Search Results

The SEDLine Sedation Monitor is indicated for use in the operating room (OR), intensive care unit (ICU), and clinical research laboratory. It is intended to monitor the state of the brain by real-time data acquisition and processing of EEG signals. The system includes the Patient State Index (PSI), a proprietary computed EEG variable that is related to the effect of anesthetic agents.

SEDLine is an EEG monitor designed for use in the OR, ICU, EEG laboratory and for clinical research. It provides the ability to acquire and display real-time EEG waveforms, process the real time EEG data using digital signal processing techniques, display the processed EEG data in several different formats, and archive the real-time or processed EEG data for future review.

The SEDLine System consists of five components, the monitor, PSI algorithm, amplifier, patient cable and SEDTrace EEG Electrode Set. The device performs automatic self tests upon power up to ensure that the monitor and its components are functioning properly.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and study for the SEDLine Sedation Monitor:

It's important to note that this document is a 510(k) summary for a medical device and not a detailed clinical study report. Therefore, some of the requested information, particularly regarding the specifics of clinical trials (like sample sizes for a test set, expert qualifications for ground truth, MRMC studies, and detailed training set information), is not present. The provided text primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device through technical similarities and compliance with safety standards, rather than extensive clinical performance data specific to diagnostic accuracy or reader improvement.

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document doesn't explicitly state quantitative acceptance criteria for clinical performance (e.g., minimum sensitivity or specificity targets with confidence intervals). Instead, it highlights the device's technical specifications and adherence to safety and performance standards as the basis for equivalency.

The "Test Results" section broadly states: "The following tests have been conducted in order to verify and validate the device: software, mechanical and electrical validation testing and EMC testing." It then lists compliance with several UL, CSA, and IEC standards for electrical safety and electromagnetic compatibility. This implies that the 'acceptance criteria' are primarily related to meeting these technical and safety standards, as well as demonstrating that the device functions as intended for monitoring EEG signals and calculating the PSI.

Given the information, here's a table summarizing what can be inferred:

Similarities to Predicate Device (part of the equivalence argument):

• Both systems are EEG monitors.
• Both systems provide processed parameters (EMG, SR, ART, PSI).
• Both systems include PSI, a proprietary computed EEG variable related to anesthetic effects.
• Both conduct self-tests at startup.
• Both electrodes use the same materials.
• Both electrodes collect data from the same electrode locations.

Study Information

Based on the provided text, a detailed clinical study report proving specific diagnostic performance metrics (like sensitivity, specificity, or reader improvement) is not included. The document describes the device and its technical validation for substantial equivalence purposes.

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

   • Not specified. The document mentions "software, mechanical and electrical validation testing and EMC testing," but does not detail any clinical test set or its sample size.

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

   • Not applicable/Not specified. There is no mention of a clinical test set requiring expert-established ground truth in this document.

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

   • Not applicable/Not specified. No clinical test set requiring adjudication is described.

4. 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 is mentioned or implied. The SEDLine Sedation Monitor provides a Patient State Index (PSI) as a computed EEG variable related to anesthetic agents, not an AI that assists human readers in interpreting images or data. The device itself is the 'AI' portion (the PSI algorithm), providing a quantitative output.

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

   • Yes, implicitly. The PSI algorithm within the SEDLine monitor would function in a standalone manner to compute the PSI value from EEG signals. The output (the PSI number, EMG, SR, ART values, and EEG waveforms) is then presented to the human clinician. The "performance" in this context is the accuracy and reliability of these computed values in reflecting the brain state as intended. The document states the PSI "is related to the effect of anesthetic agents," implying its ability to provide this standalone metric.

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

   • Not explicitly stated for the PSI algorithm's "ground truth." For devices that measure a physiological state (like depth of anesthesia), ground truth is typically correlated with clinical outcomes, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic studies of anesthetic agents, and expert clinical assessment of patient response to simulation scenarios. The statement "The PSI is an EEG variable that is related to the effect of anesthetic agents" suggests that its development and validation would have involved correlating PSI values with known anesthetic concentrations/doses and their clinical effects, but the specifics are not in this document.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not specified. There is no mention of a training set size for the PSI algorithm. Algorithm development often involves data sets for training, but this is not detailed in a 510(k) summary focused on substantial equivalence.

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

   • Not specified. Similar to the point above, the method for establishing ground truth for any potential training data used for the PSI algorithm is not described.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Sedline System is indicated for use in the operating room (OR), intensive care unit (ICU), and clinical research laboratory. It is intended to monitor the state of the brain by real-time data acquisition and processing of EEG signals. The system includes the Patient State Index (PSI), a proprietary computed EEG variable that is related to the effect of anesthetic agents.

