance
• Number of experts used to establish the ground truth
• Adjudication method
• If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done
• If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
• The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc)
• The sample size for the training set
• How the ground truth for the training set was established

The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate orthopedic implants based on:

• Same intended use/indications for use.
• Similar technological characteristics: manufactured from the same materials (Ti-6Al-4V), using the same manufacturing methods, and having similar principles of operation.
• Performance data: Non-clinical comparative static and dynamic mechanical performance testing against a secondary predicate (Stryker VariAx 2 distal radius plates) and MR compatibility testing.

In summary, the provided document is a 510(k) clearance for a physical medical device (bone plate system), not an AI/software device, and thus does not include the type of performance evaluation details (e.g., ground truth, reader studies, training data) relevant to AI/software.

Ask a specific question about this device

The WinForth is intended to provide topical heating for the purpose of elevating tissue temperature for the treatment of selected medical conditions such as relief of pain, muscle spasms, and increase in local circulation.

The WinForth massage device is intended to provide a temporary reduction in the appearance of cellulite.

Not Found

I am sorry, but the provided text from the FDA 510(k) Clearance Letter for the WinForth (LM-E470KA) device does not contain any information regarding acceptance criteria or the details of a study that proves the device meets such criteria.

The document primarily focuses on:

• The FDA's decision of substantial equivalence to predicate devices.
• General regulatory requirements for the device (e.g., quality system, labeling, adverse event reporting, UDI).
• The intended indications for use of the device.

There is no mention of:

• Specific performance metrics (e.g., accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, or technical performance parameters)
• A trial or study design.
• Sample sizes for test or training sets.
• Number or qualifications of experts.
• Ground truth establishment or type.
• MRMC studies or effect sizes.
• Standalone algorithm performance.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request to describe the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them based on the provided text. This type of detailed study information is typically found in the applicant's 510(k) submission summary or a separate clinical/performance study report, not in the FDA clearance letter itself.

Ask a specific question about this device

The AltiVate Reverse® Shoulder Prosthesis is indicated as a reverse shoulder replacement for patients with a functional deltoid muscle and a grossly deficient rotator cuff joint suffering from pain and dysfunction due to:

• Severe arthropathy with a grossly deficient rotator cuff;
• Previously failed joint replacement with a grossly deficient rotator cuff;
• Fracture of glenohumeral joint from trauma or pathologic conditions of the shoulder including humeral head fracture, displaced 3- or 4-part fractures of proximal humerus, or reconstruction after tumor resection;
• Bone defect in proximal humerus;
• Non-inflammatory degenerative disease including osteoarthritis and avascular necrosis of the natural humeral head and/or glenoid;
• Inflammatory arthritis including rheumatoid arthritis;
• Correction of functional deformity.

The glenoid baseplate is intended for cementless application with addition of screws for fixation. This device may also be indicated in the salvage of previously failed surgical attempts for anatomic and hemi procedures.

All RSP® Monoblock and AltiVate Reverse® humeral stems are intended for cemented or cementless use.

This 510(k) submission proposes updated Surgical Technique within labeling, to reflect alternative reaming method to prepare the glenoid surface for the AltiVate Reverse Glenoid wedge baseplate. The alternative technique does not replace the original technique; it adds a secondary method for the user. There are no changes to the design, materials, function, or intended use of the devices, and no new implants or instruments are introduced.

This 510(k) clearance letter is for a medical device (AltiVate Reverse® Glenoid), specifically a shoulder joint prosthesis, not an AI/ML-based device. The provided text details the regulatory clearance for the device itself and a minor update to its surgical technique within labeling.

Therefore, the input does not contain the information necessary to describe acceptance criteria and a study proving an AI/ML device meets them as requested in the prompt. The document describes a physical device, not a software or AI algorithm.

