Search Results

The Sterile Powder Free Synthetic Rubber Surgeon's Gloves, Green Color, Tested For Use With Chemotherapy Drugs and Gastric Acid is a single use disposable device intended to be worn by operating room personnel to protect a surgical wound from contamination.

The tested drugs are:

Simulated Gastric Acid Fluid was also tested with a minimum breakthrough greater than 240 minutes.

Sterile Powder Free Synthetic Rubber Surgeon's Gloves, Green Color, Tested For Use With Chemotherapy Drugs and Gastric Acid is a sterile and disposable device. This glove is made of synthetic polyisoprene rubber inside coated with synthetic material to ease donning the glove. The device is intended to be worn on hands, usually in surgical settings, to provide a barrier against potentially infectious materials and other contaminants. These gloves were tested for use with Chemotherapy Drugs and Gastric Acid as per ASTM D6978-05 Standard Practice for Assessment of Medical Gloves to Permeation by Chemotherapy Drugs.

The device conforms to the following FDA recognized consensus standards: ASTM D3577-19, ASTM D6124-06, ASTM D5151-19, ASTM D412-16, ISO 11137-1:2006 + AMD1:2013 + AMD2:2018, ISO 11137-2:2013 + AMD1:2022, and ASTM D6978-05.

Sterile Powder Free Synthetic Rubber Surgeon's Gloves, Green Color, Tested For Use With Chemotherapy Drugs and Gastric Acid is available in the following sizes: 5.5, 6.0, 6.5, 7.0, 7.5, 8.0, 8.5, and 9.0.

The provided document is a 510(k) clearance letter from the FDA for a medical device: "Sterile Powder Free Synthetic Rubber Surgeon's Gloves, Green Color, Tested For Use With Chemotherapy Drugs and Gastric Acid." This document outlines the general requirements for the device and details the non-clinical testing performed to establish substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

However, it does not contain any information regarding clinical studies, AI/ML device performance, or human-in-the-loop studies. The device is a physical medical glove and not an AI-powered diagnostic or assistive tool. Therefore, the requested information elements related to AI/ML and clinical study methodologies are not applicable to this submission.

The document focuses on demonstrating the physical, chemical, and biological safety and performance of the gloves according to recognized consensus standards.

Here's the relevant information that can be extracted:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The device underwent non-clinical testing against several recognized standards. The "Results" column consistently states "PASS," indicating that the device met the specified acceptance criteria for each test.

Chemotherapy Drug Permeation Results:

Warning: Carmustine: 15.8 minutes and Thiotepa: 24.6 minutes. Do not use with Carmustine and Thiotepa.

Summary of Study Information (Not Applicable for this Device Type)

The provided document describes a Class I medical device (Sterile Powder Free Synthetic Rubber Surgeon's Gloves) which is a physical product, not a software device or an AI/ML-driven system. Therefore, the following requested information points related to AI/ML device performance and clinical study methodologies are not applicable. The submission primarily relied on non-clinical (bench) testing to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective): Not applicable, as this is a physical device tested via non-clinical laboratory methods according to recognized standards (e.g., ASTM, ISO). The specific sample sizes for each non-clinical test (e.g., number of gloves for tensile strength, number of samples for permeation, number of animals for biocompatibility) are part of the detailed test reports but are not summarized in this FDA summary document. Data provenance details like country of origin for test materials or retrospective/prospective nature are not specified as they are not relevant for this type of non-clinical testing.
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. "Ground truth" in the context of expert consensus is typically relevant for diagnostic AI/ML devices interpreting medical images or other complex data. For gloves, "ground truth" is established by adherence to quantitative physical, chemical, and biological performance standards.
4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable. Adjudication methods are used in clinical trials or expert review panels, not for standard physical/chemical testing of a device like a glove.
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. This device is not an AI system nor does it involve human readers.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done: Not applicable. This device is not an algorithm.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): For this device, the "ground truth" is adherence to the specified performance criteria defined by the listed consensus standards (e.g., ASTM D3577 for physical properties, ASTM D6978 for chemotherapy permeation, ISO 10993 for biocompatibility). These standards define acceptable quantitative limits or qualitative responses (e.g., "not an irritant").
8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. This device does not involve a "training set" as it is not an AI/ML device.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable. This device does not involve a "training set."

Conclusion:

The FDA document K250313 confirms the clearance of sterile surgeon's gloves based on their adherence to established non-clinical performance and safety standards, including physical properties, sterility, and resistance to chemotherapy drugs and gastric acid. The document explicitly states that "[a] clinical study was not conducted in support of this submission." The questions related to AI/ML, clinical study designs, expert ground truth, and training data are not relevant to this specific device submission.

Ask a specific question about this device

"It is a motor driven, indoor and outdoor transportation vehicle with the intended use to provide mobility to a disabled or elderly person limited to a seated position."

The product is a Mobility Scooter which provides transport for the disabled and the elderly and to be used both indoors and outdoors.

