Search Results

The Accu-Chek Safe-T-Pro Plus lancing device is intended to produce a capillary blood sample for testing utilizing small amounts of blood.

The Accu-Chek Safe-T-Pro Plus lancing device is a sterile, single-use, disposable lancing device intended to be used by non-professional users 18 years and older and healthcare professionals. It is designed for capillary blood sampling from the fingertip of adults and children 1 year and older or, if the patient is a child under 1 year, from the heel. The Accu-Chek Safe-T-Pro Plus lancing device is a needle used for capillary blood sampling for use in diagnostic testing. The Accu-Chek Safe-T-Pro Plus lancing device contains a sharps injury prevention feature where the lancet is retracted and concealed before and after use. Once the lancet is used, it is rendered inoperative. The device is designed for single use only. It has a 23 Gauge needle with 3 depth levels by twisting cap: 1.3 mm, 1.8 mm, 2.3 mm. It is spring-driven and loading/priming is not required. Press release button to activate lancet mechanism.

The provided text is a 510(k) premarket notification for the "Accu-Chek Safe-T-Pro Plus Lancing Device". It focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to predicate and reference devices rather than presenting specific acceptance criteria and a detailed study proving the device meets them in the context of performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or reader improvement, which are typical for AI/ML devices.

However, based on the information provided, I can extract the non-clinical testing performed and infer the acceptance criteria and details about the study.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the provided text:

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

The document does not explicitly state numerical acceptance criteria or performance metrics (like accuracy, sensitivity, specificity) for comparison within a table, as one would expect for an AI/ML device. Instead, it describes "nonclinical bench testing" and "design verification and validation testing" to ensure risk management and mechanical function. The "reported device performance" is broadly stated as "performs as well or better than the legally marketed predicate device and legally marketed reference devices."

However, we can infer acceptance criteria related to safety and functionality from the types of testing mentioned and the characteristics of the device.

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 primarily describes non-clinical bench testing. It does not provide details on a "test set" in the context of clinical data for performance metrics. For the "nonclinical bench testing," the sample size of devices tested is not specified. The data provenance is also not specified, but it would typically be internal testing conducted by the manufacturer. Since it's bench testing, concepts of retrospective or prospective data usually don't apply in the same way as clinical studies.

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 section is not applicable as the document describes a physical medical device (lancing device) and its mechanical and safety performance, not an AI/ML algorithm that requires expert-established ground truth for a test set. There is no mention of experts or ground truth in this context.

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

This section is not applicable for the same reasons as point 3. Adjudication methods are typically used in clinical studies involving interpretation of data, often by multiple readers, which is not the case here.

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

This section is not applicable. The device is a "lancing device," a physical tool for blood sampling. It does not involve AI or software for diagnostic interpretation, and therefore, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study involving human readers and AI assistance is entirely outside the scope of this device.

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

This section is not applicable as the device is a lancing device and does not involve any algorithm or software with standalone performance.

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

This section is not applicable. For a lancing device, the "ground truth" for its performance would be its physical properties, sterility, mechanical reliability, and safety features, which are evaluated through engineering tests and quality control, not clinical "ground truth" like pathology or outcomes data in the sense of diagnostic accuracy.

8. The sample size for the training set

This section is not applicable. The device is not an AI/ML product and does not have a "training set."

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

This section is not applicable for the same reason as point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Accu-Chek Safe-T-Pro Uno lancing device is intended to produce a capillary blood sample for testing utilizing small amounts of blood.

The Accu-Chek Safe-T-Pro Uno lancing device is a sterile, single-use, disposable lancing device intended to be used by non-professional users 18 years and older and healthcare professionals. It is designed for capillary blood sampling from the fingertip of adults and children 1 year and older or, if the patient is a child under 1 year, from the heel.

The provided text is an FDA 510(k) premarket notification for the Accu-Chek Safe-T-Pro Uno Lancing Device. It does not describe a study with acceptance criteria in the manner typically found in clinical trials or AI/software validation studies. Instead, it details a "non-clinical bench testing" approach to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

Here's an analysis based on your request, highlighting what is and isn't available in the provided text:

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

The document does not explicitly present a table of acceptance criteria alongside reported device performance for specific metrics. Instead, it refers to "design verification and validation testing" performed per "applicable FDA Guidance documents (Sharps Injury Prevention Features) and special controls (878.4850)." The conclusion states the device "performs as well or better than the legally marketed predicate device and legally marketed reference devices."

The closest approximation to "device performance" mentioned is:

• The Accu-Chek Safe-T-Pro Uno lancing device is designed for a single use only and has a sharps injury prevention feature where the lancet is retracted and concealed before and after use, and is rendered inoperative after use.
• It uses a 28 Gauge needle with a 1.5 mm depth and is spring-driven.
• Loading/priming is not required; activation is via a press release button.

