Search Results

Ask a specific question about this device

TRUDERMAL Pro (Model: ZLD-390) is an over-the-counter(OTC) device that delivering targeted phototherapy using three wavelengths(blue:415nm, red:630nm, Infrared(IR):850nm):

Red light: Reduces full-face wrinkles.
Blue light: Treats mild to moderate inflammatory acne.
IR light: Provides topical heating for the purpose of elevating tissue temperature, temporarily relieving minor muscle and joint pain, arthritis and muscle spasms; relieving stiffness; promoting relaxation of muscle tissues and temporarily increasing local blood circulation.

Mixed lights:
Red+IR light: Reduces full-face wrinkles.
Blue+Red light:Treats mild to moderate inflammatory acne.

The TRUDERMAL Pro is an over-the-counter LED light therapy medical device. The device emits specific wavelengths of low level, narrow band light for the treatment of certain dermatological and musculoskeletal indications. The wavelengths used in the TRUDERMAL Pro system are Blue 415nm, Red 630nm and Near Infrared 850nm.

The device consists of a TRUDERMAL Pro (with LED flexible silicone panel, Controller and AC/DC adapter), power cable, and 2 base seats, a pair of eye protectors. The TRUDERMAL Pro enables treatment of the face and the body via a LED flexible silicone panel.The system is operated by a controller and treatments can be performed by selecting different wavelengths. The light is generated by Light Emitting Diodes(LED's) that are contained within the LED flexible silicone panel. The LED panel can be placed into the Base, holding in the appropriate position to administer a facial treatment. For use on the body,the LED panel is removed from the Base unit and placed over the appropriate body part.

The device is not used to make measurements of any sort, or to draw any conclusions regarding the indication to treat. The device does not require checks on the light output as the LEDs do not dim with age to any practical extent.

I apologize, but I cannot fulfill your request to create a table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance, nor can I describe a study that proves the device meets specific acceptance criteria based solely on the provided FDA 510(k) Clearance Letter for TRUDERMAL Pro (ZLD-390).

Here's why:

• No Performance Data or Acceptance Criteria in the Document: The provided 510(k) clearance letter and its associated summary (510(k) Summary) do not contain any information about specific performance acceptance criteria or the results of clinical performance studies that demonstrate the device meets such criteria.
  • The document states, "Clinical testing was not needed for this 510(k). The non-clinical performance testing described above is sufficient to support that the device can be used safely and effectively." This explicitly indicates that no clinical performance data (which would typically include performance against acceptance criteria) was provided or evaluated for this 510(k) submission.
  • The non-clinical tests mentioned (electrical safety, EMC, biocompatibility, software V&V) are regulatory compliance tests, not performance studies assessing the therapeutic efficacy against specific clinical endpoints or acceptance criteria.

Therefore, I cannot extract or infer the following information from the provided text:

1. Table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance: This data is not present. The document explicitly states clinical testing was not needed.
2. Sample size used for the test set and data provenance: Since no clinical performance study was conducted or reported, there is no test set, sample size, or data provenance information.
3. Number of experts used to establish ground truth & qualifications: Not applicable, as no clinical performance study data relying on expert ground truth is provided.
4. Adjudication method for the test set: Not applicable.
5. MRMC comparative effectiveness study: Not conducted or reported. The device is a phototherapy device, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool, so an MRMC study is generally not relevant.
6. Standalone (algorithm only) performance study: Not applicable. This is a physical phototherapy device, not an algorithm.
7. Type of ground truth used: Not applicable.
8. Sample size for the training set: Not applicable, as this is a phototherapy device, not an AI model that would have a "training set" in the traditional sense.
9. How ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

What the document does provide regarding "performance" is:

• Comparison to Predicate Devices: The submission argues for substantial equivalence by comparing the TRUDERMAL Pro's technical characteristics (wavelengths, irradiance, treatment time) to legally marketed predicate devices. The claim is that "The subject device's wavelengths, treatment time, irradiance and radiation dose are similar and close to those of the predicate devices," and this, combined with non-clinical tests, "supports that the subject device is safe and as effective as the predicate devices for its intended use."
• Non-Clinical Test Summary: This section lists the electrical safety, electromagnetic compatibility, biocompatibility, and software verification/validation tests performed, demonstrating compliance with relevant industry standards (IEC, ISO). These tests ensure the device is safe and functions as designed electrically and mechanically, but they do not prove clinical efficacy against specific performance metrics related to wrinkle reduction, acne treatment, or pain relief.