This scooter is a battery powered four wheeled vehicle. It consists two Lead-acid batteries (in the battery box) with an off-board battery charger, frame, a seat, a back support, control panel (including the key switch, throttle control lever, horn button, speed adjustment dial, and the battery condition meter), two foldable handles, two rear drive wheels with motor/ e-magnetic brake components, two front wheels, anti-tip devices, an external battery charger, a control panel and a motor controller. For convenience of transportation and reduction of possible damage, the battery and the seat unit can be dismantled and separately packaged.

The front wheels of the scooter are 8 inches and the rear wheels are 9 inches.
The motor of the scooter is 24VDC,150W,4200RPM; the Lead-acid Battery is 12 V, 22 Ah, 18.7 Ah; the charger is 24V/2A.
Max. loading cannot be over than 180kg.
The maximum distance travelled with a fully charged battery is 17.5km and the maximum forward speed is 1.6m/s(5.8km/h).
Braking time is less than 2 seconds, braking distance is ≤1.0 meters.

This document is an FDA 510(k) Clearance Letter for a Mobility Scooter (MS160C). It is not an AI/ML medical device, and therefore does not contain the information typically associated with studies proving the performance of an AI/ML algorithm.

The request asks for details like "sample size used for the test set," "number of experts used to establish ground truth," "adjudication method," "MRMC comparative effectiveness study," and "standalone performance," which are specific to the evaluation of AI/ML software. This information is irrelevant to a physical device like a mobility scooter.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information as it is not present in the provided document. The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device through non-clinical performance and safety testing against established standards (ISO, IEC).

Here's why each point in your request cannot be answered based on the provided text:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: While the document lists performance characteristics in "Table 2 - Performance Comparison", these are not presented as "acceptance criteria" in the sense of accuracy/sensitivity/specificity targets for an AI algorithm. Instead, they are comparisons to a predicate device and compliance with established ISO standards. I can extract performance characteristics, but not "acceptance criteria" for an AI model.
2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable. This refers to data for an AI model. The mobility scooter underwent physical product testing.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. Ground truth and expert review are for AI model validation.
4. Adjudication method: Not applicable. Adjudication is for resolving discrepancies in AI model output or expert readings.
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. MRMC studies are for evaluating AI's impact on human performance in diagnostic tasks.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done: Not applicable. This device is a physical product, not an algorithm.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert concensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc): Not applicable. "Ground truth" is a concept for AI model training and validation.
8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. This refers to data for an AI model.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable. This refers to data for an AI model.

However, I can extract information related to the device's performance testing based on the provided document:

Study that proves the device meets requirements (Non-Clinical Testing):

The study was a series of non-clinical tests conducted to verify that the proposed device (Mobility Scooter MS160C) met all design specifications and was substantially equivalent (SE) to the predicate device (Mobility Scooter Model: W3468, K220207).

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria (as reported performance against standards, not AI-specific criteria) and the Reported Device Performance:

The document describes compliance with various ISO and IEC standards as the basis for demonstrating safety and effectiveness. The "acceptance criteria" are implied by adherence to these standards, and the "reported performance" is demonstrated by the test results confirming this compliance.

Key Performance Characteristics (from Table 2 - Performance Comparison):

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

• Sample Size: The document does not specify the number of units tested. For physical device performance testing against standards, it's common to test a representative number of units, but this specific number is not provided in the summary.
• Data Provenance: The tests are non-clinical, meaning they were conducted in a laboratory or controlled setting, presumably as part of the manufacturer's (Suzhou Master Machinery Manufacturing Co., Ltd., China) quality assurance and regulatory submission process. There is no mention of data from human subjects or specific geographical origin for "data provenance" in the sense of patient data.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:

• Not applicable as this is a physical device, not an AI/ML algorithm requiring expert ground truth for diagnostic or similar tasks. The "ground truth" for the device's performance is established by objective measurements against international standards.

4. Adjudication method:

• Not applicable for a physical medical device.

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. This type of study is specific to AI/ML devices interacting with human interpreters.

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

• Not applicable. This is a physical mobility scooter, not an algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used:

• The "ground truth" for the mobility scooter's performance is established by objective measurements and conformance to international performance, safety, and quality standards (e.g., ISO 7176 series, IEC 60601-1-2, ISO 10993 series). This is not an "expert consensus" or "pathology" in the AI/ML context.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable. This device is not an AI/ML algorithm that requires a training set.

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

• Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

Helios+ is a 253.7nm wavelength, high intensity, germicidal UV-C light system intended to perform microbial reduction on non-porous, non-critical medical device surfaces, free from visual soiling, after manual cleaning and disinfection practices. Helios+ is intended for use in unoccupied operating rooms, hospital rooms and other clinical settings where non-critical medical devices are present as an adjunct to existing manual cleaning and disinfection practices. The system is for over-the-counter (OTC) use.

Surfacide Helios+ is a 253.7nm wavelength, high intensity, germicidal UV-C light system intended to perform microbial reduction on non-porous, non-critical medical device surfaces, free from visual soiling, after manual cleaning and disinfection practices. Helios+ is intended for use in unoccupied operating rooms, hospital rooms and other clinical settings where non-critical medical devices are present as an adjunct to existing manual cleaning and disinfection practices.

Helios+ delivers a defined dose to a defined distance and area sufficient for 2-log microbial reduction of vegetative bacteria and Clostridioides difficile spores.