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 specify a "sample size used for the test set" or "data provenance" in terms of subject populations or data collection methods (retrospective/prospective). This is because the described testing is "non-clinical bench testing," meaning it was likely conducted in a laboratory setting on the device itself, rather than on human subjects or 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 is not applicable as no "ground truth" established by experts for a test set is mentioned. The testing involves mechanical and design verification, not expert evaluation of results from human or image data.

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

Not applicable. No adjudication method is mentioned as there's no expert review of outcomes.

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. A MRMC comparative effectiveness study is relevant for AI or diagnostic imaging devices evaluating human performance. This document is for a medical device (lancing device) and does not involve AI or human readers.

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

Not applicable. This is not an AI or algorithm-based device.

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

Not applicable in the conventional sense of clinical ground truth. The "ground truth" for the non-clinical bench testing would be engineering specifications, regulatory standards (like ISO or FDA special controls for sharps injury prevention), and the performance characteristics of the legally marketed predicate and reference devices.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This is not an AI/machine learning device that requires a training set.

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

Not applicable. This is not an AI/machine learning device.

Summary of what is present:

• Type of Study: Non-clinical bench testing (design verification and validation testing).
• Purpose: To demonstrate the mechanical functions, safety (sharps injury prevention), and performance are suitable for use and are substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate and reference devices.
• Applicable Standards: FDA Guidance documents (Sharps Injury Prevention Features) and special controls (878.4850).
• Conclusion: The device is "safe and effective for its intended use, and performs as well or better than the legally marketed predicate device and legally marketed reference devices."
• Clinical Testing: "Not applicable; risk analysis confirmed that all identified risks were addressed and mitigated appropriately."

Ask a specific question about this device

The Accu-Chek Solo micropump system with interoperable technology is intended for the subcutaneous delivery of insulin, at set and variable rates, for the management of diabetes mellitus in persons requiring insulin. The Accu-Chek Solo micropump system is able to communicate with compatible, digitally connected devices, including automated insulin dosing software, to receive, execute, and confirm commands from these devices. The Accu-Chek Solo micropump system is intended for single patient, home use and requires a prescription. The Accu-Chek Solo micropump system is indicated for use in individuals 2 years of age and greater.

The Accu-Chek Solo micropump is a portable programmable insulin pump, which adheres to the patient's skin. The patch is comprised of two connected parts: a disposable reservoir, in which the insulin is stored and a reusable pump, which includes the pumping mechanism and electronic components. The patch is controlled via a connected Device. The Accu-Chek Solo micropump is designed to deliver basal and bolus insulin doses at various rates, volumes and patterns, as prescribed by the user's physician.

I am sorry, but the provided text does not contain the information required to describe the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria, as per your detailed request.

The document is a 510(k) premarket notification summary for the Accu-Chek Solo micropump system. It primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device (Omnipod DASH Insulin Management System). While it lists various non-clinical tests performed (e.g., human factors, biocompatibility, sterility, electrical safety, software, cybersecurity, interoperability, and system reliability/safety testing), it does not provide specific acceptance criteria or detailed results that quantify device performance against those criteria.

Specifically, it lacks the following information crucial for your request:

• A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance: The document mentions "The Performance testing of the Accu-Chek Solo micropump System demonstrated that the device met all device specifications," but it does not specify what those specifications are beyond broad categories like "Accuracy of Insulin Delivery" with some general percentages (e.g., "±18% or better at 0.1 U/h" for basal rates). It doesn't present a clear table linking acceptance criteria to actual measured performance for various functionalities.
• Sample sizes used for the test set and data provenance: Details on the number of samples/devices tested for the various non-clinical tests are not provided. There is no mention of a "test set" in the context of an AI/ML device or data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective).
• Number of experts used to establish ground truth & qualifications: This information is completely absent, as the document doesn't describe a study involving expert assessment or ground truth labeling in the context of AI/ML performance.
• Adjudication method for the test set: Not applicable based on the document's content.
• MRMC comparative effectiveness study: The document does not describe any multi-reader multi-case study, nor does it discuss human reader improvement with or without AI assistance. This device is an insulin pump, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.
• Standalone (algorithm only) performance: Not applicable, as this is a physical medical device (insulin pump) with software, not a standalone AI algorithm being evaluated for diagnostic or predictive performance.
• Type of ground truth used: Given the device type, ground truth would relate to physiological parameters (e.g., actual insulin delivered, occlusion detection). While some performance metrics are mentioned (e.g., accuracy of insulin delivery, occlusion detection time), the specific "ground truth" methodology for establishing these values in testing is not detailed in the way one would describe for an AI/ML model (e.g., pathology, outcomes data).
• Sample size for the training set: Not applicable. The document discusses software verification and validation testing, but it does not refer to a "training set" in the context of machine learning model development.
• How ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

The document primarily focuses on:

• Substantial equivalence comparison to a predicate device.
• Confirmation of various engineering and regulatory compliance tests (e.g., electrical safety, EMC, software V&V, cybersecurity, human factors, biocompatibility, sterility, insulin compatibility) without providing specific quantitative results for most acceptance criteria.
• A brief mention of a "clinical study" for the insertion process of the cannula, stating its aim was to prove safety, robustness, and pain-freeness, but it does not provide study details (e.g., sample size, specific outcomes, or quantitative results against acceptance criteria).