In summary, the provided FDA document is a clearance letter and 510(k) summary that emphasizes substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices based on design, intended use, and non-clinical safety testing, rather than presenting a performance study with defined acceptance criteria and clinical results.

Ask a specific question about this device

The KALA Therapy Wand (Model: KALA-03) is intended for the treatment of facial wrinkles, and mild to moderate inflammatory acne. The red light is intended for the treatment of wrinkles, and the blue light is intended for the treatment of mild to moderate inflammatory acne.

The KALA Therapy Wand (Model: KALA-03) is indicated for over-the-counter aesthetic use. The red light is intended for the treatment of wrinkles, and the blue light is intended for the treatment of mild to moderate inflammatory acne. The device is vibrating in red light model. The device is powered by a Lithium-Ion rechargeable battery, and it has a charging cable, USB charging stand, protective goggles, storage case and instruction manual.

The wand can be rotated 135 degrees in either direction.

There are two switches of the device: one function is red light to wrinkle removal and vibration for relax, the other function is blue light to treat mild to inflammatory acne.

The device will automatically shut down after 12 minutes of operation. The recommended treatment time is 3 minutes per area. After every three minutes of treatment, the device will vibrate to indicate the time. If you need to continue treatment, simply turn on the device again.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter and summary for the KALA Therapy Wand (Model: KALA-03) indicate that no clinical performance study was conducted to prove the device meets acceptance criteria. The summary explicitly states:

"7.2 Summary of Clinical Performance: Clinical testing was not needed for this 510(k). The non-clinical performance testing described above is sufficient to support that the device can be used safely and effectively."

Therefore, the following information cannot be extracted from the provided document as it pertains to clinical performance which was not performed or deemed necessary for this 510(k) clearance.

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance (for clinical performance)
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts
4. Adjudication method
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 is typically for AI/imaging devices, not a light therapy wand)
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done (Not applicable for this device type)
7. The type of ground truth used
8. The sample size for the training set
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established

However, based on the non-clinical tests performed, we can infer the acceptance criteria for those tests and their reported performance:

Non-Clinical Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Additional Information Not Applicable/Provided:

• Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable as no clinical study was performed. For non-clinical tests, these metrics are not typically reported in this format.
• Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable as no clinical study was performed.
• Adjudication method: Not applicable as no clinical study was performed.
• If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done: No. This is typically for AI/imaging devices.
• If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done: No. This is typically for AI/software devices.
• The type of ground truth used: Not applicable as no clinical study was performed.
• The sample size for the training set: Not applicable as no clinical study was performed.
• How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable as no clinical study was performed.

In summary, the KALA Therapy Wand (Model: KALA-03) received 510(k) clearance based on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices through non-clinical performance testing and compliance with relevant safety and performance standards, without the need for a separate clinical effectiveness study.

Ask a specific question about this device

The CurrentBody Skin™ LED Light Therapy Mask Series 2 (Model: MK-90H) is an over-the-counter device that is intended for the use in the treatment of full-face wrinkles.

The CurrentBody Skin™ LED Light Therapy Mask Series 2 (Model: MK-90H) is a home use wearable LED phototherapy device whose purpose is to produce an even, cool, narrow band of light for aesthetic indication for treating facial wrinkles. It emits light energy in the red and near infrared (NIR) region of the light spectrum.

The device consists of a flexible silicone mask that contains light emitting diodes (LEDs) and a controller, multi-straps, a USB-C charging cord, a pair of eye inserts and a storage bag. The LEDs generate the light. The mask is worn on the face and is held in place by the adjustable strap. The controller contains a rechargeable Lithium ion polymer battery and controls power to the mask. The controller has only one key to switch the LEDs ON/OFF and it will automatically shut down after a 10-minute treatment is completed.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the CurrentBody Skin™ LED Light Therapy Mask Series 2 (K250966) does not contain the detailed study information typically associated with acceptance criteria and clinical performance for an AI/ML device in the context of diagnostic performance (e.g., detecting a disease).

This device is an LED light therapy mask intended for treatment of full-face wrinkles, falling under the regulation 21 CFR 878.4810 (Laser Surgical Instrument For Use In General And Plastic Surgery And In Dermatology). The primary focus of the regulatory review for such a device is safety and effectiveness based on its physical properties and intended use for cosmetic purposes, rather than diagnostic accuracy or AI-driven image analysis.

Therefore, many of the requested elements are not applicable to the information provided in this document. The document explicitly states:

• "Clinical testing is not needed for this 510(k)."
• "The non-clinical performance testing described above is sufficient to demonstrate that the device can be used safely and effectively."