Helios+ is used in operating rooms, hospital rooms, and other clinical settings where non-critical medical devices are present.

Helios+ includes 1-3 UV-C emitters, 1-3 safety sensors, a control tablet, and 2 joiners that link the emitters for transport and serve as warning stands when the device is in use. Simultaneous use of multiple UV-C emitters can reduce shadowed areas by providing multiple direct lines of sight to non-critical medical device surfaces.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the Helios+ UV-C System (K242604) pertains to a whole-room microbial reduction device. This document focuses on the device's technical specifications, non-clinical performance (microbial reduction, safety, materials compatibility, etc.), and a comparison to a predicate device.

Crucially, the document explicitly states under "Non-Clinical Tests Summary" that "CLINICAL TESTING – Non – Applicable."

This means that this device's acceptance criteria and proven performance are based solely on non-clinical (laboratory and simulated use) studies, not on clinical studies involving human patients, human readers, or human interpretation of outputs. Therefore, several of the requested categories related to clinical study design, human expert adjudication, and multi-reader multi-case studies are not applicable to the information provided in this 510(k) summary.

Here's a breakdown of the applicable information based on the provided document:

Acceptance Criteria and Study to Prove Device Meets Criteria for Helios+ UV-C System

The Helios+ UV-C System is a Whole Room Microbial Reduction Device, and its clearance is based on non-clinical performance data demonstrating its ability to reduce microbial load.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: The document does not specify exact numerical sample sizes for each non-clinical test (e.g., number of surfaces tested, number of rooms in in-use testing). It indicates "select bacterial organisms and C. difficile spores" were tested for microbial reduction and "Patient rooms, bathrooms, and operating rooms were sampled" for in-use testing.
• Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin of the data. Given it's an FDA 510(k) submission, the testing would typically be conducted by or for the submitting company, PreventaMed Technologies, Inc., dba Surfacide Manufacturing, Inc., which is based in Waukesha, Wisconsin, United States. The studies are described as non-clinical tests, encompassing lab-based and simulated use environments, rather than prospective or retrospective clinical studies.

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

• Not Applicable. The acceptance criteria and testing for this device are based on objective, quantifiable physical and microbial measurements (e.g., log reduction, ozone levels, material degradation standards, electrical safety standards). There is no "ground truth" established by human experts in a subjective interpretation sense (like radiologists interpreting images).

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not Applicable. As the testing is non-clinical and relies on objective measurements, no adjudication by human experts is described or required.

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

• Not Applicable. No MRMC study was done because the device is a whole-room microbial reduction system, not an AI or imaging device that assists human readers. The document explicitly states "CLINICAL TESTING – Non – Applicable."

6. Standalone Performance

• Yes, in the context of device function. The "Non-Clinical Tests Summary" describes tests of the device's standalone performance in achieving microbial reduction and meeting various safety and performance standards without human intervention beyond operation. For example, "Simulated use performance testing demonstrated microbial log reduction..." and "Performance testing was completed to demonstrate the system will prevent exposure and ensure that device operation can only occur in an unoccupied environment."

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• The ground truth for the non-clinical tests was established through:
  • Microbiological assays: Measuring log reduction of specific bacterial and spore organisms (e.g., on test coupons/surfaces).
  • Physical and Chemical Measurements: Quantifying UV-C dosage, ozone levels, material strength/degradation, electrical parameters.
  • Compliance with Industry Standards: Adherence to established standards like IEC 62471, ISO 4582, ASTM D256-10, ASTM A370-22, IEC 61010-1, IEC 61326-1, and 29 CFR 1910.1000.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not applicable in the typical AI/ML sense. The Helios+ UV-C System is a physical device that performs a function (UV-C disinfection), not a software or AI algorithm that "learns" from a training set of data to make predictions or classifications. Therefore, the concept of a "training set" as it applies to machine learning models is not relevant here. The device's parameters (e.g., UV-C output, cycle times) would be determined through engineering design and optimization based on scientific principles of UV-C disinfection, informed by tests like the optimized kill curve.

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

• Not applicable. As explained above, there is no "training set" in the context of an AI/ML algorithm for this device. The underlying scientific principles for UV-C effectiveness (e.g., wavelength, intensity, exposure time, distance) are well-established. The device's design and operating parameters are based on these principles and validated through the non-clinical tests described.

Ask a specific question about this device

Young Silver Fluoride Hypersensitivity Varnish is indicated for the treatment of dental hypersensitivity in adults. It is intended for professional use only.

Young Silver Fluoride Hypersensitivity Varnish is a formulation of silver, sodium fluoride, chitosan, acetic acid, and purified water intended for the treatment of dental hypersensitivity in adults. It is intended for professional use only.

Like other 510(k) cleared dental hypersensitivity varnishes including the predicate device, the proposed device works by physically occluding dentinal tubules through its silver and fluoride components. It contains small silver particles to facilitate their entry into the dentinal tubules, as well as chitosan and acetic acid to evenly disperse the solution. The product is supplied in a 10mL bottle with a dropper dispensing tip.

One to two drops of the varnish can treat up to 8 sites. If needed, a second application of the varnish may be administered after 1 week.

