Search Results
Found 5 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(160 days)
MolecuLight, Inc.
The MolecuLight i:X is a handheld imaging tool that allows clinicians diagnosing and treating skin wounds, at the point of care, to
(i) View and digitally record images of a wound,
(ii) Measure and digitally record the size of a wound, and
(iii) View and digitally record images of fluorescence emitted from a wound when exposed to an excitation light.
The fluorescence image, when used in combination with clinical signs and symptoms, has been shown to increase the likelihood that clinicians can identify wounds containing bacterial loads >10^4 CFU per gram) as compared to examination of clinical signs and symptoms alone. The MolecuLight i:X device should not be used to rule-out the presence of bacteria in a wound.
The MolecuLight i:X does not diagnose or treat skin wounds.
The MolecuLight i:X Imaging Device is a handheld medical imaging device comprised of a high-resolution color LCD display and touch-sensitive screen with integrated optical and microelectronic components. MolecuLight i:X uses its patented technology to enable real-time standard digital imaging and fluorescence (FL) imaging in wounds and surrounding healthy skin of patients as well as wound area measurements.
The MolecuLight i:X is a handheld imaging tool that helps clinicians identify wounds containing elevated bacterial loads. The provided text outlines the acceptance criteria and the study that supports the device's claims.
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
The provided documentation does not explicitly state "acceptance criteria" as a set of predefined thresholds that the device had to meet for clearance. Instead, it presents performance metrics from a clinical study, which implicitly serve as evidence for addressing the added labeling claims. The key performance metrics are related to the device's ability to guide wound sampling for detecting bacterial burden.
Derived Acceptance Criteria (based on the device's claims and study outcomes) and Reported Device Performance:
Acceptance Criteria (Implicit from device claims) | Reported Device Performance |
---|---|
Clinical Efficacy: Increased likelihood for clinicians to identify wounds with bacterial loads >10^4 CFU/g when using fluorescence imaging vs. clinical signs alone. | Sensitivity to Detect Elevated Bacterial Load ($\ge 10^4$ CFU/g): |
- SoC-guided sample: 87.2% (95% CI: 77.7%, 93.7%)
- FL-guided sample: 98.7% (95% CI: 93.06%, 99.97%)
P-value: P = 0.012 (FL-guided sampling was significantly more sensitive)
Ability to detect a higher number of bacterial species:
- Mean number of species by FL-guided Biopsy: 3.026 (SD 1.667)
- Mean number of species by SoC-guided Biopsy: 2.231 (SD 1.528)
- Difference: 0.795 (SD 1.804)
P-value: P 10^4 CFU per gram" were the key threshold. Pathogen identification was also a part of the ground truth.
- Non-Clinical Testing: The ground truth for demonstrating red fluorescence production for specific bacterial species was based on sub-culturing on Porphyrin Test Agar (PTA) and direct observation of fluorescence using the MolecuLight i:X.
8. The Sample Size for the Training Set
The document primarily discusses a retrospective analysis for clinical validation and in-vitro testing. It does not mention a separate training set size for any specific AI/algorithm development, as the device's core functionality appears to be based on known autofluorescence properties of bacteria rather than a deep learning model trained on large datasets for complex pattern recognition. The study mentioned ([K191371](https://510k.innolitics.com/search/K191371)
) was used to support subsequent claims, implying this may have provided data for initial claims.
9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established
As no explicit training set for a machine learning algorithm is detailed, the method for establishing ground truth for such a set is not provided. The non-clinical testing described involves culturing specific bacterial species to verify their autofluorescent properties, which would serve as a 'ground truth' for the physical principle the device leverages.
Ask a specific question about this device
(30 days)
MolecuLight Inc.
The MolecuLightDX is a handheld imaging tool that allows clinicians diagnosing and treating skin wounds, at the point of care, to
- (i) View and digitally record images of a wound,
- (ii) Measure and digitally record the size of a wound, and
- (iii) View and digitally record images of fluorescence emitted from a wound when exposed to an excitation light.
The fluorescence image, when used in combination with clinical signs and symptoms, has been shown to increase the likelihood that clinicians can identify wounds containing bacterial loads >104 CFU per gram as compared to examination of clinical signs and symptoms alone. The MolecuLightDX device should not be used to rule-out the presence of bacteria in a wound.
The MolecuLightDX does not diagnose or treat skin wounds.
The MolecuLightDX Imaging Device is a handheld medical imaging device comprised of a high-resolution color AMOLED display and touch-sensitive screen with integrated optical and microelectronic components. MolecuLightDX uses its patented technology to enable real-time standard digital imaging and fluorescence imaging in wounds and surrounding healthy skin of patients as well as wound area measurements.