This indicates that the device's clearance was based on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device through non-clinical tests (electrical safety, EMC, photobiological safety, battery safety, biocompatibility, and software verification/validation) and not on clinical performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or reader studies for diagnostic accuracy.

Addressing the Request Based on the Provided Document:

Given the nature of the device and the clearance documentation, I will answer the applicable points and explain why others are not present.

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance for CurrentBody Skin™ LED Light Therapy Mask Series 2 (K250966)

The CurrentBody Skin™ LED Light Therapy Mask Series 2 is an LED phototherapy device for the treatment of full-face wrinkles. The acceptance criteria and performance evaluation for this device, as detailed in the 510(k) summary, are primarily focused on safety, electrical performance, material compatibility, and functional equivalence to a predicate device, rather than diagnostic performance metrics (e.g., accuracy in identifying wrinkles).

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The concept of "acceptance criteria" for this device is primarily based on compliance with specific international safety and performance standards, and demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device for its intended use. "Device performance" is therefore reported in terms of compliance with these standards and matching key operational parameters with the predicate.

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

Not applicable for performance evaluation in the context of typical AI/ML diagnostic devices. The clearance is based on non-clinical engineering and safety testing, component material equivalence, and functional equivalence to a predicate device. There is no "test set" of patient data or images in the conventional sense for evaluating diagnostic accuracy or clinical outcomes directly in this 510(k) submission.

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

Not applicable. No ground truth established by experts for a test set of clinical data, as no clinical performance study was conducted or required for this 510(k). Approval is based on safety, hardware specifications, and substantial equivalence.

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

Not applicable. No clinical test set requiring adjudication was used.

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 not a diagnostic AI device. No MRMC study was conducted or is relevant for this product's intended use (treatment of wrinkles).

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

Not applicable. This device is a hardware LED light therapy mask. While it has software for control (e.g., timer), it is not a standalone diagnostic algorithm.

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

The "ground truth" for this device's clearance is not related to clinical data or diagnostic accuracy. Instead, the "truth" is established by:

• Compliance with recognized international standards for electrical safety, electromagnetic compatibility, photobiological safety, battery safety, and biocompatibility.
• Demonstration of substantial equivalence (same intended use, similar technological characteristics, and no new questions of safety or effectiveness) to a legally marketed predicate device (K221946).

For the purpose of treatment effectiveness validation in general, the underlying scientific basis for LED light therapy's effect on wrinkles (which is outside the scope of this specific 510k submission's clearance process details) would typically stem from clinical trials and dermatological research. However, this 510(k) relies on the predicate's established performance without new clinical studies.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This device is not an AI/ML algorithm that requires a training set of data for learning or inference.

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

Not applicable. As above, no training set for an AI/ML algorithm.

In summary, the provided 510(k) clearance letter details an approval based on substantial equivalence and compliance with safety and performance standards for a hardware medical device, not on the clinical performance or diagnostic accuracy of an AI/ML driven system. Therefore, many of the requested details regarding AI/ML study methodologies are not present in this document.

Ask a specific question about this device

The CurrentBody Skin Dual Light Hair Growth Helmet is indicated to promote hair growth in males with who have Norwood-Hamilton classifications of IIa-V or females with who have Ludwig-Savin Classifications of I-II and both with Fitzpatrick Skin Phototypes I-IV.

The CurrentBody Skin Dual Light Hair Growth Helmet (model:MZ-07A) is an over-the-counter device designed to promote hair growth in males who have Norwood-Hamilton Classifications of IIa-V patterns of hair loss and to promote hair growth in females who have Ludwig-Savin Classifications of I-II; both with Fitzpatrick Skin Types I-IV.

The device consists of 100 laser diodes with wavelength at 655±5nm, and 200 red light diodes with wavelength at 660±5nm.

The CurrentBody Skin Dual Light Hair Growth Helmet includes a hair-growing cap, a device base and a USB power cord. There are LEDs and lasers diodes inside the cap to emit visible red light, the device base acts as a support when the device is not used. There is a power button on cap to turn on/off the device, a digital display to show the remaining treatment time, an power indicator to show charging status and a USB port for charging.

The treatment parameter is pre-set by manufacturer, the device will auto off after treatment.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter and summary for the CurrentBody Skin Dual Light Hair Growth Helmet (K251017) indicate that clinical performance testing was explicitly stated as "not needed" for this 510(k) submission. Therefore, the document does not contain information regarding acceptance criteria or a study that proves the device meets those criteria based on clinical performance data.

