Search Results

The Sonicaid® System 8002 is for use in pregnancies from 32 weeks gestation and greater. It can be used on women who are experiencing Braxton-Hicks contractions but is not suitable for use in established labour as the fetus is then exposed to additional factors such as labour contractions, pharmacological agents, epidural anaesthesia, and the possibility of fetal infection secondary to ruptured membranes. Typical indications for use include the following:

• previous questionable fetal heart rate recordings or poor obstetric history
• abnormal umbilical blood flow vekveity waveforms
• suspected fotal anomalies
• suspicion of maternal intoxication or assault
• intrauterine growth retardation
• antepartum haemorrhage
• -- uterine pain
• reduced fetal movements
• hypertension or pre-eclampsia
• reduced amniotic fluid volume
  The Sonicaid® System 8002 is used as an adjunct to and is not intended to replace or substitute The Someation of ammiotic fluid amount, Doppler evaluations, and/or biophysical profile.

The Sonicaid® System 8002 is a software accessory for the computerized analysis of antepartum cardiotocograms (CTGs) in pregnancies from 32 weeks gestation onwards. It informs the clinician whether a CTG meets a number of criteria that are indicative of a normal CTG.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the Sonicaid® System 8002, focusing on acceptance criteria and the study that proves its performance:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The provided document does not explicitly state numerical acceptance criteria in a table format. Instead, it describes the device's function: "The Sonicaid® System 8002 informs the clinician whether a CTG meets a number of criteria that are indicative of a normal CTG."

The "Performance Studies" section broadly states: "Software verification studies were performed in-house to ensure what are "indicative" of a "normal" CTG criteria, and clinical validation studies have been performed and documented supporting the use of these criteria in the determination of a normal CTG."

Without specific metrics or thresholds, a direct numerical comparison is not possible.

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

The document does not provide information on the sample size used for the test set or the data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective or prospective nature of the clinical validation studies).

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

The document does not specify the number of experts used to establish ground truth or their qualifications. It only refers to "clinical validation studies."

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

The document does not describe any adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) for the test set.

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

The document does not mention an MRMC comparative effectiveness study, nor does it provide an effect size for human readers improving with or without AI assistance.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance:

The document indicates that "Software verification studies were performed in-house" and "clinical validation studies have been performed and documented." This implies that the device's performance was evaluated, likely in a standalone capacity given that it's a "software accessory for the computerized analysis of antepartum cardiotocograms." However, the specific details of this standalone performance, such as metrics (accuracy, sensitivity, specificity), are not provided in this summary.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used:

The document states that the device "informs the clinician whether a CTG meets a number of criteria that are indicative of a normal CTG." It further mentions "clinical validation studies...supporting the use of these criteria in the determination of a normal CTG." This suggests that the ground truth for "normal CTG" was established through expert clinical consensus based on established criteria for interpreting cardiotocograms. It is not explicitly stated to be pathology or outcomes data.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set:

The document does not provide details on the sample size used for a training set. Given that this is a 510(k) summary, which often focuses on validation rather than development, this information might not be included.

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

The document does not explicitly describe how ground truth for a training set was established. It only refers to "software verification studies" and "clinical validation studies" which informed the "indicative" criteria for a normal CTG. Assuming a machine learning approach, the "criteria that are indicative of a normal CTG" would likely form the basis of the ground truth labels for any training data.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Synergy IOM System is a 2, 5, or 10 channel electromyograph which provides facilities for EMG, EEG, Evoked Potentials, ECG and NCV testing to be used for Intra-Operative Monitoring.

The Synergy IOM System is a 2, 5, or 10 channel electromyograph.

The provided text is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter and an Indications for Use statement for the "Oxford Instruments Synergy IOM System". This type of document generally confirms that a device is substantially equivalent to a predicate device and can be marketed. It does not typically contain detailed information about specific acceptance criteria or the study data used to demonstrate performance against those criteria in the way a medical device performance study report would.

Therefore,Based on the provided text, the following information is not available:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: This document does not specify quantitative acceptance criteria or report performance metrics (e.g., accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, F1 score).
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: No information about a test set, its size, or country of origin (e.g., retrospective or prospective) is provided.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: This information is not present.
4. Adjudication method for the test set: No details on adjudication are available.
5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, and its effect size: This document does not mention such a study or its results.
6. If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: The Synergy IOM System is described as an electromyograph for various physiological signal testing, implying it's a diagnostic tool that likely requires human interpretation, rather than a standalone AI algorithm. No AI algorithm performance is discussed.
7. The type of ground truth used: Ground truth definition is not discussed.
8. The sample size for the training set: There is no mention of a training set, as this is not an AI/ML device in the context of the document.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable, as no training set is discussed.