This document is a 510(k) summary for the MolecuLightDX device. It describes non-clinical testing performed on the device but does not contain information about clinical studies or acceptance criteria for identifying bacterial loads >10^4 CFU per gram. The summary focuses on established equivalence to a predicate device (MolecuLight i:X K191371) based on similar technological characteristics and compliance with electrical safety and software validation standards, rather than direct performance metrics against clinical acceptance criteria for bacterial load detection.
Therefore, the requested information regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving the device meets those criteria, specifically concerning the identification of bacterial loads, cannot be fully provided from the given text.
However, based on the information provided, here's what can be extracted:
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:
The document primarily discusses compliance with safety and technical standards rather than specific clinical performance acceptance criteria for bacterial load detection. The key performance claim related to its indication for use is: "The fluorescence image, when used in combination with clinical signs and symptoms, has been shown to increase the likelihood that clinicians can identify wounds containing bacterial loads >10^4 CFU per gram as compared to examination of clinical signs and symptoms alone."
While this is an indication of efficacy, the document does not specify quantitative acceptance criteria (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, or AUC thresholds) for this "increased likelihood" or present a study showing the MolecuLightDX device itself met such criteria. Instead, it refers to its predecessor's demonstrated capability.
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:
Not provided in this document for the MolecuLightDX's bacterial load identification capability. The non-clinical testing mentioned includes:
- Standards Compliance Testing
- Software Verification and Validation
- System Verification and Validation
- Accuracy and Inter/Intra Reader Variability Testing of Wound Measurement Function
- Packaging and Transport validation
These tests do not involve clinical test sets for bacterial load identification. The effectiveness claim for bacterial load identification references earlier work/evidence from the predicate device, implicitly assuming the newer device maintains this capability due to similar technology.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:
Not provided in this document.
4. Adjudication method for the test set:
Not provided in this document.
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 provided in this document. The device is a "handheld imaging tool" and not an AI-driven diagnostic algorithm in the typical sense that would necessitate an MRMC comparative effectiveness study for "AI vs without AI assistance". Its primary function is to enable visualization of fluorescence which clinicians then interpret.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done:
Not applicable. The device is explicitly described as a "handheld imaging tool that allows clinicians... to view and digitally record images... The fluorescence image, when used in combination with clinical signs and symptoms, has been shown to increase the likelihood that clinicians can identify wounds..." This indicates a human-in-the-loop system.
7. The type of ground truth used:
Not explicitly stated for the MolecuLightDX in this document regarding bacterial load. However, the indication for use refers to "bacterial loads >10^4 CFU per gram," which implies quantitative microbiology (CFU per gram) as the ground truth method in the referenced studies from which the claim of "increased likelihood" originated (likely from the predicate device's clearance).
8. The sample size for the training set:
Not applicable, as this document does not describe a machine learning algorithm requiring a training set for the bacterial load identification claim. The device is an imaging tool.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established:
Not applicable.
Summary based on available information:
The provided document (a 510(k) summary) focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device (MolecuLight i:X K191371) through non-clinical testing, regulatory compliance, and comparison of technological characteristics. It does not detail a specific clinical study for MolecuLightDX to establish performance against acceptance criteria for identifying bacterial loads. Instead, it leverages the known efficacy claim from its predicate device for its indication of use, implying that the MolecuLightDX, being technologically similar, shares this established capability. The "increased likelihood" claim for identifying bacterial loads >10^4 CFU per gram is presented as a previously established benefit from the predicate device's performance.
Ask a specific question about this device
(89 days)
MolecuLight Inc.
The MolecuLight i:X is a handheld imaging tool that allows clinicians diagnosing and treating skin wounds, at the point of care, to
(i) View and digitally record images of a wound.
(ii) Measure and digitally record the size of a wound, and
(iii) View and digitally record images of fluorescence emitted from a wound when exposed to an excitation light.
The fluorescence image, when used in combination with clinical signs and symptoms, has been shown to increase the likelihood that clinicians can identify wounds containing bacterial loads >104 CFU per grams as compared to examination of clinical signs and symptoms alone. The MolecuLight i:X device should not be used to rule-out the presence of bacteria in a wound.
The MolecuLight i:X does not diagnose or treat skin wounds.
The MolecuLight i:X Imaging Device is a handheld medical imaging device comprised of a high-resolution color LCD display and touch-sensitive screen with integrated optical and microelectronic components. MolecuLight i:X uses its patented technology to enable real-time standard digital imaging and fluorescence imaging in wounds and surrounding healthy skin of patients as well as wound area measurements.
Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets them, based on the provided FDA 510(k) summary for the MolecuLight i:X:
The MolecuLight i:X device is an autofluorescence detection device for general surgery and dermatological use. The 510(k) summary details a modification to the device's labeling to clarify the relationship between cyan fluorescence and the increased likelihood of Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacterial loads. The study's purpose is to demonstrate that this additional labeling statement does not raise new questions of safety or efficacy and is supported by existing clinical data.
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
The acceptance criteria are implicitly tied to the performance metrics of the device in identifying bacterial loads, specifically Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Total Bacterial Load (TBL), as established in the original K191371 clearance. The current submission's goal is to demonstrate that the expanded labeling around cyan fluorescence's association with P. aeruginosa is supported by the data and does not alter the previous safety and effectiveness profile.
The performance is reported in terms of sensitivity, specificity, Positive Predictive Value (PPV), Negative Predictive Value (NPV), and Likelihood Ratio for different fluorescence signatures (Cyan, Red, Red or Cyan) in detecting bacterial loads.
Performance Metric Category | Specific Metric | Acceptance Criteria (Implied from K191371 and consistency) | Reported Device Performance (95% CI) for Cyan Fluorescence and P. aeruginosa ≥ 10^4 CFU/g |
---|---|---|---|
Detection of Pseudomonas aeruginosa (Pa) at Species Specific Levels ≥ 10^4 CFU/g (Table 2 & 3) | Sensitivity | Clinical utility demonstrated by previous clearance | 43.75% (26.26, 62.34) |
Specificity | Clinical utility demonstrated by previous clearance | 94.97% (91.96, 97.10) | |
Positive Predictive Value (PPV) | Clinical utility demonstrated by previous clearance | 46.67% (28.34, 65.67) | |
Negative Predictive Value (NPV) | Clinical utility demonstrated by previous clearance | 94.38% (91.26, 96.63) | |
Likelihood Ratio | Clinical utility demonstrated by previous clearance | 8.70 (4.69, 16.14) | |
Detection of Total Bacterial Load (TBL) at Levels ≥ 10^4 CFU/g (Table 4) | PPV for Cyan FL | Clinical utility demonstrated by previous clearance | 0.967 (0.828, 0.999) |
Likelihood Ratio for Cyan FL | Clinical utility demonstrated by previous clearance | 6.366 | |
Detection of TBL at Levels ≥ 10^4 CFU/g in Absence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa (Table 5) | PPV for Cyan FL | Clinical utility demonstrated by previous clearance | 0.938 (0.698, 0.998) |
Likelihood Ratio for Cyan FL | Clinical utility demonstrated by previous clearance | 3.706 |
Note: The document states "The additional labeling statement does not raise different questions of safety or efficacy. Retrospective analysis has demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of MolecuLight i:X with regards to the additional labeling statement." This implies that the acceptance criteria are met if the performance metrics continue to support the device's utility in identifying bacterial loads and the new labeling is consistent with the observed data.
2. Sample Size and Data Provenance
- Sample Size for Test Set: Data from 350 patients were retrospectively analyzed.
- Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin but refers to "retrospective analysis" of existing clinical study data. Given MolecuLight Inc. is based in Toronto, Canada, and the clinical study was "reported in support of K191371", it is likely the data was collected in either Canada or the US, or potentially a multi-site international study. The study was retrospective.
3. Number of Experts and their Qualifications
The document does not specify the number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set, nor does it explicitly state their qualifications. The interpretation of "fluorescence image, when used in combination with clinical signs and symptoms" suggests that the ground truth was established by clinicians based on the convergence of factors, potentially including microbiological culture results (as indicated by CFU/g measurements).
4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set
The document does not describe any adjudication method for the test set. Given that the analysis is "retrospective analysis" of existing clinical study data, the ground truth was likely established as part of the original study design.
5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study
A Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not performed for this 510(k) submission. This submission is a "Real-World Data" (retrospective analysis) supporting a labeling change for a previously cleared device, not a new device clearance or a comparative effectiveness study with human readers. The document states: "The fluorescence image, when used in combination with clinical signs and symptoms, has been shown to increase the likelihood that clinicians can identify wounds containing bacterial loads >10^4 CFU per grams as compared to examination of clinical signs and symptoms alone." This sentence refers to a finding from the original K191371 clearance, not a new MRMC study in this submission.
6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance
This device, the MolecuLight i:X, is an imaging tool used by clinicians to view and record images of fluorescence. It is not an AI algorithm that generates a diagnosis or interpretation autonomously. Therefore, a standalone (algorithm only) performance study was not applicable or performed in the context of this 510(k). The device provides visual information (fluorescence images) that clinicians interpret in conjunction with clinical signs and symptoms.