The provided text describes a 510(k) submission for a dental varnish. This type of submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device rather than undergoing a full clinical efficacy study with acceptance criteria often associated with AI/software medical devices. Therefore, the information needed to answer the questions about acceptance criteria for AI/software device performance is not present in this document.

The document discusses performance testing in a general product development sense (e.g., bench testing, biocompatibility, shelf life) to show the new device performs "as well or better than" the predicate, but these are not the quantitative acceptance criteria for AI model performance (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, AUC) that the prompt is looking for.

Specifically, there is no mention of:

1. Acceptance criteria table for AI performance: The document does not define specific metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy) for an AI model.
2. Study proving device meets acceptance criteria: There is no clinical study described that evaluates an AI model's performance on a test set. The "study" mentioned refers to bench testing (dentinal occlusion, ion release) and biocompatibility for a physical dental varnish.
3. Sample size for a test set or data provenance: No test set of patient data for AI model evaluation is discussed.
4. Number of experts or qualifications for ground truth: No expert review for labeling images/data for AI training or testing is mentioned.
5. Adjudication method for a test set: Not applicable as there's no AI test set.
6. MRMC comparative effectiveness study: No study involving human readers with and without AI assistance is described.
7. Standalone (algorithm only) performance: Not applicable as it's not an AI algorithm.
8. Type of ground truth used: For a physical dental varnish, ground truth would relate to its physical and chemical properties, not diagnostic outcomes based on expert consensus or pathology data for an AI.
9. Sample size for training set, or how its ground truth was established: Not applicable as there's no AI training set.

In conclusion, the provided document does not contain the information requested because it pertains to a chemical dental product (varnish) and its 510(k) clearance based on substantial equivalence, not an AI/software medical device.

Ask a specific question about this device

It is a motor driven, indoor and outdoor transportation vehicle with the intended use to provide mobility to a disabled or elderly person limited to a seated position.

The subject device, Model MS160A scooter is mainly battery-powered and driven by a DC motor, with the speed adjusted by a user-controlled panel.

The motor is driven, and the speed is adjusted by a user-controlled panel and speed knob.

The scooter consists of two folding armrests, a seat cushion, a folding frame, two front wheels, two rear drive wheels with a motor/electromagnetic brake assembly, a rechargeable lithium-ion battery, an off-board battery charger, a control panel, and a motor controller.

The MS160A scooter is designed to provide mobility for people limited to those who walk unchanged or for the elderly.

Folding design: Pull out the seat and backrest fixing pins, push the backrest forward, the seat and backrest fold into each other, release the handlebar locking knob, push the handlebar backward, the handlebar folds down, the whole scooter is folded.

Control panel: Includes speed knob, battery gauge, power key switch, horn button, throttle control lever, headlight switch, charger port, fuse.

Wheel and frame connection method: the motor is connected to the differential, the differential is connected to the frame, the wheels are mounted on both ends of the differential, the motor rotates with the differential, thus driving the scooter.

Frame design:

1. The frame of MS160A is aluminum alloy.
2. The folding mechanism is operated in two ways:
   a. In the non-riding state, pull out the seat fixing pin, push the backrest forward, the seat and backrest can be folded.
   b. Loosen the handlebar locking knob, push the handlebar forward, the handlebar will fold down.

The front wheels of the scooter are 7 inches and the rear wheels are 10 inches.

The motor of the scooter is ST-62D24-120W; the lithium-ion battery is 25.55V 10.4AH; the charger is 24V/2A.

Max. loading cannot be over than 125kg.

The maximum distance travelled with a fully charged battery is 8.2km and the maximum forward speed is 1.8m/s.

Braking time is about 2 seconds, braking distance is ≤1.5 meters.

The provided document (K242982 510(k) Summary for the Mobility Scooter (MS160A)) is a premarket notification to the FDA for a Mobility Scooter. This type of device is a physical product and not typically associated with AI/ML software or studies involving ground truth establishment by experts, multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness studies, or standalone algorithm performance.

Therefore, this document does not contain the information requested regarding acceptance criteria and study proving device meets acceptance criteria related to AI/ML product performance. The studies mentioned primarily confirm the device's compliance with physical safety and performance standards (e.g., ISO 7176 series for wheelchairs, biocompatibility).

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

• Device Type: A mobility scooter is a mechanical device, not imaging or diagnostic software that would rely on AI/ML algorithms to generate results requiring expert consensus or ground truth establishment.
• Study Types: The "non-clinical testing" section details adherence to established ISO standards for physical characteristics like stability, braking, dimensions, and biocompatibility. There is explicitly "No clinical study implemented for the scooter."
• Acceptance Criteria: The "acceptance criteria" for this device are its ability to meet the performance specifications outlined in the ISO standards, and to be "substantially equivalent" to a predicate device based on physical and functional comparisons. These are not acceptance criteria for AI model performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or AUC, which would be relevant for devices that interpret data or images.
• Ground Truth, Experts, Sample Sizes (for AI/ML): These concepts are entirely absent because they are not applicable to the type of device being submitted.