Sedline is an EEG monitor designed for use in the OR, ICU, EEG laboratory and for clinical research. It provides the ability to acquire and display real-time EEG waveforms, process the real time EEG data using digital signal processing techniques, display the processed EEG data in several different formats, and archive the real-time or processed EEG data for future review. The Sedline System consists of five components, the monitor, PSI algorithm, amplifier, patient cable and PSArray2 EEG Electrode Set. The device performs automatic self tests upon power up to ensure that the monitor and its components are functioning properly.

This 510(k) summary for the Physiometrix Sedline with Frontal PSI does not contain information about the acceptance criteria or a study proving that the device meets those criteria. The provided document focuses on describing the device, comparing it to a predicate device, and outlining general testing (software, mechanical, electrical validation testing, and EMC testing) performed.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information based only on the input text. The information regarding acceptance criteria, specific device performance, sample sizes for test/training sets, ground truth establishment, expert involvement, or MRMC studies is not present in the provided document.

The document states:

• Test Results: "The following tests have been conducted in order to verify and validate the device: software, mechanical and electrical validation testing and EMC testing." (Page 2)
• Standards: "The PSA4000 [predicate device] has been testing in accordance with the following standards. UL 2601, CSA 22.2 No. 601-1, IEC 601-1, IEC 601-2-26, FDA Reviewer Guidance for Premarket Notification Submissions, Section 7, Electromagnetic Compatibility dated November 1993." (Page 2)

This indicates that the device underwent general validation and verification testing according to relevant safety and performance standards for electroencephalographs and electromagnetic compatibility. However, it does not specify acceptance criteria for the "Patient State Index (PSI)" or provide performance results against such criteria.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Physiometrix PSArray² EEG Electrode is applied directly to the patient's skin to enable recording of electrophysiologic signals (such as EEG).

The Physiometrix Model 4310, PSArray² EEG Electrode, is a single-use, disposable, pre-gelled electrode array. The PSArray² is comprised of six (6) electrodes located at F7, Fp1, FpZ', FpZ, Fp2 and F8. The electrode is packaged with 1 electrode per pouch, 25 pouches per box and 4 boxes per case. The electrodes are mounted in a polyethylene foam coated with a pressure sensitive adhesive. The electrode pad is an area of silver/silver chloride ink that is connected to cable connector by a silver ink trace. An electrolyte gel is held in place over the electrode pad by a open-cell polyurethane sponge located in wells created by the foam basepad. The electrolyte gel was selected for its low impedance properties. No pre-application prepping is required to achieve adequate impedance levels for operation of the PSA4000. The PSArray² EEG Electrode is connected to the PSA4000 System via a patient cable that attaches to the substrate connector. The PSArray² is designed for use with the PSA4000 System.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the Physiometrix Model 4310 PSArray² EEG Electrode. This submission focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to a predicate device, rather than proving performance against specific acceptance criteria in the way a new, high-risk device might. The "acceptance criteria" here are largely met by demonstrating compliance with recognized standards and similarity to the predicate.

Here's an analysis based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

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

The document does not explicitly state the sample sizes for the electrical or biocompatibility testing. The nature of these tests (e.g., electrical impedance, irritation assays) typically involves a sample of the manufactured device.

Data provenance is not specified (e.g., country of origin). The studies appear to be laboratory-based tests conducted by the manufacturer, rather than clinical studies with patient data.

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

This type of information is generally not applicable to the tests performed for this device. Electrical and biocompatibility testing rely on objective measurements against established standard thresholds, not expert consensus on interpreting complex medical data.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

Not applicable. The tests are designed to provide objective, quantitative results against a standard, not subjective interpretations 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:

Not applicable. This device is an EEG electrode, a hardware component for signal acquisition. It does not involve AI or human interpretation of complex medical images, and therefore, an MRMC study is not relevant.

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

Not applicable. The device is a passive electrode, not an algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

• Electrical Testing: The "ground truth" is defined by the objective performance requirements outlined in the AAMI/ANSI EC-12 (1991) standard for disposable ECG electrodes. The device performance (e.g., impedance, offset voltage) is measured against these numerical targets.
• Biocompatibility Testing: The "ground truth" is established by the accepted scientific methodologies and criteria defined in ISO-10993 Part I and FDA Guidance documents for evaluating the biological safety of materials in contact with skin (e.g., absence of cytotoxicity, irritation, sensitization).