7. Type of Ground Truth Used
The ground truth for the test set appears to be microbiological culture results (bacterial loads measured in CFU/g) combined with clinical assessment. The specific phrases "identify wounds containing bacterial loads >10^4 CFU per grams" and "Pseudomonas aeruginosa at Species Specific Levels ≥ 10^4 CFU/q" clearly indicate that quantitative bacterial culture was the definitive ground truth for bacterial presence and load.
8. Sample Size for the Training Set
The document does not describe a training set in the context of an AI/algorithm. The "study" described is a retrospective analysis of previously collected clinical data to support a labeling claim for a medical device. If there was any machine learning involved (which is not directly implied for this device's function as an imaging tool), that would have been part of the original K191371 submission and is not detailed here.
9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set was Established
As no training set (in the context of an AI/ML algorithm) is described, this question is not applicable based on the provided document. The device's function described (capturing and displaying fluorescence) implies it is a viewing tool, not an AI-powered diagnostic algorithm requiring a training phase for its output beyond the initial development of its optical and imaging capabilities.
Ask a specific question about this device
(196 days)
MolecuLight Inc.
The MolecuLight i:X is a handheld imaging tool that allows clinicians diagnosing and treating skin wounds, at the point of care, to
- View and digitally record images of a wound, (i)
- Measure and digitally record the size of a wound, and (ii)
- View and digitally record images of fluorescence emitted from a wound when exposed to an excitation light. (iii)
The fluorescence image, when used in combination with clinical signs and symptoms, has been shown to increase the likelihood that clinicians can identify wounds containing bacterial loads >104 CFU per gram as compared to examination of clinical signs and symptoms alone. The MolecuLight i:X device should not be used to rule-out the presence of bacteria in a wound.
The MolecuLight i:X does not diagnose or treat skin wounds.
The MolecuLight i:X Imaging Device is a handheld medical imaging device comprised of a high-resolution color LCD display and touch-sensitive screen with integrated optical and microelectronic components. Moleculight i:X uses its patented technology to enable real-time standard digital imaging and fluorescence imaging in wounds and surrounding healthy skin of patients as well as wound area measurements.
Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the MolecuLight i:X device meets them, based on the provided FDA 510(k) summary:
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
The core clinical claim for the MolecuLight i:X related to bacterial identification is: "The fluorescence image, when used in combination with clinical signs and symptoms, has been shown to increase the likelihood that clinicians can identify wounds containing bacterial loads >10^4 CFU per gram as compared to examination of clinical signs and symptoms alone."
While the document doesn't explicitly state quantitative acceptance criteria in the "we will achieve X performance" format, the demonstrated performance serves as the evidence for meeting their stated claim. The crucial part of the performance is the improvement in identifying wounds with relevant bacterial loads.
Acceptance Criteria (Implied by Clinical Claim and Study Results)
Metric (vs. CSS alone) | Acceptance Threshold (Implied) | Reported Device Performance (CSS + iX vs. CSS) |
---|---|---|
Sensitivity Increase | Increase in likelihood of identifying wounds with >10^4 CFU/g bacteria | CSS+iX: 60.98% |
CSS: 15.33% | ||
(~4x increase) | ||
Specificity Change | Maintain acceptable specificity / avoid significant decrease in correctly ruling out bacteria | CSS+iX: 84.13% |
CSS: 93.65% | ||
(~9.5% decrease) | ||
False Positive Rate | 10^4 CFU/g, whose resulting bacterial load determined by conventional microbiological analysis was 10^4 CFU/g): n = 287 |
* Microbiology Negative (10^4 CFU/g) was "quantitative microbiological analysis," which is a lab-based, objective method, not dependent on expert consensus.
4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set
- The document does not describe an adjudication method for the clinical evaluation of CSS or the interpretation of MolecuLight i:X images. It compares these clinical assessments directly against the quantitative microbiological analysis. This suggests that individual clinicians' interpretations were the data points, rather than a consensus interpretation.
5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study
- A formal MRMC study is not explicitly mentioned as having been performed. The study evaluates the likelihood that clinicians can identify wounds, comparing performance with and without the device. While it involves multiple clinicians, it's presented as a direct comparison of the combined CSS+iX approach versus CSS alone, rather than a statistical comparison of reader performance improvement.
- Effect Size:
- The sensitivity for identifying high bacterial loads increased from 15.33% (CSS alone) to 60.98% (CSS + iX). This is a substantial increase, making the device significantly more likely to flag relevant wounds.