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request based on the provided text, as it describes a clearance for an insulin pump, not an AI/ML device requiring the typical performance evaluation metrics you've outlined.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Accu-Chek Guide Solo diabetes manager blood glucose monitoring system is comprised of the Accu-Chek Guide Solo diabetes manager blood glucose meter, Accu-Chek Bolus Advisor and the Accu-Chek Guide test strips.

The Accu-Chek Guide Solo diabetes manager blood glucose monitoring system is intended to quantitatively measure glucose in fresh capillary whole blood from the fingertip. The Accu-Chek Guide Solo diabetes manager blood glucose monitoring system is intended for self-testing outside the body (in vitro diagnostic use), by individuals with diabetes at home as an aid in monitoring the effectiveness of glucose control.

The Accu-Chek Guide Solo diabetes manager blood glucose monitoring system is intended to be used by a single person and should not be shared.

This Accu-Chek Guide Solo diabetes manager blood glucose monitoring system is not for use in diagnosis or screening of diabetes mellitus, nor for neonatal use.

The Accu-Chek Bolus Advisor, as a component of the Accu-Chek Guide Solo diabetes manager, is indicated for the management of diabetes by calculating an insulin dose or carbohydrate intake based on user-entered data. Before its use, a physician or healthcare professional must activate the bolus calculator and provide the patient-specific target blood glucose, insulin-to-carbohydrate ratio, and insulin sensitivity parameters to be programmed into the software. The Accu-Chek bolus advisor is intended for home use.

The Accu-Chek Guide Solo diabetes manager steers the Accu-Chek Solo micropump.

The Accu-Chek Guide Solo diabetes manager blood glucose monitoring system consists of the following components:

• Accu-Chek Guide Solo diabetes manager
• Accu-Chek Bolus Advisor
• Accu-Chek Guide Test Strips

The Accu-Chek Guide Solo diabetes manager blood glucose monitoring system is a handheld device that incorporates features to aid in self-monitoring of blood glucose. The blood glucose results are displayed on the screen and stored in the meter's memory, and may also be transmitted via USB wireless communication. Our blood glucose monitoring system creates a glucose result from an amperometric reaction. Capillary whole blood from the user's fingertip reacts with the chemicals in the test strip to create a harmless electrical current in the test strip. The blood glucose meter reads the current and gives a blood glucose result.

The Accu-Chek Guide Solo diabetes manager is a remote control for the Accu-Chek Solo micropump.

This document describes the acceptance criteria and the study proving the device, Accu-Chek Guide Solo diabetes manager blood glucose monitoring system, meets those criteria.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria for accuracy are based on comparison to a laboratory reference method (Roche/Hitachi cobas c 501 PCA-HK) for fresh capillary whole blood samples. While explicit acceptance criteria (e.g., "must be X% within Y% of laboratory reference") are not directly stated as a separate table, the reported clinical performance data demonstrates the device's accuracy against recognized standards. The ISO 15197:2013 standard often serves as a benchmark for blood glucose monitoring systems, requiring at least 95% of results to fall within ±15 mg/dL for glucose concentrations 0.99) | All Lots: 0.998 |
| Interference | No significant interference from common interfering substances at relevant concentrations. | Met acceptance criteria, with specific limitations for abnormally high concentrations (>5 mg/dL) of ascorbic acid and xylose. Labeling reflects these limitations. |
| Robustness (Flex Studies) | System operates within specified ranges under stress conditions and detects errors correctly. | Passed mechanical vibration and shock, operating conditions (temperature/humidity), altitude effects, and stability testing. Handled samples outside measuring range, short sample detection, sample perturbation, intermittent sampling, and used strips by operating within ranges or displaying errors. |
| Electromagnetic Interference (EMC) & Electrical Safety | Compliance with relevant national and international standards. | Passed IEC 61010-1, IEC 60601-1-2, IEC 61000-4-2, IEC 61000-4-3, IEC 61000-4-6, IEC 61000-4-8, and FCC 47 CFR 15 Part B. |

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

• Sample Size for Clinical Performance Test Set: 350 individual results (implied by "348 of 350 results," "343 of 350 results," etc.).
• Data Provenance: The clinical study was conducted in the United States and involved non-professional, inexperienced lay persons as intended users. The study explicitly states it uses "fresh capillary whole blood from the fingertip," indicating a prospective collection of data for this study. The precision and linearity studies used venous blood samples and linearity solutions respectively, which would typically be controlled, prospective experiments.