The submission relies on non-clinical performance testing to demonstrate substantial equivalence and safety/effectiveness. This non-clinical testing focuses on electrical safety, EMC, photobiological safety, battery safety, biocompatibility, and software validation.

Here's a breakdown of why the requested information about acceptance criteria and a clinical study proving performance cannot be extracted from this document, along with information that is available:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance (Based on Non-Clinical Testing)

Since no clinical performance study was provided, there are no specific performance acceptance criteria for hair growth or efficacy reported in the document. The acceptance criteria for this submission are related to meeting established safety and performance standards through non-clinical testing.

Table of Acceptance Criteria (Non-Clinical) and Reported Device Performance:

Regarding a Clinical Study (Not Applicable for this Submission)

As stated in Section 7.2 of the 510(k) Summary:
"Clinical testing was not needed for this 510(k). The non-clinical performance testing described above is sufficient to support that the device can be used safely and effectively."

Therefore, the following information, which would typically be included for a clinical study proving efficacy/performance, is not available in this document:

1. Sample sizes used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable.
2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable.
3. Adjudication method for the test set: Not applicable.
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: Not applicable (This is generally for diagnostic AI devices, not a therapeutic device like this).
5. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable.
6. The type of ground truth used: Not applicable.
7. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable (referring to clinical training data for performance, not engineering/software validation training).
8. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

Summary of Device Performance Claim Basis for Hair Growth:

The claim about promoting hair growth is based on:

• Substantial Equivalence: The primary strategy for clearance is demonstrating that the CurrentBody Skin Dual Light Hair Growth Helmet is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices (K231153: Neuhat Hair Growth System; K240456: Bosley Booster Laser Caps). The predicate devices were previously cleared for the same indication (promote hair growth in specific Norwood-Hamilton and Ludwig-Savin classifications with Fitzpatrick Skin Phototypes I-IV).
• Similarity in Design and Parameters: The submission highlights similarities in the intended use, indications for use, type of light (low-level laser and LED), wavelength (very close to predicates), number of diodes, energy per laser diode, and treatment time/irradiance (very close to predicates). The argument is that these similarities mean the subject device will have a similar therapeutic effect to the already-cleared predicate devices.
• Non-Clinical Data: As detailed in the table above, the non-clinical testing ensures the device meets safety standards (electrical, EMC, photobiological, battery, biocompatibility, software) which indirectly supports its safe use for its intended purpose without raising new questions of safety or effectiveness compared to the predicates.

Ask a specific question about this device

The KALA Red Light Face Mask (Model: KALA-01) is an over-the-counter device that is intended to emit energy in the red and near-infrared spectrum and is intended for the use in the treatment of full-face wrinkles.

The KALA Red Light Face Mask (Model: KALA-01) is an over-the-counter device that is intended to emit energy in the blue region of the light spectrum and is intended for the use in the treatment of mild to moderate acne vulgaris of the face.

KALA Red Light Face Mask is a home wearable light-emitting diode phototherapy device with three proven wavelengths of light 630nm Red light, 830nm Near infrared red light and 465nm blue light, all of these lights are known to treat wrinkles and mild to moderate acne vulgaris of the face. Among them, the device emits energy in red and near-infrared spectrum to treat full-face wrinkles, emits energy in the blue region of the light spectrum to treat mild to moderate acne vulgaris of the face.

The system consists of a flexible silicone mask that contains LEDs and a controller. The mask is worn on the face and is held in place by Head Straps. The mask compromises of 2 surfaces. An inner surface that contacts the skin and an outer surface. Both surfaces are constructed of silicone.

The controller contains a rechargeable Lithium battery, the power supply (adaptor) is used to charge the Lithium battery and be connected to a suitable mains outlet via a 2 or 3 pin input socket and wall plug. The KALA Red Light Face Mask cannot be operated while charging. The controller switches the LEDs ON/OFF and controls power to the mask. Switch the controller ON and allow the mask to run for Red + NIR or Blue modes and 10- or 20-minutes treatment time program. The cable for connecting with the controller is detachable.

The device is not used to make measurements of any sort, or to draw any conclusions regarding the indication to treat. The device does not require checks on the light output as the LEDs do not dim with age to any practical extent.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter and summary for the KALA Red Light Face Mask (KALA-01) primarily focus on non-clinical performance testing and substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than a detailed study demonstrating the device meets clinical acceptance criteria.

