Search Results
Found 1 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(29 days)
PEERMEDICAL LTD.
The PeerScope System is intended for diagnostic visualization of the digestive tract. The system also provides access for therapeutic interventions using standard endoscopy tools. The PeerScope System is indicated for use within the lower digestive tract (including the anus, rectum, sigmoid colon, colon and ileocecal valve) for adult patients. The PeerScope System consists of PeerMedical camera heads, endoscopes, video system, light source and other ancillary equipment.
The PeerScope system Model H is a GI platform for diagnostic visualization and therapeutic intervention of the lower digestive tract. The PeerScope system Model H is a modification of the legally marketed (K 120289) PeerScope system Model B (the predicate device). The system consists of endoscopic Main Control Unit (MCU H) and of the PeerScope CS colonoscope, enabling physicians to view a high resolution wide field of view of up to 300°. The system is labeled for use in healthcare facilities / hospitals for adult patients.
Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information based on the provided text:
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
| Acceptance Criteria Category | Reported Device Performance |
|---|---|
| Risk Analysis | Conducted in accordance with ISO 14971; tests performed and met criteria. |
| Software Validation | Carried out in accordance with FDA Guidance Document "Guidance for the Content of Premarket Submissions for Software Contained in Medical Devices (May 2005)". |
| Reprocessing Validation | Carried out in accordance with FDA Guidance Document "Processing/Reprocessing Medical Devices in Health Care Settings: Validation Methods and Labeling Draft Guidance (May 2011)". |
| Device Safety & Performance | Verified by PeerMedical and accredited third-party laboratories. |
| Usability | Tested in a clinical environment by seven experienced GI physicians; device meets specifications; "at least as safe and effective for its intended use as the predicate device." |
| Technological Differences Impact | Impact of differences between Model H and Model B (video resolution, user interface, I/O ports, video signal output/input, monitor display options) deemed "insignificant in terms of the device safety and effectiveness for the device intended use" based on verification and performance testing. |
2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance
- Test Set Sample Size:
- Usability Study: 7 experienced GI physicians.
- Bench Data (Verification Tests): Not explicitly stated, but implies sufficient tests were run to meet ISO 14971 risk analysis, software validation, and reprocessing validation criteria.
- Data Provenance: Clinical environment in a US medical center (for usability testing). Other bench data provenance is not specified beyond "PeerMedical and accredited third party laboratories." The study is prospective in nature for the usability and verification testing of the new Model H.
3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications of Those Experts
- Number of Experts: 7
- Qualifications of Experts: Experienced GI physicians. No further details (e.g., years of experience, specific board certifications) are provided.
4. Adjudication Method (for the test set)
The document does not explicitly state an adjudication method (such as 2+1 or 3+1) for the usability testing. It mentions "Device Usability was carried out by means of testing within a clinical environment in a US medical center by seven experienced GI physicians," and that "The conclusions drawn... demonstrate that the device meets its specifications." This suggests a consensus or individual assessment by the physicians during the usability testing, rather than a formal adjudication process comparing their findings against a pre-established ground truth for diagnostic accuracy.
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, a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This submission is for a device modification (PeerScope System Model H) and focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to its predicate device (PeerScope System Model B). The "improvements" are in technological features (e.g., HD video, digital output) and usability, not in AI-assisted diagnostic performance or human reader improvement with AI.
6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Was Done
No, a standalone (algorithm only) performance study was not done. The device is a colonoscope system, an endoscopic tool for visualization and intervention, not an AI algorithm intended to perform standalone diagnostic functions.
7. The Type of Ground Truth Used
- Usability: User satisfaction and observed performance against device specifications in a clinical setting.
- Bench Data: Compliance with established engineering standards (e.g., ISO 14971, IEC 60601 series, ISO 10993 series, ASTM E 1837-96), software validation guidance, and reprocessing validation guidance.
- The "ground truth" here is adherence to regulatory and performance standards and user satisfaction, rather than a diagnostic 'truth' (like pathology or clinical outcomes for disease detection) because the device's primary function is visualization and access for intervention, not autonomous diagnostic interpretation.
8. The Sample Size for the Training Set
No training set is mentioned or applicable here. This device is a hardware system (colonoscope and accessories) for visualization and therapeutic intervention, not a machine learning or AI model that requires a training set.
9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established
Not applicable, as there is no training set for this device.
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1