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

Not applicable. This device is a hardware component and does not utilize a "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI.

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

The PSA4000 is indicated for use in the operating room (OR), intensive care unit (ICU), and clinical research laboratory. It is intended to monitor the state of the brain by real-time data acquisition and processing of EEG signals. The system includes the Patient State Index (PSI™), a proprietary computed EEG variable that is related to the effect of anesthetic agents.

The PSA4000 is an EEG monitor designed for use in the OR, ICU, EEG laboratory and for clinical research. It provides the ability to acquire and display real-time EEG waveforms, process the real time EEG data using digital signal processing techniques, display the processed EEG data in several different formats, and archive the real-time or processed EEG data for future review. The PSA4000 consists of three main components, the monitor, the amplifier and the archive media (optional). The device performs automatic self tests upon power up to ensure that the monitor and its components are functioning properly.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the "PSA4000 EEG Monitor with Frontal PSI." However, it does not contain a detailed study with specific acceptance criteria and performance data for the device in the way a clinical trial report would.

The document primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device (PSA4000 EEG Monitor with PSI K001069) and fulfilling regulatory requirements. It mentions general validation testing but lacks the quantitative details to complete the requested table and answer many of the specific questions about clinical study design and outcomes.

Here's a breakdown of what can be extracted and what is missing, based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

This information is not provided in the document. The document states:
"The test results are all positive and indicate that the device meets product requirements and satisfies customer needs and expectations."
However, it does not specify what those "product requirements" or "acceptance criteria" were in a measurable format, nor does it present quantitative performance data. The tests mentioned are:

• Software validation testing
• Mechanical validation testing
• Electrical validation testing
• EMC testing
• Compliance with UL 2601, CSA 22.2 No. 601-1, IEC 601-1, IEC 601-2-26, and FDA Reviewer Guidance for Premarket Notification Submissions (EMC).

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

• Sample Size: Not specified. The document mentions "test results" but does not detail the number of subjects, cases, or data points involved in any testing, particularly for the performance of the "Frontal PSI" component.
• Data Provenance: Not specified. There is no information about the country of origin of the data or whether the data was retrospective or prospective.

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

Not specified. This information is typically relevant for studies evaluating the accuracy of a diagnostic or prognostic tool against expert judgement. The document does not describe such a study.

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

Not specified. As no expert- Adjudicated test set is detailed, no adjudication method is mentioned.

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 MRMC study was mentioned. The device is an EEG monitor that calculates a "Patient State Index (PSI)". The document does not describe studies where human interpretation of EEG or patient state was compared with and without the aid of the PSA4000's PSI.

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

While the device calculates a proprietary "Patient State Index," the document does not provide a standalone performance evaluation of this algorithm in terms of specific metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy) against a reference standard. The "Test Results" section refers to engineering and compliance testing, not clinical "standalone" performance.

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

Not specified. Due to the lack of detailed performance studies, the type of ground truth used to validate the accuracy or effectiveness of the PSI is not mentioned.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable/Not specified. The document does not describe the use of machine learning in a way that typically involves distinct "training" and "test" sets for algorithmic development in the context of diagnostic accuracy. The PSI is described as a "proprietary computed EEG variable," implying an algorithm, but no details of its development or training are given.

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

Not applicable/Not specified. See point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

System for recording electroencephalogram of brain electrical activity to Host Digital EEG Machine.

The NeuroLink NeuroMonitoring System (predicate device) consists of a set of components that work together to acquire and present EEG signal to any existing EEG recording and analysis equipment. The components include Biosensor electrodes, e-Net headpiece, Patient Module, battery module, fiber optic cable, and DSP Interface Card. Changes in the Patient Module and power supply are described in this submission. An electrode headbox has been added to the Patient Module and an AC power supply is available as an alternate to the battery module. The Patient Module is a small battery powered or AC powered amplifier. The EEG signals are transmitted from the head via conventional electrodes that are input into the attached headbox or e-Net that has a mating connector on the patient module. Power is enabled when the Patient Module is plugged into the DSP Card via the fiber optic cable, the host digital EEG computer is in the powered state and the Patient Module is enabled by pressing the control button located on the Patient Module. A five meter fiber optic cable is standard. The fiber optic cable provides patient isolation and flexible patient EEG Record Station placement options. Self test, calibration and impedance tests are remotely activated from the Host Digital EEG Machine through the DSP Interface Card or locally by depressing the appropriate test button on the Patient Module. A visual indication of control button function, system status and out of range impedance can be provided on the LCD display as controlled from the Host Digital EEG Machine.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the Physiometrix. Inc. Model 1320 NeuroLink II NeuroMonitoring System. This device is a physiological signal amplifier designed to acquire and present EEG signals to existing EEG recording and analysis equipment. The submission highlights changes to a previously cleared predicate device (K962157, NeuroLink Model 1310).