In summary, the provided document is for a physical medical device (mobility scooter) and does not involve AI/ML components or related performance studies that would utilize the concepts of ground truth, expert review, or statistical metrics like sensitivity/specificity for algorithm output.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Evolve DS (delivery system) delivers INOMAX® (nitric oxide for inhalation) therapy gas into the inspiratory limb of the patient breathing circuit in a way that provides a constant concentration of nitric oxide (NO), as set by the user, to the patient throughout the inspired breath. It uses a specially designed Injector Module, which enables tracking of the gas delivery system waveforms and the delivery of a synchronized and proportional dose of NO. It may be used with ventilators and respiratory care devices for which the Evolve DS has been validated. The Evolve DS provides continuous integrated monitoring of inspired NO2 and NO with a comprehensive alarm system. The Evolve DS also provides monitoring and alarms for the drug delivery system.

The Evolve DS incorporates a battery that provides up to 4 hours of uninterrupted NO delivery in the absence of external power. The Evolve DS also incorporates an integrated electronic blender that functions as a backup delivery device to provide an adjustable INOmax dose with user supplied oxygen to a manual resuscitator or gas delivery system. The electronic blender incorporates a separate control and delivery pathway that serves as a redundant mechanism for nitric oxide delivery in the event of a main system fault.

The Evolve DS must only be used in accordance with the indications, warnings and precautions described in the nitric oxide drug packaging inserts and labeling and is indicated for use in term and near-term (>34weeks gestation) neonates with hypoxic respiratory failure associated with clinical or echocardiographic evidence of pulmonary hypertension. The Evolve DS is indicated for a maximum of 14 days use. The primary targeted clinical setting is the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU), and secondary targeted clinical setting is the transport of neonates.

The EVOLVE Nitric Oxide (NO) Delivery System (DS) is used for administration and monitoring of INOMAX (nitric oxide for inhalation). It is comprised of a main delivery device (EVOLVE), an electronic blender (eINOblender) for backup use, and a Cart which holds the EVOLVE as well as INOMAX drug cylinders, an oxygen cylinder and miscellaneous parts.

The EVOLVE Nitric Oxide Delivery System utilizes Technology component technology to deliver Nitric Oxide gas to the patient. The components consist of a main delivery device (EVOLVE), an electronic blender (eINOblender) for backup use, and a Cart which holds the EVOLVE as well as INOMAX drug cylinders, an oxygen cylinder and miscellaneous parts. In this revision of the EVOLVE Nitric Oxide Delivery System, the changes to the device includes the labeling for compatibility with respiratory care devices.

The provided FDA document describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the EVOLVE Nitric Oxide Delivery System. This submission is for an updated version of a previously cleared device (K240410 and K222930), primarily focusing on expanded labeling for compatibility with additional ventilator and breathing devices.

Therefore, the document does not contain information about acceptance criteria and a study that proves the device meets those criteria in the context of device performance, as it pertains to a labeling update for compatibility. Clinical studies were explicitly stated as "not applicable to this submission."

Here's a breakdown of what can be extracted based on your request, and what cannot:

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

This information is not provided in the document. The filing is for a change in labeling for compatibility with more ventilator devices, not for demonstrating new performance criteria for the core device. It implicitly relies on the original clearance for the device's performance specifications.

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

• Sample size for test set: Not explicitly stated as a numerical value for patients or cases. The "test set" in this context refers to the additional ventilator and breathing devices with which compatibility was tested.
• Data Provenance: The testing was "conducted across all platforms to demonstrate that the EVOLVE Nitric Oxide Delivery System performs within published specifications." This suggests laboratory or bench testing rather than clinical data from a specific geographic region or a prospective/retrospective study on human subjects.

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 provided. The testing described is focused on the device's functional performance and compatibility with other medical equipment, not on clinical interpretations that would require expert consensus for ground truth.

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

This information is not provided, as the nature of the "test set" does not involve clinical judgment requiring adjudication.

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/provided. The device described is a nitric oxide delivery system, not an AI-assisted diagnostic or therapeutic device that would involve human readers or image interpretation.

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

This information is not applicable/provided for the same reasons as above. The device doesn't involve an algorithm in the sense of AI for diagnostic or interpretive tasks.

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

The "ground truth" for the compatibility testing appears to be the published specifications of the EVOLVE Nitric Oxide Delivery System and the functional operation of the connected ventilator devices. The testing aimed to demonstrate that the EVOLVE system "performs within published specifications" when used with the additional ventilators.

8. The sample size for the training set:

This is not applicable/provided. The submission is not for a machine learning or AI-based device that would typically have a training set.

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

This is not applicable/provided.

Summary of what is available from the document:

• Device Name: EVOLVE Nitric Oxide Delivery System
• Purpose of Submission: Updated labeling for compatibility with additional ventilator and breathing devices.
• Testing Conducted: "Ventilator / Gas Delivery System Validation Test Protocol" was used to validate hazard mitigation and demonstrate performance within published specifications across various ventilator platforms. This was the same protocol used in previous clearances (K222930 and K240410).
• Clinical Studies: Explicitly stated as "not applicable to this submission."
• Predicate Device: EVOLVE Nitric Oxide Delivery System (K240410). The current device is considered substantially equivalent.