The document states, "Clinical testing was not needed for this 510(k). The non-clinical performance testing described above is sufficient to support that the device can be used safely and effectively." This indicates that the regulatory clearance was based on demonstrating the device's technical performance, safety, and similarity to already approved devices, rather than a clinical trial with specific acceptance criteria related to efficacy (e.g., wrinkle reduction or acne treatment efficacy percentages).

Therefore, the following information will be based on the provided non-clinical performance testing and will highlight the absence of clinical study data as explicitly stated in the document.

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance (Non-Clinical)

Since no clinical study focusing on efficacy endpoints (like wrinkle reduction percentage or acne lesion count reduction) was presented as part of the 510(k) summary, the acceptance criteria and performance reported here are for the non-clinical performance tests conducted to ensure the device's safety and fundamental operational characteristics.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (Non-Clinical)

Study Details (Based on Non-Clinical Testing)

As explicitly stated in the 510(k) summary, no clinical testing was performed or required for this clearance. The "study" here refers to the collection of non-clinical tests performed to demonstrate safety and technical performance.

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

• Sample Size: The document does not specify a "sample size" in the context of a patient cohort. For the non-clinical tests, it would typically refer to a statistically relevant number of devices or components tested. This information is not provided in detail, but it's understood that typical engineering and safety tests involve a representative sample of manufactured units or materials.
• Data Provenance: The tests were conducted in a lab setting, likely by the manufacturer or accredited testing facilities. The country of origin for the data (tests) is not explicitly stated beyond the manufacturer being in Shenzhen, China. The nature of these tests is prospective in the sense that they are planned tests on the device or its components to demonstrate compliance with standards.

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

• This concept is not applicable to the non-clinical performance and safety tests described. These tests involve objective measurements against established engineering and safety standards (e.g., electrical safety, optical power, material biocompatibility). "Ground truth" in this context is the standard itself (e.g., IEC 60601-1 requirements).
• For biocompatibility, the equivalence relies on the materials being identical to those of a previously cleared device (K202390), implicitly accepting that the ground truth for those materials' biocompatibility was established in the prior clearance.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

• None in the sense of clinical adjudication by multiple human experts. The compliance for non-clinical tests is determined by adherence to predefined, objective criteria outlined in the relevant international standards (e.g., IEC, ISO). Test reports are typically reviewed by regulatory bodies like the FDA.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done:

• No. An MRMC study is relevant for evaluating the performance of diagnostic devices or AI systems where human readers interpret medical images or data. This device is a therapeutic light-emitting mask, and no such study was conducted or presented for its 510(k) clearance.

6. If a Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) was done:

• Not applicable. This device does not involve a diagnostic algorithm or AI for interpretation that would necessitate a "standalone" or "human-in-the-loop" performance evaluation. Its performance is based on its physical emission characteristics and safety features.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

• For the non-clinical tests, the "ground truth" is defined by international safety and performance standards (e.g., IEC 60601 series, IEC 62471, ISO 10993 series) and the specified technical requirements for the device (e.g., power density, leakage current limits).
• For biocompatibility, the ground truth is established by the prior clearance (K202390), based on the assumption that the identical materials have already demonstrated acceptable biocompatibility.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

• Not applicable. The provided documentation does not describe any training set, as it does not involve machine learning or AI models that require specific training data.

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

• Not applicable, as there was no training set.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Solawave 2-in-1 Skincare Mini (Model: 61043) is an over-the-counter device that emits energy in the red and infrared spectrum for treating wrinkles on the face and decolletage.

The Solawave 2-in-1 Skincare Mini (Model: 61043) is a hand-held, battery-powered device that reduce wrinkles by emitting LED red light (630nm) and infrared light (830nm). The device is powered by a Lithium-Ion rechargeable battery, and it comes with a charging cable, storage bag, and instruction manual.

The Solawave 2-in-1 Skincare Mini is a revolutionary device that offers two simultaneous approaches for your skin routine in one handheld device:

1. Red and Near-Infrared Light Therapy
2. Warming function (This function is not for medical purpose)

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the Solawave 2-in-1 Skincare Mini (K250532) indicates that no clinical performance studies were conducted or deemed necessary for its clearance.

Therefore, it is not possible to describe acceptance criteria and associated study results for device performance based on the provided document, as no such studies were submitted or reviewed by the FDA for this particular clearance.

The document states:

• "Clinical testing was not needed for this 510(k)." (Page 10, Section 7.2)
• The clearance is based on the device being "substantially equivalent" to legally marketed predicate devices. This means the FDA determined the device has the same intended use and technological characteristics as a predicate device, or if there are differences, those differences do not raise different questions of safety and effectiveness.