Based on the provided text, there is no acceptance criteria or detailed study information presented that would allow for the completion of the requested table and answers. The document is a regulatory approval letter and a summary of the device's description and indications for use, not a study report or a performance validation document.

Therefore, I cannot populate the table or answer the specific questions regarding acceptance criteria, device performance, sample sizes, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, or ground truth establishment.

The document mainly focuses on:

• Device Description: What the NeuroLink II does and how it's constructed, noting changes from its predicate.
• Regulatory Approval: The FDA's determination of substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device.
• Indications for Use: Recording electroencephalogram of brain electrical activity to a Host Digital EEG Machine.

To provide the requested information, a different type of document, such as a test report, clinical study protocol, or performance validation report, would be necessary.

Ask a specific question about this device

HydroPrep and NuPrep are skin preparation materials that are designed for use by EEG Technicians. Both substances are applied to the skin surface with a cotton swab in order to reduce skin impedance and increase signal quality recorded with EEG electrodes. HydroPrep is not intended for use with stimulating electrodes.

HydroPrep is a skin preparation solution similar to NuPrep. It is different in that is has more water and more salt that the current formulation. It used the same preservatives and gritty media.

This document describes a medical device, the Physiometrix Model 1700, HydroPrep, which is a skin preparation solution. The provided text does not contain information about acceptance criteria, device performance metrics, or study details such as sample sizes, expert qualifications, or ground truth establishment relevant to AI/ML device evaluation.

The text is a 510(k) Premarket Notification summary from 1997 for a Class II medical device (Electroconductive media). It focuses on:

• Identification of the device: Physiometrix Model 1700, HydroPrep.
• Comparison to a predicate device: K885306, NuPrep (Weaver & Co.).
• Description of the device: A skin preparation solution, similar to NuPrep but with more water and salt, using the same preservatives and gritty media.
• Intended Use: To reduce skin impedance and increase signal quality for EEG electrodes, applied with a cotton swab. It explicitly states it's not for use with stimulating electrodes.
• Regulatory Classification: 882.1275 Electroconductive media.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request to describe the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them, as the provided input does not contain any of this information or any indication of an AI/ML component.

The information requested, such as sample size for test sets, expert ground truth, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, training sets, etc., are standard components of evaluating AI/ML-driven medical devices. The HydroPrep, as described, is a chemical solution and not an AI/ML device.

Ask a specific question about this device

preserving the full fidelity of the original EEG waveform data in the EEG patient population while providing tools for displaying and printing EEG waveforms for review and interpretation by trained health care professionals.

The Equinox™ Digital EEG System incorporates products produced by Physiometrix and Neuro Concepts to provide a superior system for EEG recording that provides cost benefits to the user. The Equinox™ System features several Physiometrix products including the Biosensor electrodes, e-Net headpiece. Patient Module, fiber optic cable and DSP Interface Card and computer hardware. The last component of the system is the Neuro Concepts software described in K905435B UNIQUANT'M System. The Equinox™ is an EEG system that offers a choice of paper or paperless approaches to reading of EEG records and automatic archival of EEG data onto optical disks. The highest priority of the system is to ensure the quality of the EEG data acquisition and storage thus preserving the full fidelity of the raw analog EEG waveform for reproduction onto paper or for display on a computer monitor. EEG data that is acquired on the Equinox™ System is always archived directly onto optical disk with no means available to the system operator to modify or process the raw digitized data.

The provided text describes the Physiometrix Equinox™ Digital EEG System, but it does not contain information related to specific acceptance criteria, a study proving device performance against those criteria, or the detailed aspects of a clinical study (like sample sizes, ground truth establishment, or expert involvement).

The document is a 510(k) Premarket Notification summary, which focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to predicate devices. It emphasizes maintaining the fidelity of EEG data acquisition, storage, and display compared to existing systems.