In conclusion, the supplied document does not describe the types of performance studies (e.g., diagnostic accuracy, clinical effectiveness) and associated acceptance criteria that would typically involve many of the points in your request. Instead, it focuses on technical compatibility validation for a medical device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Grass MR Conditional/CT Cup Electrodes and Arrays are intended for use in the recording of the Electroencephalogram (EEG), the evoked potential (EP), or as a ground and reference in an EEG or EP recording.

This device is non-sterile for Single Patient Use Only and may remain on the patient in an MRI or CT environment under specific conditions.

Grass® MR Conditional/CT Cup Electrodes are for surface monitoring EEG, electromyogenic and physiologic data signals commonly recorded on the chest, extremities, head and faces of patients. Grass® MR Conditional/CT Array Cup Electrodes are also used in electrocardiography, evoked potentials, and polysomnography. The Grass® MR Conditional/CT Array Cup Electrodes are MR conditional/CT. The included extension cables are MR/CT Unsafe.

The Operating Principle and technological characteristics of the Grass MR Conditional Cup Electrodes are identical to the predicate device (K171102), with a few dimensional and material modifications that have been assessed to be equivalent to the predicate and therefore do not affect the fundamental scientific technology, safety, or effectiveness of the device (reference Substantial Equivalence of Technological Characteristics table, below). The test methods were identical to those used to assess the predicate device.

The provided text describes the 510(k) premarket notification for the Grass® MR Conditional/CT Cup Electrodes. This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than presenting a study proving a device meets specific acceptance criteria for AI/ML performance. As such, many of the requested details regarding AI/ML device performance studies (e.g., sample sizes for test/training sets, expert consensus for ground truth, MRMC studies, standalone performance) are not applicable or present in this specific regulatory submission.

The document primarily details the physical and functional characteristics of the electrodes and their compliance with safety standards and predicate device equivalency, particularly concerning MR conditional features.

However, I can extract the closest applicable information related to "acceptance criteria" and "device performance" based on the provided text, interpreting "performance" in the context of the device's electrical and physical properties as assessed for medical device regulatory submission.

Here's an attempt to fill in the table and answer the questions based on the provided non-AI/ML medical device submission:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (Non-AI/ML Device)

Ask a specific question about this device

NCB® Polyaxial Locking Plate System:
The NCB Polyaxial Locking Plate System is indicated for temporary internal fixation and stabilization of distal femoral (NCB DF), proximal humeral (NCB PH), and proximal tibial (NCB PT) fractures and osteotomies.

NCB® Periprosthetic Femur Plate System:
The NCB Periprosthetic Femur Plate System is indicated for temporary internal fixation and stabilization of femoral fractures and osteotomies, including periprosthetic fractures.

If combined with the NCB Periprosthetic Trochanter Plate and Connection Screw, the NCB Periprosthetic Proximal Femur Plate is additionally indicated for temporary internal fixation and stabilization of greater trochanter fractures and osteotomies including re-attachment of the greater trochanter following fracture and osteotomy in total hip arthroplasty.

The NCB Periprosthetic Trochanter Plate and Connection Screw can only be used in combination with the NCB Periprosthetic Proximal Femur Plate.

NCB® Cable Button:
The NCB Cable Button for the NCB Polyaxial Locking Plate System in combination with the Zimmer Biomet NCB Polyaxial Locking Plate System and Cable-Ready System Cerclage Cables is indicated for temporary internal fixation of fractures and osteotomies.

NCB® Straight Narrow Shaft Plate
The NCB Straight Narrow Shaft Plate is indicated for temporary internal fixation and stabilization of humeral and tibial shaft fractures and osteotomies, including periprosthetic fractures.

NCB® Polyaxial Locking Plate System
The NCB (Non-Contact-Bridging) Polyaxial Locking Plate System is a plate solution intended for the treatures and osteotomies of the distal femur (NCB DF), proximal humerus (NCB PH) and proximal tibia (NCB PT). NCB plate holes allow for polyaxial screw placement (30° cone) with subsequent screw locking, the screws can act as lag screws and be used for fracture reduction. In the locked mode, the plates act as an internal fixator without contact between the plate and the risk of periosteal blood supply impairment.

An additional extension tuberculum minus plate can be assembled to the humeral plate with cerclage wire technique for fixation of anteroposterior (AP) tuberculum minus fractures. NCB femoral, humeral and tibial plates, cortical, cancellous and cannulated screws, locking cap, blind screw inserts and spacers are made from titanium alloy Protasul®-64 (Ti-6Al-4V - ISO 5832-3/ASTM F136). The tuberculum minus plate is made from cpTi (ISO 5832-2/ASTM F67), cortical screws from titanium alloy Protasul-100 (Ti-6Al-7Nb ISO 5832-11/ASTM F1295) and the cerclage wire from 1.4441 stainless steel Protasul-S (ISO 5832-1/ASTM F138-F139).