- The specificity decreased from 93.65% (CSS alone) to 84.13% (CSS + iX). This indicates a trade-off where more wounds were incorrectly identified as having high bacterial loads with the device, but the report explicitly states this increase in false positives was "10^4 CFU per gram). This is an objective and laboratory-confirmed ground truth, considered a strong reference standard for bacterial burden.
8. Sample Size for the Training Set
- The document does not specify a separate training set or its size. This is typical for a medical device that provides direct imaging for human interpretation, rather than a machine learning algorithm that is "trained" on data. The clinical study described here functions as the pivotal performance validation.
9. How Ground Truth for the Training Set was Established
- As no separate training set or AI/ML training is indicated, this point is not applicable. The ground truth for the clinical study was established by quantitative microbiological analysis of wound samples.
Ask a specific question about this device
(165 days)
MolecuLight Inc.
The MolecuLight i:X is a handheld imaging tool that allows clinicians diagnosing and treating skin wounds, at the point of care, to
- view and digitally record images of a wound, and (i)
- view and digitally record images of fluorescence emitted from a wound (ii) when exposed to an excitation light.
The MolecuLight i:X is for prescription use only.
The MolecuLight i:X is a handheld, portable, and battery operated white light and fluorescence imaging tool. The MolecuLight i:X can (i) view and digitally record standard (ST) digital images of a wound.
Standard digital images/video capture the appearance of the wound under illumination of broad band white light, like regular photography. This Standard Imaging Mode does not require contact with the patient and the distance between the device and wound is kept consistent (8 - 12 cm) between imaging sessions through the use of the built in range finder
The MolecuLight i:X can also capture fluorescence features of wounds in real-time when used in Fluorescence Imaging Mode and it enables the user to document this fluorescence information. When the level of ambient light in the examination room is acceptable, an indicator light informs the user that fluorescence images (or videos) can be acquired. The distance between the device to the patient is maintained at 8 - 12 cm as guided by the range finder indicator light. The device has 450nm excitation light and is capable to detect fluorescence signals in 500-545 and 600-665nm wavelengths. The Moleculight i:X is not intended to quantify the fluorescence emitted from a wound.
The MolecuLight i:X is a wound autofluorescence imaging device. The device is not intended to provide quantitative or diagnostic information, but rather to allow clinicians to view and digitally record images of wounds and fluorescence emitted from wounds.
Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets them:
1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance
Acceptance Criteria | Reported Device Performance |
---|---|
Fluorescence Detection Depth | 0.8 mm (achieved) |
Linear range, green, maximum illumination intensity | 1-88% of Full Scale Image Sensor Range (0-125 nM Quantum Dots) |
Linear range, green, minimum illumination intensity | 0-94% of Full Scale Image Sensor Range (0-250 nM Quantum Dots) |
Linear range, red, maximum illumination intensity | 3-90% of Full Scale Image Sensor Range (0.5-5.6 nM Quantum Dots) |
Linear range, red, minimum illumination intensity | 2-95% of Full Scale Image Sensor Range (0.5-7.7 nM Quantum Dots) |
Limits of detection, green, maximum illumination intensity | 20-111 nM Quantum Dots |
Limits of detection, green, minimum illumination intensity | 20-182 nM Quantum Dots |
Limits of detection, red, maximum illumination intensity | 0.7-4.6 nM Quantum Dots |
Limits of detection, red, minimum illumination intensity | 0.5-5.6 nM Quantum Dots |
Excitation Source Intensity Variation | 100% to 52% at corners (met specification requirements for uniformity) |
Fluorescence Imaging Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) - Green (Max Illumination, min limit of detection) | 2.2 (met) |
Fluorescence Imaging Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) - Green (Max Illumination, max limit of detection) | 8.5 (met) |
Fluorescence Imaging Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) - Green (Min Illumination, min limit of detection) | 2.4 (met) |
Fluorescence Imaging Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) - Green (Min Illumination, max limit of detection) | 8.3 (met) |
Fluorescence Imaging Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) - Red (Max Illumination, min limit of detection) | 1.2 (met) |
Fluorescence Imaging Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) - Red (Max Illumination, max limit of detection) | 7.8 (met) |
Fluorescence Imaging Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) - Red (Min Illumination, min limit of detection) | 1.8 (met) |
Fluorescence Imaging Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) - Red (Min Illumination, max limit of detection) | 6.3 (met) |
Biocompatibility | No patient-contacting components (addressed) |
Shelf Life | Greater than 2 years (evaluated and determined) |
Reprocessing (Cleaning) |
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1