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

The ground truth for the clinical performance study was established by a "Roche/Hitachi cobas c 501 PCA-HK reference method" and "blood glucose readings obtained by trained technicians." The document does not specify the number of trained technicians or their specific qualifications (e.g., years of experience), but "trained technicians" implies expert personnel skilled in laboratory reference methods.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. For a quantitative measurement device like a blood glucose meter, ground truth is established by a highly accurate laboratory reference instrument, not by expert adjudication of discrete classifications.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done, with Effect Size

Not applicable. This device is a quantitative blood glucose monitoring system, not an AI-assisted diagnostic imaging device requiring MRMC studies. The human "readers" here are the lay users, and the study assesses their ability to obtain accurate readings with the device (standalone) compared to a lab reference, rather than comparing human interpretation with and without AI assistance.

6. If a Standalone Performance Study was done

Yes, a standalone performance study was done. The "Clinical Performance" section directly evaluates the accuracy of the Accu-Chek Guide Solo diabetes manager Blood Glucose monitoring system "compared to the Roche/Hitachi cobas c 501 PCA-HK reference method" when used by lay persons. This is a direct assessment of the device's performance in the hands of its intended user, without comparison to a human interpretation as an alternative, but rather against a gold standard biochemical measurement.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The primary ground truth for the clinical accuracy study was laboratory reference method results, specifically from the "Roche/Hitachi cobas c 501 PCA-HK." This is a gold standard in laboratory glucose measurement. For precision and linearity, the ground truth was established by prepared blood samples (for precision) and linearity solutions (for linearity), with their precise glucose concentrations determined by highly accurate laboratory methods.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not specify the sample size for the training set (if any specific "training" was done in an AI/ML context, which is not directly indicated for this type of device, but rather for its software components). The precision and linearity studies used specific sample sizes:

• Within-Run Precision: Ten replicate assays on ten meters using three strip lots at eight concentration levels.
• Intermediate Precision: Ten replicate assays on ten meters using three strip lots at six concentration levels.
• Linearity: Blood samples prepared to a hematocrit range of 36-52% and run on 36 meters using strips from three lots at eleven blood glucose concentration levels.

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

Given that this is a blood glucose meter (a measurement device relying on electrochemical principles, not primarily AI/ML for its core glucose measurement), "training set" and "ground truth for training set" in the context of typical AI/ML development are not directly applicable for the glucose measurement component. The "training" for such a device is in its chemical and electrical calibration during manufacturing and design, which is validated through the precision, linearity, and accuracy studies using known concentration materials and reference methods.

For the "Accu-Chek Bolus Advisor" software component, which is new, the document states: "Before its use, a physician or healthcare professional must activate the bolus calculator and provide the patient-specific target blood glucose, insulin-to-carbohydrate ratio, and insulin sensitivity parameters to be programmed into the software." This implies that the 'ground truth' or calibration for this specific software functionality is based on individual patient parameters set by a healthcare professional, rather than a general training dataset. The software "testing and documentation for Major level of concern software was completed," indicating standard software validation processes, which would include testing against defined functional requirements and potentially simulated or real patient input/output scenarios based on established medical algorithms. However, no specifics about data used for training this software are provided in the context of the main glucose measurement device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Accu-Chek Safe-T-Pro Plus lancing device is a sterile, single-use, disposable lancing device intended to be used by healthcare professionals. It is designed for capillary blood sampling from the fingertip of adults and children 1 year and older or, if the patient is a child under 1 year, from the heel.

The Accu-Chek Safe-T-Pro Plus lancing device is a sterile, single-use, disposable lancing device intended to be used by healthcare professionals. It is designed for capillary blood sampling from the fingertip of adults and children 1 year and older or, if the patient is a child under 1 year, from the heel.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for a medical device called the "Accu-Chek Safe-T-Pro Plus Lancing Device." It describes the device, its intended use, and substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

However, the document does not contain any information about acceptance criteria for an AI-powered device, nor does it describe a study involving an AI algorithm.

The document specifically states under "Non-Clinical and/or Clinical Tests Summary & Conclusions":

"Clinical Testing is not applicable; risk analysis confirmed risks were addressed and mitigated appropriately. All residual risks after mitigation were acceptable, and communicated in the instructions for use as warnings. There were no special performance or safety concerns identified. See Risk documents provided in Biocompatability section."

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information about an AI device's acceptance criteria and study proving it meets those criteria based on this document. The device in question is a physical lancing device, not an AI software.

Ask a specific question about this device

The IWL2020 Blood Glucose Monitoring System is comprised of the IWL2020 meter and IWL2020 test strips. The IWL2020 Blood Glucose Monitoring System is intended to quantitatively measure glucose in fresh capillary whole blood from the fingertip as an aid in monitoring the effectiveness of glucose control.

The IWL2020 Blood Glucose Monitoring System is intended for in vitro diagnostic single patient use by people with diabetes at home.

The IWL2020 Blood Glucose Monitoring System is intended to be used by a single person and should not be shared. This system is not for use in diagnosis or screening of diabetes mellitus, nor for neonatal use.