Breakdown of the requested information based on the provided document:

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

   • Not applicable. No clinical performance studies were conducted or provided in this 510(k) submission to establish acceptance criteria for device performance or report device performance against such criteria. The "performance" assessment was primarily through comparison to predicate devices and non-clinical testing.

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

   • Not applicable. No clinical test set was used for performance evaluation in this 510(k).

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. No clinical test set requiring expert ground truth was used for performance evaluation in this 510(k).

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

   • Not applicable. No clinical test set requiring adjudication was used for performance evaluation in this 510(k).

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 a light-based therapy device, not an AI-powered diagnostic or assistive tool, and no MRMC study was conducted.

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

   • Not applicable. This device is a physical light-based therapy device, not an algorithm, and no standalone performance study was conducted.

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

   • Not applicable. No clinical ground truth was established as no clinical studies were performed. The "ground truth" for substantial equivalence was based on existing predicate device characteristics and regulatory standards.

8. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable. This device is a physical light-based therapy device, not a machine learning model, and therefore does not have a "training set" in the context of AI/ML.

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

   • Not applicable. As above, no training set for an AI/ML model was used.

Summary of what was reported instead:

The 510(k) submission relied on:

• Non-Clinical Tests:
  • Electrical safety (e.g., IEC 60601-1, IEC 60601-1-11, IEC 60601-2-57, IEC 60601-1-2)
  • Photobiological safety (IEC 62471)
  • Battery safety (IEC 62133-2)
  • Biocompatibility (ISO 10993-5, ISO 10993-10, ISO 10993-23)
  • Software verification and validation (classified as "moderate" concern)
• Comparison to Predicate Devices: The document extensively compares the Solawave 2-in-1 Skincare Mini with several predicate and reference devices regarding features like intended use, regulation class, product code, power source, irradiance source, wavelengths, irradiances, and treatment time to establish substantial equivalence. The argument for equivalent "treatment effect (wrinkle treatment)" is made based on similar wavelengths, and irradiances/treatment times being "very close to those of reference devices 1 and 2."

In conclusion, for this specific 510(k), the acceptance criteria and proof of device performance were primarily established through substantial equivalence to existing legally marketed devices and successful completion of non-clinical safety testing, rather than through new clinical performance studies.

Ask a specific question about this device

M1 is used to reduce the circumference of the hips, waist and is indicated for use as a noninvasive dermatological.

M2 is intended to emit energy in the visible and infrared region of the spectrum for use in the treatment of full-face wrinkles.

M3 is intended to emit energy in the visible and IR spectrum intended to provide topical heating for the purpose of elevating tissue temperature for a temporary relief of minor muscle and joint pain and stiffness, minor arthritis, pain or muscle spasm, the temporary increase in local blood circulation, and the temporary relaxation of muscles.

The EnergyLounger, Model: TY-01 a device designed similar to a recliner, with 1260 LED lights, a switch for power on/off, and it can automatically stop treatment after 20 minutes use for M1/M2 and after 30 minutes use for M3, 2 buttons for mode selection, and an AC power supply for power supply.

The LED in the EnergyLounger, Model: TY-01 is a 1W imitation current light. It's a 4-in-1 LED, including 630nm, 630nm, 850nm and 940nm.The EnergyLounger, Model: TY-01 includes a detailed Instruction Manual, operators need to read the instructions carefully before use.

This device uses three types of LEDs and has three working modes, which can be selected by the user by pressing a button.

The device consists of an Energy Lounger, power cable, Product protect cover, Reflector, Goggles and User Manual.

I'm sorry, but this document does not contain the detailed information necessary to entirely fulfill your request. The provided text is a 510(k) premarket notification letter and a 510(k) summary for a medical device called "EnergyLounger (TY-01)".

While it discusses the device's indications for use, its comparison to predicate devices, and non-clinical tests performed (electrical safety, EMC, biocompatibility, usability validation), it explicitly states:

"Clinical testing was not needed for this 510(k). The non-clinical performance testing described above is sufficient to support that the device can be used safely and effectively."

This means there was no clinical study, human reader study, or establishment of ground truth regarding clinical outcomes (e.g., reduction of hip/waist circumference, treatment of wrinkles, pain relief) performed for this submission. Therefore, I cannot provide information on:

• A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance related to clinical effectiveness. The acceptance criteria mentioned are for non-clinical aspects like electrical safety and biocompatibility.
• Sample size used for the test set (clinical).
• Number of experts used to establish ground truth for the test set.
• Adjudication method for the test set.
• MRMC comparative effectiveness study.
• Standalone (algorithm only) performance.
• Type of ground truth used (clinical outcomes/pathology).
• Sample size for the training set (clinical data).
• How ground truth for the training set was established.

