Search Results

The SACS EEG Workstation A7 is intended to be used for the measurement and recording of the electrical activity in a patient's brain, using electrodes placed on the patient's head.

The SACS EEG Workstation A7 is intended for use by qualified medical personnel trained in the use of electroencephalographs.

The SACS EEG Workstation A7 ("SACS A7") is a line-powered electroencephalograph that measures and records the electrical activity in a patient's brain via electrodes placed on the patient's head. The SACS A7 System device is comprised of a flat-panel monitor, an Intel Pentium-based computer with proprietary software installed, a separate EEG amplifier, a separate photic stimulator, and a standard computer keyboard. The components can be mounted on a customer's mobile stand or cart, or on a desk or work table. A USB cable connects the computer to the EEG amplifier, which is in turn connected to patient electrodes that are applied to specified locations on the patient's head. The system is controlled by a Windows XP-based operating system. EEG results are stored either on the Workstation itself in the SACS Database on the hard drive, or on a network server. If results are stored on the SACS Server Database on a network server, they can be reviewed from any SACS Review Workstation.

This appears to be a 510(k) summary for the SACS EEG Workstation A7. Based on the provided text, there is no detailed study described that establishes specific acceptance criteria and then proves the device meets those criteria.

The document primarily focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to a predicate device (DG Nervus EEG, K964280) rather than presenting a performance study with defined acceptance criteria.

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

• No specific acceptance criteria are listed for device performance. The document states "There are no significant differences between the SACS EEG Workstation A7 and the predicate device that would adversely affect the use of the proposed device" and "The SACS EEG Workstation A7 is substantially equivalent to the predicate device in design, function, and indications for use/intended use." This implies that the acceptance criterion is substantial equivalence, not a set of specific measurable performance metrics.
• No detailed study is outlined. The document is a 510(k) summary, which is a regulatory submission, not a scientific publication detailing a clinical or technical performance study. It does not describe how substantial equivalence was proven beyond a general comparison of features and intended use.

Therefore, many of the specific points requested cannot be answered from the provided text.

However, I can extract the information that is present:

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

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not specified. (No independent test set is described as part of a performance study.)
• Data Provenance: Not applicable, as no specific performance data or test set is presented.

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

• Not applicable, as no test set with ground truth established by experts is described.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• Not applicable.

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 or AI comparative effectiveness study is mentioned. This device is an EEG workstation, not an AI-driven diagnostic tool.

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

• Not applicable. The device is an EEG workstation for human medical personnel to operate.

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

• Not applicable, as no ground truth data from a specific study is presented. The "ground truth" for substantial equivalence is the predicate device's established regulatory status and performance.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. This document does not describe a machine learning algorithm or a training set.

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

• Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device