Search Results

The Radiancy Acne System with ClearTouch Light Unit Assembly ("Radiancy Acne System") is intended to provide phototherapeutic light to the body. The Radiancy Acne System is generally indicated to treat dermatological conditions. The Radiancy Acne System is specifically indicated to treat mild to moderate inflammatory acne vulgaris which includes pustular inflammatory acne, in patients with Fitzpatrick skin types I-VI.

The ClearTouch LUA is mounted on the hand piece of Radiancy's SpaTouch Photoepilation System (the "SpaTouch"), or on the hair removal / acne hand piece of Radiancy's SkinStation (the "SkinStation"), in order to treat acne vulgaris (the "Radiancy Acne System"). The Radiancy Acne System consists of two green-coated flash lamps. The Radiancy Acne System produces a wavelength spectrum of 430 – 1100 nm with a pulse duration of 35 msec and has a spot size of 22 x 55 mm.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for the Radiancy Acne System with ClearTouch™ Light Unit Assembly, dated April 27, 2005. It describes the device, its intended use, and its substantial equivalence to predicate devices. However, this document does not contain the detailed study information required to fully answer the questions about acceptance criteria, sample size, ground truth, or MRMC comparative effectiveness. It merely states that "Clinical data demonstrates that the Radiancy Acne System treats mild to moderate inflammatory acne vulgaris in all skin types with only minor side effects" without providing the specifics of that clinical data.

Therefore, many of the requested fields cannot be filled from the provided text.

Here's what can be extracted based on the document's content:

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

The document does not explicitly state quantitative acceptance criteria or detailed performance metrics. It generally claims the device "treats mild to moderate inflammatory acne vulgaris in all skin types with only minor side effects."

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

The document does not provide details on the sample size used for any test set or the provenance of clinical data. It only broadly mentions "Clinical data."

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)

This information is not provided in the document.

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

This information is not provided in the 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

The document does not mention an MRMC study or the involvement of human readers with AI assistance. The device is a light therapy system, not an AI diagnostic tool.

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

This question is not applicable as the device is a light therapy system, not an algorithm.

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

This information is not provided in the document.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not provided in the document.

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

This information is not provided in the document.

Ask a specific question about this device

The DeLight™ II HR System is intended for removal of unwanted body and/or facial hair in adults. The System is specifically indicated for dermatological use by physicians and healthcare professionals.

The DeLight™ II HR System is a light-based medical device intended for removal of unwanted hair by using a selective photothermal treatment.

{
  "1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance": {
    "Acceptance Criteria": "Not explicitly stated in terms of specific performance metrics (e.g., hair reduction percentage, number of side effects). The submission focuses on substantial equivalence to the predicate device in terms of safety and effectiveness.",
    "Reported Device Performance": "The DeLight™ II HR System demonstrated safety and effectiveness in an IRB-approved human clinical trial. Clinical results and comparison to published data on the predicate device (EpiLight® Hair Removal System) showed substantial equivalence. Details on specific clearance rates or incidence of side effects are not provided in this summary."
  },
  "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 for Test Set": "Not specified in the provided text. The text only mentions 'various skin types and various hair colors were treated'.",
    "Data Provenance": "The clinical trial was an IRB-approved human clinical trial. The country of origin and whether it was retrospective or prospective is not explicitly stated, but clinical trials are typically prospective."
  },
  "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. The device is a hair removal system, and the 'ground truth' would likely be objective measurements of hair reduction and observed side effects, which wouldn't require expert consensus in the same way an imaging diagnostic device would.",
  "4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set": "Not applicable. Adjudication methods are typically relevant for subjective assessments, which are not detailed for this device.",
  "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 is a light-based hair removal device, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool for human readers.",
  "6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done": "Not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an algorithm, and it is used by healthcare professionals.",
  "7. The type of ground truth used (expert concensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc)": "The clinical performance data was based on \"Clearance rates and occurrence of side effects were examined.\" This suggests a combination of objective measurements (clearance rates, likely percentage of hair reduction) and observed outcomes (side effects).",
  "8. The sample size for the training set": "Not applicable. This device is not an AI algorithm that undergoes a distinct 'training' phase in the conventional sense. Its development would involve engineering and clinical validation rather than machine learning training.",
  "9. How the ground truth for the training set was established": "Not applicable. See point 8."
}

Ask a specific question about this device