The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on technological characteristics and non-clinical safety/performance standards, rather than direct clinical efficacy trials.

However, I can extract information about the non-clinical acceptance criteria and tests:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance (Non-Clinical):

Regarding the other points, as stated above, the document explicitly indicates that no clinical testing was performed or needed for this 510(k). Therefore, questions related to clinical test sets, ground truth establishment for clinical outcomes, or human reader studies cannot be answered from this document.

Ask a specific question about this device

For MK-90C:
The CurrentBody™ LED 4 in 1 Zone Facial Mapping Mask (Models: MK-90C) is an over the counter device, specifically indicated to treat mild to moderate acne vulgaris of the face and use in the treatment of full-face wrinkles.
For MK-90M:
The CurrentBody™ LED 4 in 1 Zone Facial Mapping Mask (Models: MK-90M) is an over the counter device intended for the use in the treatment of full face wrinkles.
For MK66RB-F:
The CurrentBody™ LED 4 in 1 Zone Facial Mapping Mask (Models: MK66RB-F) is an over the counter device, specifically indicated to treat mild to moderate acne vulgaris.
For MK-90N:
The CurrentBody™ LED 4 in 1 Zone Facial Mapping Mask (Models: MK-90N) is an over the counter device, is generally indicated to treat dermatological conditions and specifically indicated for treatment of periorbital wrinkles.

The CurentBody™LED 4 in 1 Zone Facial Mapping Mask is a home wearable light-emitting diode phototherapy device whose purpose is to produce an even, cool, narrow band of light for the treatment of mild to moderate acne vulgaris of the face. The system consists of a flexible silicone mask that contains LEDs and a controller. The mask is worn on the face and is held in place by adjustable Velcro straps. The mask compromises of 2 surfaces. An inner surface that contacts the skin and an outer surface, Both surfaces are constructed of silicone The CurentBody™LED 4 in 1 Zone Facial Mapping Mask has 4 models, MK-90C, MK-90M, MK66RB-F and MK-90N.The controller contains a rechargeable lithium battery. The user charges the controller by connecting the charging cable with an adapter (AC100-240V, 50Hz/60Hz 5V 2A).The LED Light Therapy Mask cannot be operated while charging.

This document describes the FDA's decision to clear the CurrentBody™ LED 4 in 1 Zone Facial Mapping Mask based on its substantial equivalence to previously marketed devices. As such, it does not include a detailed study proving the device meets acceptance criteria specific to a new AI/imaging algorithm. Instead, it relies on demonstrating that the new device is as safe and effective as existing, cleared devices through non-clinical testing and comparison.

Therefore, many of the specific questions about AI/imaging algorithm acceptance criteria, ground truth establishment, expert adjudication, and MRMC studies are not applicable to this 510(k) submission, which is for a light therapy device.

However, I can extract information related to the device's technical specifications and how its performance and safety were evaluated against predicate devices.

Here's a breakdown of the available information, addressing the relevant points and noting where information is not applicable due to the nature of the device and submission type:

1. Table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance:

The document doesn't present "acceptance criteria" in the traditional sense of a specified performance threshold (e.g., >X% accuracy). Instead, the acceptance criteria for this 510(k) submission are implicitly met by demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices in areas of safety and effectiveness. The "reported device performance" is largely framed as compliance with recognized standards and similarity to the predicate devices.

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

• Sample Size: Not applicable. This submission relies on substantial equivalence through non-clinical performance and safety testing against recognized standards, and comparison to predicate devices, rather than a clinical trial with a "test set" of patients.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable in the context of patient data. The provenance of the testing data would be from the manufacturer's internal labs or contracted testing facilities for engineering, electrical, and biocompatibility tests.

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

• Not applicable. This device is not an AI/imaging algorithm that requires ground truth established by experts for a test set. Its performance relies on physical specifications, light output, electrical safety, and biocompatibility, as measured against engineering standards.

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

• Not applicable. There is no "test set" of patient cases requiring adjudication by experts.

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 therapy device, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.

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

• Not applicable. This device does not have a standalone algorithm for diagnostic or interpretative performance.