The IWL2020 Blood Glucose Monitoring System consists of the following components:

• IWL2020 Meter
• IWL2020 Blood Glucose Test Strips
• IWL2020 Control Solutions

The IWL2020 Blood Glucose Monitoring System is a handheld device that incorporates features to aid in self-monitoring of blood glucose. The blood glucose results are displayed on the screen and stored in the meter's memory, and may also be transmitted via Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) wireless communication. Our blood glucose monitoring system creates a glucose result from an amperometric reaction. Capillary whole blood from the user's fingertip reacts with the chemicals in the test strip to create a harmless electrical current in the test strip. The blood glucose meter reads the current and gives a blood glucose result.

The provided text describes the acceptance criteria and a study to prove that the device (IWL2020 Blood Glucose Monitoring System) meets these criteria. The study focuses on demonstrating the substantial equivalence of the IWL2020 system to a legally marketed predicate device (Accu-Chek Guide Blood Glucose Monitoring System).

Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided text outlines performance metrics rather than explicitly listing acceptance criteria as a separate table. However, the "Clinical Performance" section presents accuracy targets which can be interpreted as acceptance criteria based on standard glucose monitoring device expectations.

Additional Non-Clinical Performance Criteria and Results (from "Non-Clinical & Clinical Testing Summary and Conclusions"):

• Measurement Range: 20-600 mg/dL (Supported by Linearity Evaluation)
• Precision (Within-Run Evaluation):
  • Glucose Level 1 (20 mg/dL): 1.1 mg/dL SD
  • Glucose Level 2 (40 mg/dL): 1.2 mg/dL SD
  • Glucose Level 3 (80 mg/dL): 1.8 mg/dL SD
  • Glucose Level 4 (130 mg/dL): 2.1 %CV
  • Glucose Level 5 (200 mg/dL): 2.3 %CV
  • Glucose Level 6 (325 mg/dL): 2.7 %CV
  • Glucose Level 7 (450 mg/dL): 2.6 %CV
  • Glucose Level 8 (550 mg/dL): 2.6 %CV
• Precision (Intermediate Precision Evaluation):
  • Glucose Level 1 (27.8 mg/dL): 1.3 mg/dL SD
  • Glucose Level 2 (44.4 mg/dL): 1.3 mg/dL SD
  • Glucose Level 3 (113.6 mg/dL): 2.6 %CV
  • Glucose Level 4 (291.9 mg/dL): 2.3 %CV
  • Glucose Level 5 (495.1 mg/dL): 2.0 %CV
  • Glucose Level 6 (541.4 mg/dL): 2.2 %CV
• Linearity (R-squared for All Lots): 0.9985 (indicating strong linearity across the measurement range)
• Interference: All compounds met acceptance criteria except abnormally high concentrations of ascorbic acid (> 5 mg/dL) and xylose.
• Flex Studies: System operated within specified ranges and displayed errors correctly when outside operating ranges.
• Electromagnetic Interference and Electrical Safety: Passed according to national and international standards.

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

• Sample Size for Clinical Performance Test Set: 350 results (implicitly, as 346/350, 336/350, etc., are reported).
• Data Provenance:
  • Country of Origin: United States.
  • Retrospective or Prospective: Prospective. The text states: "A clinical (user evaluation) study was conducted with IWL2020 Blood Glucose Monitoring System in the intended user population, i.e. lay persons who perform self-testing using capillary whole blood, in the United States." This implies a specifically designed study for evaluation.

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

• The text states the clinical performance was "compared to the Roche/Hitachi cobas c 501 PCA-HK reference method." It also mentions "blood glucose readings obtained by trained technicians."
• This suggests the ground truth was established by a laboratory reference method, operated by "trained technicians." The number and specific qualifications (e.g., years of experience) of these technicians, or the experts overseeing the laboratory method, are not explicitly stated.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• The text does not mention any adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) for the clinical performance data. The comparison is directly between the device readings and the laboratory reference method readings.

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

• No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not performed as described.
• The study was a user evaluation (clinical performance) to assess how well "non-professional, inexperienced lay persons" obtained accurate readings with the IWL2020 system compared to a laboratory reference. It does not compare human readers with AI assistance versus without AI assistance. The IWL2020 is a blood glucose monitoring system, not an AI-powered image analysis tool for diagnostic imaging, which is where MRMC studies are typically applied.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance)

