Search Results

Luer lock plug for capping male or female luer tapers for hemodialysis catheters.

The Medcomp® End cap is non-vented plastic cap with a male luer. The end connects directly to the female luer of the catheter.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for a medical device called "End Cap". It details the device's description, indications for use, comparison to a predicate device, and performance data for demonstrating substantial equivalence.

However, the questions you've asked are specifically about the acceptance criteria and study proving the device meets acceptance criteria for an AI/ML-enabled medical device. The provided document is for a physical medical device (luer lock plug) and does not involve AI or machine learning. Therefore, the questions related to AI/ML device performance (e.g., sample size for test/training sets, experts for ground truth, MRMC study, standalone performance) are not applicable to the content of this document.

The document discusses performance testing (bench testing) to ensure the physical device meets relevant standards, but this is different from the type of performance evaluation required for an AI/ML diagnostic or predictive device.

Here's how I can address the applicable parts of your request based on the provided document, interpreting "acceptance criteria" in the context of a physical device's regulatory submission:

The "acceptance criteria" for this device's submission revolves around demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device by meeting recognized consensual standards for physical device performance and biocompatibility.

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

For a physical device like the End Cap, acceptance criteria are typically defined by compliance with recognized international standards (ISO standards in this case) and demonstrating safe and effective performance. The "reported device performance" is essentially that the device passed these tests, confirming its compliance.

Important Note: The document states that the testing was performed and the device "met" the requirements. It doesn't provide specific numerical results or raw data for these tests, as is typical for a 510(k) summary (which summarizes the full testing report).

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

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated for each test, but typically these tests involve a specific number of units of the device as defined by the standards themselves or internal quality protocols.
• Data Provenance: The testing was "Bench/Performance Data/Non-Clinical Testing" and "Biocompatibility evaluation." This implies laboratory testing performed by or for the manufacturer (Medcomp®, located in Harleysville, PA, USA). This is prospective testing, as it's specifically conducted to support the regulatory submission.

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. For a physical device, "ground truth" is established by adherence to engineering specifications and international standards, measured by calibrated equipment and qualified lab personnel, not clinical experts interpreting images or diagnostic data.

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

Not applicable. This is for AI/ML model output, not physical device performance testing.

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/ML diagnostic tool.

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

Not applicable. This is a physical device, not an algorithm.

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

For this physical device, the "ground truth" is adherence to the specifications outlined in the ISO standards, which define acceptable functional performance (e.g., specific force required, leak rate, biocompatibility). Compliance is measured mechanically or chemically, not via clinical or expert assessment of "truth" in a diagnostic sense.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This is a physical device, not an AI/ML model.

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

Not applicable. This is a physical device, not an AI/ML model.

In summary, the provided document pertains to a traditional physical medical device and therefore the acceptance criteria and study methods are fundamentally different from those for an AI/ML-enabled device. The "study" proving the device meets acceptance criteria is the successful completion of the specified bench testing and biocompatibility assessments in accordance with recognized standards, demonstrating the device's substantial equivalence to its predicate.

Ask a specific question about this device