NCB® Periprosthetic Femur Plate System
The NCB (Non-Contact-Bridging) Periprosthetic Femur Plate System is a line of polyaxial locking plates for the treatment of femoral fractures, particularly of periprosthetic femoral fractures. The system consists of Proximal Femur Plates, Curved Shaft Plates, Trochanter Plates and a Connection Screw. The NCB System technology allows for polyaxial screw placement (30° cone) with screw locking achieved with the use of locking caps that are threaded into the locked mode the NCB Periprosthetic Plate acts as an internal fixator without contact between the bone suface, reducing the risk of periosteal blood supply impairment. This Non-Contact Bridging concept can be specifically controlled through the use of 1, 2, or 3 mm spacers, which are threaded into the plate holes prior to plate insertion.

Additionally, within this system, the NCB Periprosthetic Trochanter Plates used in combination with the NCB Periprosthetic Proximal Femur Plates for the treatment of proximal femoral fractures, which includes greater trochanter fractures and osteotomies. The Connection Screw for NCB Periprosthetic Trochanter Plate is used to attach the Proximal Femur Plate. The NCB Periprosthetic Trochanter Plates contain threaded conical holes which allow for monoaxial screw placement using locking screws with threaded heads. Non-locking cortical screws can also be used.

The NCB Periprosthetic Proximal Femur Plates are available in five lengths (Length=245mm, 324mm, 363mm, 401mm) which can be used either as standalone implants or in combination with the NCB Periprosthetic Trochanter Plates. The NCB Periprosthetic Proximal Femur Plate short (Length=115 mm) is used only in combination with the NCB Periprosthetic Trochanter Plates. The NCB Curved Shaft Plates are also included in the NCB Periprosthetic Femur Plate System and are specifically designed for the femur. The Proximal Femur Plates, Distal Femur Plates, Trochanter Plates and Connection Screw are made of a titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V (Protasul®-64WF) ISO 5832-3).

NCB Cable Button for NCB Polyaxial Locking Plate
The NCB (Non-Contact-Bridging) Cable Button for NCB Polyaxial Locking Plate is a temporary internal fixation component used in conjunction with Zimmer Biomet NCB Polyaxial Locking Plate System Cerclage Cables. The Cable Button is threaded into a vacant screw hole of the Zimmer Biomet NCB Polyaxial Locking Plate System and provides a positioning point for a Cerclage Cable.

The Cable Button is made of titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V (Protasul®-64WF) ISO 5832-3) and has a color anodization (Type III).

NCB Straight Narrow Shaft Plate
The NCB (Non-Contact-Bridging) Straight Narrow Shaft Plate is a line of polyaxial locking plates for the treatment of humeral and tibial shaft fractures, including periprosthetic fractures. The NCB System technology allows for polyaxial screw placement (30° cone) with screw locking achieved with the use of locking caps that are threaded into the locked mode the NCB Straight Narrow Shaft Plate acts as an internal fixator without contact between the plate and the risk of periosteal blood supply impairment. This Non-Contact-Bridging concept can be specifically controlled through the use of 1, 2, or 3 mm spacers, which are threaded into the plate holes prior to plate insertion.

The NCB Straight Narrow Shaft Plate is made of Titanium alloy [Ti6Al4V (Protasul®-64WF) ISO 5832-3].

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and study for the NCB® Polyaxial Locking Plate System and related devices.

Based on the provided FDA 510(k) summary, this submission is for a medical device (bone fixation plates), not an AI/software device. Therefore, many of the requested categories related to AI/software performance metrics, ground truth, expert adjudication, and MRMC studies are not applicable.

This document describes a substantial equivalence submission for metal bone fixation implants. The "acceptance criteria" and "device performance" in this context refer to mechanical, material, and biocompatibility testing results, not AI model performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or F1-score.

The document states that "Clinical data and conclusions were not needed for this device," and the substantial equivalence determination relies on comparisons to legally marketed predicate devices, along with non-clinical performance testing.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Since this is a mechanical medical device, the "acceptance criteria" are typically defined by recognized standards for mechanical properties, biocompatibility, and sterilization. The "reported device performance" would be the results of testing against those standards.

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

This is not applicable as this is a medical device (bone plate) and not an AI/software device with a "test set" in the computational sense. The "testing" refers to non-clinical mechanical and material tests. No patient data or clinical studies are mentioned.

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

Not applicable. "Ground truth" in the context of AI models does not apply to this type of device.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable.

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. This device is not an AI product.

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

Not applicable. This device is a passive mechanical implant, not an algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

Not applicable. For a mechanical device, performance is evaluated against engineering specifications and industry standards, not "ground truth" derived from expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data in the way an AI system is evaluated.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. This device does not use a training set as it is not an AI/machine learning product.

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

Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

It is a motor driven, indoor and outdoor transportation vehicle with the intended use to provide mobility to a disabled or elderly person limited to a seated position.

This Electric Wheelchairs, modes!: MP201C, is a motor driven, indoor and outdoor transportation vehicle, which a device for assisting action handicapped people and disabled people to move. It is suitable for disabled people with mobility difficulties and elderly people.

The device consists of front wheel, drive wheel, frame, controller, motor, armrest, backrest, seat cushion, seatbelt, pedal, battery box and charger.