• The primary clinical performance study described is the user evaluation, which involves "lay persons who perform self-testing." This inherently includes human-in-the-loop performance.
• However, the "Non-Clinical & Clinical Testing Summary and Conclusions" section also includes various non-clinical evaluations (e.g., Within-Run Precision, Intermediate Precision, Linearity, Interference, Flex Studies, Electromagnetic Interference, Electrical Safety). These tests assess the device's technical performance in a controlled setting, which can be seen as standalone testing of the algorithm/device's core functionality, without user variability being the primary focus. Specifically, the "System Accuracy" refers to the accuracy of the device's readings when compared to a reference method, which is an assessment of the device's inherent capability.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• Laboratory Reference Method: The ground truth for the clinical performance study was established using the "Roche/Hitachi cobas c 501 PCA-HK reference method." This is a highly accurate laboratory instrument.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• The document describes testing and validation, but it does not explicitly state the sample size used for a training set. Blood glucose monitoring systems typically derive their algorithms from fundamental electrochemical principles and calibrations, rather than machine learning models that require distinct training sets in the same way as, for example, an AI imaging diagnostic tool. The "linearity evaluation" used blood samples from eleven glucose concentration levels run on 36 IWL2020 meters using strips from three lots, which would contribute to the device's calibration or "training" in a broad sense, but not in the context of a 'training set' for a deep learning model.

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

• As a training set is not explicitly mentioned in the context of a machine learning model, the method for establishing its ground truth is not detailed. For the device's fundamental calibration and performance, the "linearity evaluation" involved preparing blood samples at "eleven blood glucose concentration levels." These concentrations would typically be precisely measured by a highly accurate laboratory reference method (like the Roche/Hitachi cobas c 501 PCA-HK or similar primary standards) to serve as the ground truth for establishing the device's internal calibration curve.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Accu-Chek FastClix Blood Lancing System is intended for the hygienic collection of capillary blood for testing purposes from the side of a fingertip and from alternative sites, such as the palm. upper arm, and the forearm. Six sterile, sincets are in a drum. The lancet drum is to be used with the reusable lancing device that is to be cleaned and disinfected between each use, and then the lancets are to be disposed of. This system is for use only on a single patient in a home setting. This system is not suitable for use by healthcare professionals with multiple patients in a healthcare setting.

The Accu-Chek FastClix Lancing Device uses compatible Accu-Chek FastClix Lancets to obtain a drop of blood from a fingertip or alternative sites. The Accu-Chek FastClix Blood Lancing System consists of three components: 1. Accu-Chek FastClix Lancing Device 2. Accu-Chek FastClix Lancets 3. Accu-Chek FastClix Alternative Site Testing (AST) Cap

This document is a 510(k) premarket notification decision letter from the FDA for the Accu-Chek FastClix Blood Lancing System. It declares the device substantially equivalent to a predicate device.

The provided document does not contain any information about acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets those criteria, particularly not in the context of an AI/ML powered device. The device described is a mechanical blood lancing system for capillary blood collection, not an AI/ML system.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request for:

• A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance (for an AI/ML system).
• Sample size and data provenance for a test set (for an AI/ML system).
• Number and qualifications of experts for ground truth (for an AI/ML system).
• Adjudication method (for an AI/ML system).
• MRMC comparative effectiveness study details (for an AI/ML system).
• Standalone performance details (for an AI/ML system).
• Type of ground truth used (for an AI/ML system).
• Sample size for the training set (for an AI/ML system).
• How ground truth for the training set was established (for an AI/ML system).

The document explicitly states: "Clinical Testing is not applicable; risk analysis confirmed that all identified risks were addressed and mitigated appropriately." This further confirms that no clinical study, of the type relevant to AI/ML device performance validation, was conducted or required for this mechanical device.

The "Nonclinical bench testing" mentioned refers to mechanical and validation testing related to sharps injury prevention and mechanical functions, not AI/ML performance.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Accu-Chek Safe-T-Pro Uno Lancing Device is a sterile, single-use, disposable lancing device intended to be used by healthcare professionals. It is designed for capillary blood sampling from the fingertip of adults and children 1 year and older or, if the patient is a child under 1 year, from the heel.

The Accu-Chek Safe-T-Pro Uno lancing device is a needle used for capillary blood sampling for use in diagnostic testing. The Accu-Chek Safe-T-Pro Uno lancing device contains a sharps injury prevention feature where the lancet is retracted and concealed before and after use. Once the lancet is used, it is rendered inoperative. The device is designed for single use only.

The provided text describes a 510(k) summary for the Accu-Chek Safe-T-Pro Uno Lancing Device. However, it does not contain specific acceptance criteria, reported device performance metrics, or details about a study that proves the device meets those criteria, such as sample size, data provenance, expert qualifications, or adjudication methods.

The document outlines the device's indications for use, its description, and compares it to a predicate device (SurgiLance Safety Lancets) to establish substantial equivalence. It states that "Nonclinical bench testing was performed per the applicable FDA Guidance documents (Sharps Injury Prevention Features) and special controls (878.4850). This includes (mechanical) design verification & validation testing in order to ensure the risks were appropriately managed, in addition to verifying that the device's mechanical functions are suitable for use over the lifetime of the device." A "Verification Summary" is mentioned as an attachment, which presumably contains the detailed test results, but this summary is not provided in the given text.

Therefore, based only on the provided text, I cannot complete the requested information. The document focuses on regulatory approval based on substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than detailing a specific performance study with acceptance criteria and results.