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

• Not applicable. "Ground truth" in the context of clinical outcomes or imaging interpretation is not relevant here. The "ground truth" for this device's safety and effectiveness is established through adherence to recognized international and electrical safety standards (e.g., IEC 60601 series, IEC 62471, ISO 10993 series) and demonstration that its physical and functional characteristics are "substantially equivalent" to already cleared predicate devices.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable. The device is not based on a machine learning model that requires a training set.

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

• Not applicable. The device is not based on a machine learning model that requires ground truth for a training set.

Summary of Study Type:

The "study" that proves this device meets the "acceptance criteria" (defined as substantial equivalence to predicates and compliance with safety standards) is a non-clinical performance and safety testing program, as outlined in section 5.1 and 5.2 (Non-Clinical Test, Biocompatibility Test, Light output, and Software verification and validation). No clinical studies were deemed necessary for this 510(k) submission, as stated in section 5.5. The performance is assessed through technical specifications and their adherence to established safety and performance norms for similar devices.

Ask a specific question about this device

The HIGHERDOSE Red Light Hat is a home wearable light-emitting diode phototherapy device with proven wavelengths of light 650nm±10nm Red light, which are used to treat Androgenetic Alopecia and promote hair growth in males who have Norwood- Hamilton Classfications of Ila - V patterns of hair loss and to treat Androgenetic Alopecia and promote hair growth in females who have Ludwig-Savin Scale 1-1 to 1-4, 11-1, 11-2 or frontal patterns of hair loss; both with Fitzpatrick Skin Types 1 - 1V.

The HIGHERDOSE Red Light Hat is a home wearable light-emitting diode phototherapy device with proven wavelengths of light 650nm±10nm Red light, which are used to treat Androgenetic Alopecia and promote hair growth in males who have Nowood- Hamilton Classifications of Ila - V patterns of hair loss and to treat Androgenetic Alopecia and promote hair growth in females who have Ludwig-Savin Scale I-1 to I-4, II-1, II-2 or frontal patterns of hair loss; both with Fitzpatrick Skin Types I - IV.

The device is designed as wearable product, and it consists of the main unit, the controller and a power cable, as well as it is powered by the built-in rechargeable lithium battery.

The hat compromises of 2 surfaces. An inner surface that contacts the skin and an outer surface. Both surfaces are constructed of cotton.

The controller contains a rechargeable Lithium battery, the power supply (adaptor) is used to charge the Lithium battery and is connected to a suitable mains outlet via a 2 or 3 pin input socket and wall plug. The HIGHERDOSE Red Light Hat cannot be operated while charging. The controller switches the LEDs ON/OFF. Switch the controller ON and allow the hat to run for 10 minutes treatment program. The cable for connecting with the controller is detachable.

The device is not used to make measurements of any sort, or to draw any conclusions regarding the indication to treat. The device does not require checks on the light output as the LEDs do not dim with age to any practical extent.

The provided text describes a 510(k) submission for the HIGHERDOSE Red Light Hat (HG-120K), seeking substantial equivalence to predicate devices for treating Androgenetic Alopecia and promoting hair growth.

However, the documentation does not contain information regarding a clinical study with acceptance criteria and reported device performance related to hair growth outcomes. Instead, it focuses on non-clinical performance testing (electrical safety, EMC, usability, software verification, and biocompatibility) to demonstrate safety and effectiveness for a device marketed as an Over-The-Counter Infrared Lamp.

The document explicitly states: "Clinical testing was not needed for this 510(k). The non-clinical performance testing described above is sufficient to support that the device can be used safely and effectively." This means that the FDA's clearance for this device was based on a comparison to predicate devices and engineering/safety tests, not on new clinical data demonstrating its efficacy in hair growth.

Therefore, it is not possible to extract the requested information from the provided text regarding:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance for hair growth.
2. Sample size and data provenance for a test set proving hair growth efficacy.
3. Number and qualifications of experts for ground truth establishment for hair growth.
4. Adjudication method for a hair growth test set.
5. MRMC comparative effectiveness study for human readers with and without AI assistance for hair growth.
6. Standalone performance of an algorithm without human-in-the-loop for hair growth.
7. Type of ground truth used for a hair growth study.
8. Sample size for a training set (as no AI algorithm for diagnosis/prognosis is implied).
9. How ground truth for a training set was established.

The document primarily addresses the substantial equivalence requirements by comparing the technical specifications and intended use of the HIGHERDOSE Red Light Hat with previously cleared infrared lamp devices, and by demonstrating compliance with relevant electrical and safety standards.

Ask a specific question about this device