Search Results

A patient examination Vinyl Powder Free Gloves is a disposable device Intended for medical patient and examiner. A patient examination vinyl in the is worn on the examiner' device Intended for medical patient and examiner.

Powder Free Vinyl Examination Glove

I am sorry, but the provided text is a letter from the FDA regarding a 510(k) premarket notification for "Powder Free Vinyl Examination Glove" and an "Indications for Use" statement.

This document does not contain information about the acceptance criteria and study results for an AI/device's performance as typically requested for medical AI devices. It details the FDA's decision regarding substantial equivalence for a medical glove, which is a physical device, not a software or AI-driven diagnostic tool.

Therefore, I cannot extract the requested information such as test set sample size, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, training set details, or ground truth establishment, as this information is not present in the provided text.

Ask a specific question about this device

A patient examination Vinyl Powdered Glove is a disposable device intended for medical purpose that is worn on the examiner's hand to prevent contamination between patient and examiner.

Powdered Vinyl Examination Gloves

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

   Performance Metric	Acceptance Criteria	Reported Device Performance
   Substantial Equivalence	The device is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices.	The device (Powdered Vinyl Examination Gloves) is determined to be substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices.
   Indications for Use	Intended for medical purposes, worn on the examiner's hand to prevent contamination between patient and examiner.	The device meets this indication for use.
   Classification	Classified as Class I, subject to general controls.	The device is classified as Class I.

2. Sample Size for Test Set and Data Provenance:

   • The provided document is a 510(k) clearance letter from the FDA, not a study report. Therefore, it does not specify a "test set" in the context of an algorithm or device performance study with a numerical sample size.
   • The determination of substantial equivalence for devices like examination gloves typically relies on adherence to recognized standards and comparison to predicate devices, rather than a prospective study with a specific test set of patients or samples.
   • Data Provenance: Not applicable in the context of an algorithmic test set. The review is based on the manufacturer's submission demonstrating equivalence to established predicate devices.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications:

   • This document refers to the FDA's review process. The "experts" involved are the reviewers within the FDA's Division of Anesthesiology, General Hospital, Infection Control and Dental Devices, Office of Device Evaluation, Center for Devices and Radiological Health.
   • The letter is signed by Chiu Lin, Ph.D., Director of that division. While specific qualifications for all individual reviewers are not detailed, it is understood that FDA reviewers are subject matter experts in medical devices and regulatory science. There is no mention of a specific number of "experts" as would be in a consensus study.

4. Adjudication Method:

   • Not applicable in the context of a 510(k) clearance. Substantial equivalence is determined by the FDA based on the submitted information comparing the new device to predicates, not through an adjudication process with multiple readers or experts assessing a test set.

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

   • No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done, as this document is a 510(k) clearance for a physical device (examination gloves), not an AI algorithm. Therefore, there is no discussion of human readers improving with or without AI assistance.

6. Standalone Performance Study (Algorithm Only):

   • No, a standalone performance study was not done because this is not an AI algorithm. It is a physical device subject to general controls and substantial equivalence review.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used:

   • The "ground truth" for a 510(k) for a device like examination gloves is established through adherence to recognized performance standards (e.g., for strength, barrier integrity, biocompatibility) and comparison to existing, legally marketed predicate devices. The "ground truth" is that the device performs as safely and effectively as its predicates for its intended use. There isn't a "ground truth" in the sense of expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data for this type of submission.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set:

   • Not applicable. There is no AI algorithm being "trained" for this device. The concept of a training set is not relevant to the 510(k) clearance of examination gloves.

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

   • Not applicable, as there is no training set for this device type.

Ask a specific question about this device