Disclaimer: Without the "Verification Summary" mentioned in the document, it is impossible to provide the requested details about acceptance criteria and reported performance. The information below is based solely on what is explicitly stated or can be inferred from the provided text, which is limited regarding specific performance metrics.

Based on the provided text, the following information can be extracted or inferred:

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

The provided text does not explicitly state specific acceptance criteria or reported device performance metrics in a quantifiable manner. It mentions "nonclinical bench testing" and "design verification & validation testing" were performed to ensure risks were appropriately managed and verify mechanical functions are suitable for use over the lifetime of the device. The conclusion states the device "performs as well or better than the legally marketed predicate device," which is a general statement rather than specific performance data with corresponding acceptance criteria.

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

The text does not provide any information about the sample size used for the test set, data provenance, or whether the study was retrospective or prospective. It only refers to "nonclinical bench testing" and "design verification & validation testing."

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 applicable as the provided text describes non-clinical bench testing for a lancing device, not a study evaluating human interpretation or a diagnostic algorithm requiring expert ground truth establishment.

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

This information is not applicable as the provided text describes non-clinical bench testing for a lancing device and does not involve adjudication of results from multiple reviewers.

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

This information is not applicable as the device is a lancing device and does not involve AI assistance or human readers.

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

This information is not applicable as the device is a lancing device and does not involve an algorithm.

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

This information is not applicable in the traditional sense of medical image analysis or diagnostic algorithms. For a lancing device, "ground truth" would refer to established engineering and mechanical standards, as implied by "design verification & validation testing" and compliance with "FDA Guidance documents (Sharps Injury Prevention Features) and special controls (878.4850)."

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not applicable as the device is a lancing device and does not involve machine learning or a training set.

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

This information is not applicable as the device is a lancing device and does not involve machine learning or a training set.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Accu-Chek Softclix Blood Lancing System is intended for the hygienic collection of capillary blood for testing purposes from the side of a fingertip and from alternative sites, such as the palm, the upper arm, and the forearm.

The sterile, single-use lancets are to be used with the reusable lancing device that is to be cleaned and disinfected between each use, and then the lancets are to be disposed of.

This system is for use only on a single patient in a home setting.

This system is not suitable for use by healthcare professionals with multiple patients in a healthcare setting.

The Accu-Chek Softclix Lancing Device uses compatible Accu-Chek Softclix Lancets to obtain a drop of blood from a fingertip or alternative sites. The Accu-Chek Softclix Blood Lancing System consists of three components:

1. Accu-Chek Softclix Lancing Device
2. Accu-Chek Softclix Lancets
3. Accu-Chek Softclix Alternative Site Testing (AST) Cap

The provided text describes the regulatory clearance of a blood lancing system and focuses on the substantial equivalence to a predicate device, rather than detailed acceptance criteria and a study proving those criteria.

Therefore, many of the requested elements for a study proving acceptance criteria cannot be extracted as they are not present in this regulatory document. This document emphasizes non-clinical (bench) testing to ensure functional equivalence and risk mitigation for a medical device.

However, based on the information provided, here's what can be extracted and what cannot:

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

The document does not explicitly present a table of acceptance criteria with corresponding performance results. It states that "Nonclinical bench testing was performed per the applicable FDA Guidance documents (Sharps Injury Prevention Features) and special controls (878.4850). This includes (mechanical) design verification testing in order to ensure the risks were appropriately managed, in addition to verifying that the device's mechanical functions are suitable for use over the lifetime of the device." This implies that the device met certain mechanical and safety standards but doesn't list specific quantitative criteria or their outcomes.

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

This information is not provided in the document. The text only mentions "nonclinical bench testing" and "design verification testing" without specifying sample sizes for these tests or the origin of the 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 applicable and not provided. As this is a mechanical blood lancing device, "ground truth" in the context of expert review for diagnostic accuracy is not relevant. The testing focuses on mechanical function, safety, and performance as a lancing device.

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

This information is not applicable and not provided. Adjudication methods are typically associated with qualitative or diagnostic assessments, which are not the focus of this device's testing described.

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

This information is not applicable and not provided. An MRMC study is relevant for diagnostic imaging or AI-assisted diagnostic devices. This device is a blood lancing system, which does not involve human readers interpreting AI results.

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

This information is not applicable and not provided. The device described, a blood lancing system, does not involve an algorithm for standalone performance assessment in the way AI systems do. Its performance is mechanical and safety-related.

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

The document explicitly states: "Clinical Testing is not applicable: risk analysis confirmed that all identified risks were addressed and mitigated appropriately." Therefore, ground truth, as often defined for diagnostic accuracy, was not established through clinical data, pathology, or expert consensus on patient outcomes. Instead, the "ground truth" for this device's performance would be adherence to engineering specifications, safety standards (e.g., sharps injury prevention), and mechanical functionality confirmed through bench testing.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not applicable and not provided. There is no mention of a "training set" as this is not an AI/ML device that requires training data.