Here's why the prompt cannot be answered with the provided text:

• No mention of AI/ML or Software: The entire document refers to a "shoulder joint metal/polymer semi-constrained cemented prosthesis," a physical implant. There is no mention of algorithms, artificial intelligence, machine learning, image analysis, diagnostics, or any other software-based function.
• Performance Testing: The "Performance Testing" section states, "Design Control and Verification and Validation Activities performed, demonstrates substantial equivalence between the subject and predicate devices and did not raise different questions of safety and effectiveness." This refers to traditional engineering and biomechanical testing for a physical implant, not the evaluation of an AI model's performance on data.
• Acceptance Criteria for AI: The prompt specifically asks for acceptance criteria related to AI performance (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, AUC) and details about a study evaluating an AI model (test set size, ground truth, expert review, MRMC studies). None of this information is relevant or present in the provided 510(k) letter for a physical orthopedic implant.

In summary, the provided FDA 510(k) letter is for a physical medical device and does not contain any information about the acceptance criteria or study data for an AI/ML-based device.

Ask a specific question about this device

Diazyme Colorimetric Lithium Assay kit is for quantitative in vitro determination of lithium in human serum or EDTA plasma. Measurements of lithium are carried out to ensure that proper drug dosage is administered in the treatment of patient suffering from bipolar disorder and to avoid toxicity.

Not Found

This document is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the Diazyme Colorimetric Lithium Assay. It formally grants permission to market the device based on a determination of substantial equivalence to predicate devices. However, this document does not contain the detailed study information regarding acceptance criteria and performance data.

The letter primarily covers:

• Confirmation of 510(k) review and clearance.
• The trade/device name, regulation number/name, regulatory class, and product code.
• General controls and additional regulations applicable to the device (e.g., Quality System regulation, UDI rule, MDR).
• Contact information for FDA resources.
• The "Indications for Use" statement for the device.

To answer your specific questions, one would typically need access to the 510(k) submission document itself, specifically the performance data sections. The provided FDA letter is the clearance notice, not the supporting technical file.

Therefore, I cannot provide the information requested in your prompt based solely on the provided FDA clearance letter. The letter confirms that a review was done and clearance granted, implying that the device did meet acceptance criteria demonstrated in the submission, but it does not detail those criteria or the study results.

To answer your questions, I would need a different document, such as the actual 510(k) application's test report or a summary of safety and effectiveness data (SSE) that outlines the performance studies.

Ask a specific question about this device

The TSK Syringe is a low dead volume syringe intended for use in patients that need injection and withdrawal of substances for examination, treatment, diagnosis or prevention.

The TSK Syringe is a syringe intended for use with a needle to inject or withdraw substances, for general use. The TSK Syringe leaves a low volume of fluid when the plunger is fully depressed.

There are two model numbers for the TSK Syringe. The technological differences are as follows:

The provided text is a 510(k) Clearance Letter and 510(k) Summary for the TSK Syringe. It details the device's characteristics, indications for use, and a comparison to a predicate device. However, it does not contain the specific information required to answer your request about acceptance criteria and a study proving device performance in the context of an AI/human reader study.

This document describes a physical medical device (syringe), not a software or AI-powered medical device that would involve AI performance metrics, human reader studies, ground truth establishment, or training/test set sample sizes in the way you've outlined.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information from this document. The details about acceptance criteria and study design for AI-based performance evaluation are not present.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Medical Diode Laser Hair Removal Device (PZ-606VI, PZ-BDT68-01, PZ-BDT68-02, PZ-BDT68-03, PZ-BDT68-04) is intended for hair removal, permanent hair reduction on all skin types (Fitzpatrick skin type I-VI), including tanned skin.

Permanent hair reduction is defined as the long-term, stable reduction in the number of hairs regrowing when measured at 6, 9, and 12 months after the completion of a treatment regime.