What is available from the text:

• Device Name: Oxford Instruments Synergy IOM System
• Regulatory Class: II
• Product Code: IKN and CAB
• Indications for Use: "The Synergy IOM System is a 2, 5, or 10 channel electromyograph which provides facilities for EMG, EEG, Evoked Potentials, ECG and NCV testing to be used for Intra-Operative Monitoring."
• Study described: The document is a 510(k) premarket notification response, indicating that the device has been found "substantially equivalent" to legally marketed predicate devices. This equivalence is the basis for its clearance, rather than a specific performance study against defined acceptance criteria (as would be seen for novel devices or AI/ML components).
• Ground Truth (implied): For a 510(k) clearance based on substantial equivalence, the "ground truth" and performance of the predicate device (which is not explicitly named in this excerpt but would have been part of the 510(k) submission) serve as the benchmark. The implication is that the Synergy IOM System performs comparably to the predicate for the stated indications.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Medilog FD4 Hoher monitor is intended to be used in the diagnosis of various cardiac disorders by the recording of ECG in an ambulatory mode. These disorders principally include cardiac arrhythmia's and myocardial ischeamia.

The ECG data is used by the physician as an aid in the diagnosis of the patients condition. In some circumstances the patient may be hospitalised as part of the medical evaluation and Holter monitoring may be performed in conjunction with other non-invasive or invasive procedures. In such cases there is no interaction between the FD4 and other equipment.

Decer poton it looks like an MR63. The difference being the analogue cassette mechanism has been replaced with a digital acquisition module containing a slot for a PCMCIA Flash ATA card.

The patient is connected to the FD4 via disposable electrodes attached to the chest. These detect the electrical signals generated by the heart, which are then transferred to the recorder via the electrode leads and patient cable. In the recorder, these signals are amplified, filtered, digitised and compressed without loss before being stored on a removable PCMCIA Flash ATA card. At the completion of recording the flash memory card is removed and the recorded ECG data is replayed and analysed on the Oxford Instruments ECG Analysis System.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets them, based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• Sample Size: A total of 29 recordings. 17 of these were performed in tandem with the predicate device (MR63).
• Data Provenance: The data came from a variety of sources:
  • A programmable simulator (giving "researchiseble" EKGs - likely representative samples)
  • An EKG generator (providing real patient data from a database of recordings - likely retrospective, but no specific country of origin is mentioned)
  • Human volunteers (prospective data, but no specific country of origin is mentioned)

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

• Number of Experts: The document states "Successful review by Oxford Instruments clinical specialist." This implies at least one clinical specialist was involved.
• Qualifications of Experts: The qualification provided is "clinical specialist" at Oxford Instruments. Further specifics (e.g., years of experience, specific medical specialty like cardiology or electrophysiology) are not provided.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• The document mentions "Successful review by Oxford Instruments clinical specialist." This suggests a single expert review. There is no indication of an adjudication method involving multiple experts (e.g., 2+1, 3+1). It appears to be a single-reader review based on the stated acceptance criterion.

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

• No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done in the context of human readers improving with AI vs. without AI assistance.
• The study compared the FD4 device's performance to its predicate device (MR63), but this was a technical/signal comparison, not a human reader performance study. The FD4 is a data acquisition device, not an AI interpretation system.

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

• This device (Medilog FD4) is a Holter monitor designed for recording ECGs, not for automated interpretation or diagnosis. It records and stores data for later analysis by a physician using a separate "Oxford Instruments ECG Analysis System" (Medilog Optima & Excel 2).
• Therefore, the concept of "standalone algorithm performance" as typically applied to AI-based diagnostic devices does not directly apply to the FD4. The performance testing focuses on the quality of the recorded signal and its comparability to the predicate device.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• The ground truth for the trial results was based on several metrics:
  • Technical/Operational Criteria: Intended recording duration, successful download, signal quality/gain comparability with predicate, absence of recording/replay problems.
  • Clinical Relevance: Detection of patient events, heart rate variability monitored and logged for comparison.
  • Expert Review: Successful review by an Oxford Instruments clinical specialist.
• Given the nature of the device (a recorder), the "ground truth" is less about a definitive medical diagnosis and more about the fidelity and completeness of the ECG data captured and reviewed by an expert. It's a combination of objective technical performance and subjective expert assessment of data utility.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• The document does not mention a training set for the FD4 device. This is because the FD4 is a hardware device for acquiring data, not a machine learning algorithm that requires training. The "Medilog Optima & Excel 2" analysis system might potentially incorporate algorithms, but the FD4 itself is a data acquisition unit.

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

• As no training set is mentioned for the FD4 device, this question is not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

Recording of a physiological signals (single channel of EEG, and or recording of ECG signals at 64 Hz) that are required to aid in the diagnoses of sleep related disorders.

Medilog MPA-S Recorder

The provided text is a 510(k) premarket notification letter from the FDA regarding a medical device called the "Medilog MPA-S Recorder." This document primarily addresses regulatory approval and does not contain information about acceptance criteria, study methodologies, or performance data for the device.

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. The document is a regulatory approval letter, not a scientific study report.

Ask a specific question about this device