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

This information is not applicable and not provided, as there is no training set mentioned for this device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Accu-Chek Guide Me Blood Glucose Monitoring System is comprised of the Accu-Chek Guide Me meter and the Accu-Chek Guide test strips.

The Accu-Chek Guide Me Blood Glucose Monitoring System is intended to quantitatively measure glucose in fresh capillary whole blood from the fingertip, palm, and upper arm as an aid in monitoring the effectiveness of glucose control.

The Accu-Chek Guide Me Blood Glucose Monitoring System is intended for in vitro diagnostic single-patient use by people with diabetes.

The Accu-Chek Guide Me Blood Glucose Monitoring System is intended to be used by a single person and should not be shared.

This system is not for use in diagnosis or screening of diabetes mellitus, nor for neonatal use.

Alternative site testing should be done only during steady-state times (when glucose is not changing rapidly).

The Accu-Chek Guide Me Blood Glucose Monitoring System makes use of the Accu-Chek Guide Me meter, and the Accu-Chek Guide test strips. This system is a single-patient use blood glucose monitoring system intended to be used to quantitatively measure glucose in fresh capillary whole blood from the finger, palm, and upper arm as an aid in monitoring the effectiveness of glucose control.

The Accu-Chek Guide Me Blood Glucose Monitoring System consists of the following:

• Accu-Chek Guide Me meter
• Accu-Chek Guide test strips (previously cleared in K160944)

The provided text describes the Accu-Chek Guide Me Blood Glucose Monitoring System, a device intended for quantitative measurement of glucose in fresh capillary whole blood. The submission is a Special 510(k), indicating a modification to a previously cleared device (Accu-Chek Guide Blood Glucose Monitoring System, K160944).

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study information, based solely on the provided text. Many of the requested details about the study are not present in this 510(k) summary, as it largely focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence through comparison to a predicate device rather than presenting full clinical study results.

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

The document does not explicitly state "acceptance criteria" in a tabulated format with corresponding reported performance for the Accu-Chek Guide Me system related to analytical accuracy. Instead, it highlights that the Accu-Chek Guide test strip, measurement engine, and measurement principle used with the Accu-Chek Guide Me system have not been modified. System claims and performance have not changed. This implies that the performance of the Accu-Chek Guide Me system is expected to be identical to the predicate device (Accu-Chek Guide) because the core measurement technology is the same.

The similarities table (Table 1) however, provides specifications that could be considered performance parameters.

The key takeaway is that for the significant analytical performance aspects (test strip, measurement engine, principle, measurement range, hematocrit range), the device performance is stated to be "Same" as the predicate because these components were not modified. The document does not provide new analytical accuracy data for the Accu-Chek Guide Me system, relying on the predicate's performance.

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 specific sample sizes for a "test set" or data provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective) for the Accu-Chek Guide Me system. Since it's a Special 510(k) focusing on modifications that did not change the core measurement technology, new extensive analytical or clinical studies for the modified device are not detailed here. The submission relies on the established performance of the predicate device.

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. The device is a blood glucose monitoring system, and ground truth for such devices is typically established against laboratory reference methods (e.g., YSI analyzer), not by human expert consensus in the way medical imaging might require.

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

This information is not applicable and not provided. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are typically used for subjective assessments by multiple human readers (e.g., in radiology studies), not for objective measurements by a blood glucose meter.

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

This information is not applicable and not provided. An MRMC study is relevant to AI/CAD systems that assist human readers in interpreting medical images. The Accu-Chek Guide Me is a standalone blood glucose meter and does not involve human readers for interpretation in this context, nor does it feature AI assistance.

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

The device itself is a standalone glucose monitoring system. The document implies that because the "Accu-Chek Guide test strip, measurement engine, and measurement principle used with the Accu-Chek Guide Me system have not been modified," its standalone performance is considered identical to the predicate device (Accu-Chek Guide, K160944). No new standalone performance study data regarding analytical accuracy is presented for the Accu-Chek Guide Me in this document. The submission focuses on demonstrating that the modifications (user interface, physical design, connectivity details) do not impact the established standalone performance.

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

The document does not explicitly state the type of ground truth used. However, for blood glucose meters, the ground truth for analytical accuracy studies is invariably established using laboratory reference methods, such as a YSI glucose analyzer, which is considered the gold standard for glucose measurement in clinical laboratory settings.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not provided. The document highlights that the core measurement technology was not changed, implying that extensive re-training or new studies for the "Guiding Me" version was not deemed necessary for the 510(k) submission as a Special 510(k). For blood glucose meters, "training sets" are usually associated with the initial development and calibration of the electrochemical measurement system and algorithms, which happened for the predicate device.

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

This information is not provided. As with point 7, ground truth for the underlying measurement technology (if considered a "training set" for the original Accu-Chek Guide system) would have been established using laboratory reference methods like a YSI glucose analyzer.

Ask a specific question about this device