The proposed device, Medical Diode Laser Hair Removal Device (PZ-606VI、PZ-BDT68-01、PZ-BDT68-02、PZ-BDT68-03、PZ-BDT68-04), is a surgical device, which is intended for hair removal, permanent hair reduction on all skin types (Fitzpatrick skin type I-VI);

The device incorporates a diode laser that emits invisible infrared laser radiation centered on a wavelength of 808 nm. According to the selective light absorption theory, the laser can be preferentially absorbed by the melanin in the hair follicle, thus achieving the purpose of permanent hair removal. Permanent hair reduction is defined as the long-term, stable reduction in the number of hairs regrowing when measured at 6, 9, and 12 months after the completion of a treatment regime. Hair growth must remain stable for a certain amount of time and must exceed the entire growth cycle of the hair follicle. Permanent hair removal does not mean that all hair in the treated area is completely lost. Special cooling technology is applied simultaneously during treatment to cool the skin and protect skin.

There are 5 models included, PZ-606VI, PZ-BDT68-01, PZ-BDT68-02, PZ-BDT68-03 and PZ-BDT68-04, the five models have the same intended use, mechanism of action and principle, only the minimum values of energy density and pulse duration are different.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter and synopsis are for a Medical Diode Laser Hair Removal Device. This document is a regulatory submission for a physical medical device, not an AI/software as a medical device (SaMD). Therefore, the information requested in your prompt regarding acceptance criteria and studies for AI/SaMD (e.g., sample size for test/training sets, data provenance, expert adjudication, MRMC studies, standalone performance, ground truth establishment) is not applicable to this device submission.

The document describes the device, its intended use, a comparison to a predicate device, and the non-clinical tests performed to demonstrate substantial equivalence for a hardware device. It explicitly states: "No clinical study is included in this submission."

Therefore, I cannot provide a table of AI acceptance criteria or details about AI-specific studies as requested, because this information is not present in the provided document and is not relevant to the type of device being cleared.

However, I can extract the acceptance criteria and performance information that is relevant to this type of physical device, based on the non-clinical testing mentioned:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (Non-Clinical for a Physical Device)

Regarding the AI/SaMD specific questions from your prompt:

1. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable. No AI/SaMD test set described.
2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. No AI/SaMD ground truth described.
3. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable.
4. 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.
5. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable.
6. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): Not applicable.
7. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable.
8. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

For the quantitative determination of fibrinogen, based on the Clauss method, in human citrated plasma on IL Coagulation Systems.

Several congenital abnormalities of fibrinogen result in impaired conversion of fibrinogen to fibrin during blood coagulation. Fibrinogen is also a useful marker in the evaluation of several disease states including disseminated intravascular coagulation, liver disease, inflammatory diseases and malignancy. High levels of fibrinogen are associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular disease. Increased levels are also found during pregnancy and oral contraceptive use, while reduced levels are found during thrombolytic therapy.

The HemosIL Fibrinogen-C kit and HemosIL Fibrinogen-C XL kit use an excess of thrombin to convert fibrinogen to fibrin in diluted plasma. At high thrombin and low fibrinogen concentration, the rate of reaction is a function of fibrinogen concentration.

This document, an FDA 510(k) clearance letter for HemosIL Fibrinogen-C and HemosIL Fibrinogen-C XL, does not contain the information requested in your prompt regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving the device meets those criteria.

The 510(k) summary clearly states:

• Reason for Submission: "This Special 510(k) is being submitted to remove the reconstituted reagent frozen stability claim of 1 month at -20°C in the original vial for HemosIL Fibrinogen-C and HemosIL Fibrinogen-C XL."
• Data Requirement: "No new performance data are needed to remove the reconstituted reagent frozen stability claim."
• No new performance claims: "Changes to labeled performance claims, except to remove the reconstituted reagent frozen stability claim from the Instructions for Use and add 'Do not freeze reconstituted reagent.'"

Therefore, the document explicitly states that no new performance data or studies were required or submitted for this particular 510(k) clearance. The clearance is based on a minor labeling change related to reagent stability, not on new performance validation.

To provide the information you requested (acceptance criteria, study details, sample sizes, expert involvement, ground truth, etc.), you would need a different type of submission document, such as an original 510(k) application or a PMA, where initial and comprehensive performance validation studies are typically included.

Ask a specific question about this device