The device is powered by Li-ion Battery pack with 24 Km range, which can be recharged by an offboard battery charger that can be plugged into an AC socket outlet (100-240V. 50/60Hz) when the device is not in use.

The patient can activate the controller handle (joystick) to control the speed and direction of the wheelchair movement. In addition, when the patient releases the joystick, the joystick will return back to the central position and the wheelchair will be automatically stopped soon due to automatic electromagnetic brake system. Once the joystick is activated again move to other position, the wheelchair will be re-energized.

This document details the 510(k) premarket notification for an Electric Wheelchair (models MP201C, MP201L), asserting its substantial equivalence to a predicate device (K220747). The acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets these criteria are primarily based on non-clinical testing against a series of ISO 7176, ISO 10993, and IEC 60601 standards.

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

The acceptance criteria are established by the adherence to various international standards for wheelchairs and medical devices. The reported device performance is indicated by the statement that the test results "meet its design specification" or "comply with the following standards."

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

The document does not explicitly state the sample size for non-clinical tests. It refers to various ISO and IEC standards, implying that the test samples and methods prescribed by these standards were followed. The provenance of the data is not specified in terms of country of origin but is implicitly derived from tests conducted by the manufacturer, Suzhou Master Machinery Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (China). The tests outlined are non-clinical, likely prospective in nature as they involve testing the physical device against performance standards.

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 provided. The ground truth for performance is established by the defined parameters and methodologies within the cited ISO and IEC standards, which are internationally recognized. The compliance of the device with these standards is verified through testing.

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

This information is not applicable to non-clinical device performance testing against established standards. The tests are designed to objectively measure specific 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

No such study was conducted, as this is a physical medical device (electric wheelchair) and not an AI-assisted diagnostic or interpretative tool that would involve human readers.

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

This question is not applicable. The device is an electric wheelchair, not an algorithm.

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

The ground truth for the non-clinical tests is based on pre-defined specifications and international performance standards (ISO, IEC). These standards establish objective metrics and test methods for evaluating the safety and effectiveness of wheelchairs. For example, for "Braking distance $\leq$ 1.5 m," the ground truth is the specified maximum allowed distance according to relevant standards.

8. The sample size for the training set

This is not applicable as this is a physical medical device, not a machine learning or AI model that requires a training set.

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

This is not applicable, as there is no training set for this device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The sterile single use tip cleaner is a single use sterile device intended to be used as an electrosurgical accessory to remove eschar buildup from the tips of electrosurgical cauterization blades during surgical procedures.

The product has 2 sizes: 50mm(L)×50mm(W)×5mm(T) and 50mm(L)×25mm(W)× 5mm(T). The product is composed by a small foam pad with an abrasive surface, and adhesive back layer, which are used to aid in the removal of eschar on electrosurgical blades during surgical procedures. The abrasive surface is made from aluminum oxide 'gravel' with a polyurethane foam base and pressure sensitive adhesive layer containing a barium monofilament for x-ray detection. The adhesive back allows for universal placement and keeps the device in place while the tip of the electrosurgical cauterization device is scratched on the abrasive surface to remove eschar buildup. The product does not come in contact with the patient, is provided sterile and is single-use.

The provided FDA 510(k) summary (K241022) for the Sterile single use tip cleaner (WK800-S10, WK800-S20) does not contain information on how the acceptance criteria were established or details of a study that proves the device meets specific performance criteria related to clinical efficacy.

The document focuses on non-clinical performance testing for physical characteristics and manufacturing-related residuals, primarily to establish substantial equivalence to a predicate device. There is no mention of clinical studies, human reader performance, AI assistance, or related metrics.

Here's an analysis based on the information provided, highlighting what is present and what is absent:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Note: These acceptance criteria are for non-clinical, physical, and manufacturing characteristics, not for clinical performance or diagnostic accuracy.

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

The document specifies "Non-clinical Performance Testing" but does not provide details on the sample size for these tests (e.g., how many units were tested for peel strength or appearance). It also does not mention the data provenance beyond it being conducted by the manufacturer, WickiMed (Huizhou) Medical Equipment Manufacturing Co.,Ltd. in China. Given the nature of these tests, they would be prospective manufacturing quality and material property tests.

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. The tests performed are non-clinical, evaluating physical properties and chemical residuals, not requiring expert clinical interpretation or ground truth establishment in the way a diagnostic imaging device would.

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

Not applicable. This is not a study involving human interpretation or adjudication. The results are from physical measurements and observations against defined specifications.

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. This device is a sterile single-use tip cleaner, an accessory for electrosurgical cauterization. It is a physical medical device, not an AI or software-driven diagnostic or assistive tool. Therefore, an MRMC study or AI assistance is not relevant to its regulatory submission.

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

No. As explained above, this device is not an AI algorithm. The performance tests are for its physical properties and sterility.

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

For the non-clinical tests, the "ground truth" or reference is the predefined technical specifications and standards (e.g., "free from damage, cracking," "peel strength ≥ 2N/CM," "FTO Residual ≤ 4mg/pcs"). These are established engineering and quality control criteria.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. There is no training set mentioned, as this is not a machine learning or AI device.

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

Not applicable, for the same reasons above.

Ask a specific question about this device