Here's a breakdown of why the requested information cannot be extracted from the provided text:

• No Acceptance Criteria: The document does not list quantitative or qualitative acceptance criteria that the device had to meet (e.g., accuracy percentages, sensitivity, specificity, or specific performance metrics for EEG signal quality).
• No Performance Study Details: While the document states the system ensures "quality of the EEG data acquisition and storage" and "preserves the full fidelity of the original EEG waveform data," it doesn't describe an actual study conducted to demonstrate this. There are no reported device performance numbers.
• Focus on Substantial Equivalence: The text primarily argues that the Equinox™ System has the "same intended use" and "basic functionality" as its predicate devices (K930080 HydroDot NeuroMonitoring System and K905435B UNIQUANT™ System). This is a regulatory argument for market clearance, not a summary of a clinical performance study with defined acceptance criteria.
• "Minor Concern" Classification: The document refers to the FDA Draft Reviewer Guidance for Computer Controlled Products and classifies the software as having "minor concern" because there is "no risk or danger to the patient" even with inadvertent misuse. This speaks to safety, not diagnostic or interpretive performance.

Therefore, I cannot populate the table or answer the specific questions about sample sizes, experts, adjudication, MRMC studies, or standalone performance because this information is not present in the provided 510(k) summary.

The document is a regulatory submission aimed at demonstrating equivalent technology and safety, not a detailed report of a performance study against specific, measurable criteria.

Ask a specific question about this device

The NeuroLink NeuroMonitoring System has the same intended use as the predicate device, the HydroDot NeuroMonitoring System. Both are designed to locate EEG electrodes according the 10-20 International System and present electrical signal sensed by the electrodes from the skin to existing EEG recording, analysis and archiving equipment.

The e-Net NeuroMonitoring System consists of a set of components that work together to acquire and present EEG signal to any existing EEG recording and analysis equipment. The components in the original submission included Biosensor electrodes, e-Net headpiece, Patient Module, fiber optic interface, Monitor Module, AC power supply, and EEG Adapter Cable. The components of this submission include Biosensor electrodes, e-Net headpiece, Patient Module, fiber optic interface, and DSP Interface Card (replaces Monitor Module). The AC power supply and EEG Adapter Cable have been eliminated.
The modified system discussed in this submission uses the same electrodes and headpiece for signal acquisition but has changes in the modules used to transmit signals to the existing EEG recording and analysis equipment.
The Patient Module is a small battery powered unit attached to the patient. Power is enabled when the Patient Module is plugged into the DSP Card via the fiber optic cable, the host digital EEG computer is in the powered state and the Patient Module is enabled by pressing the control button located on the Patient Module. A five meter fiber optic cable is standard. The fiber optic cable provides outstanding patient isolation and flexible patient EEG Record Station placement options. A connector located at the top end of the module attaches to our standard e-Net headpiece or optionally a mini-jack for interface to standard cup electrodes. Self test, calibration and impedance tests are remotely activated from the host Digital EEG Machine through the DSP Interface Card or locally by depressing the appropriate test button on the Patient Module. A visual indication of control button function, system status and out of range impedance can be provided on the LCD display as controlled from the host Digital EEG Machine.

This submission report describes a device where EEG signal is acquired and presented to existing EEG recording and analysis equipment. The submission is not related to a machine learning system.

Here's an analysis based on the provided text, focusing on the requested information where applicable.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The submission form does not detail specific quantifiable acceptance criteria related to a machine learning model's performance (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, AUC). Instead, the device is a hardware system for acquiring and transmitting EEG signals. The performance evaluation focuses on the functional equivalence to a predicate device.

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

Not applicable. This device is a hardware system for signal acquisition and transmission, not a machine learning model that would typically have a test set of data for performance evaluation. The "test set" in this context would refer to internal validation and functional testing of the hardware. The documentation does not specify sample sizes for such tests or data provenance beyond general statements about system functionality.

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

Not applicable. The device's "ground truth" is its ability to accurately acquire and transmit EEG signals. This is typically verified through engineering tests and comparisons with predicate device performance, not by expert consensus on clinical data.

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

Not applicable. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are used for establishing ground truth in clinical data for AI/ML performance evaluation. This device is a hardware system, and its functionality would be verified through technical specifications and 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-assisted diagnostic tool. Therefore, an MRMC study assessing human reader improvement with AI assistance would not be relevant.

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

Not applicable. This device is a hardware system, not an algorithm.

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

The "ground truth" for this device would be direct measurements and verification of its electrical signal acquisition and transmission capabilities against established engineering standards and the performance of the predicate device. This is primarily a hardware functionality and performance assessment, not one based on clinical data or expert consensus.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. As a hardware device, there is no "training set" in the context of machine learning.

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

Not applicable. There is no training set for a hardware device.

Ask a specific question about this device