Search Results

The ML24000 UVA-1 Phototherapy Unit is a full body medical ultraviolet device, which is intended for use, by or under the direction of a physician, for therapeutic treatment for individuals who require ultraviolet or visible radiation for diagnosed skin disorders.

The ML24000 UVA-1 Phototherapy Unit is a microprocessor controlled full body ultraviolet light source, with spectral output at peak wavelengths of 370-390 nm. It is intended for use by or under the direction of a physician, for the treatment of diagnosed skin disorders. The desired dose is selected using the operator interface located on the front panel of the device. The ML24000 UVA-1 Phototherapy Unit delivers full body phototherapy, wherebv Philips CLEO HPA 1018 Medium Pressure Lamps, which surround the patient, deliver the specified dose of UVA-1.

The provided text does not contain information about acceptance criteria and a study proving a device meets these criteria in the typical sense of a clinical or performance study for an AI/CADe device. Instead, the document is a 510(k) summary for a phototherapy unit, focusing on its substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

Therefore, most of the requested information cannot be extracted directly from this document.

Here's an attempt to answer the questions based only on the provided text, indicating where information is not available:

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

   The document does not explicitly present acceptance criteria in a quantitative format typical for AI/CADe devices (e.g., sensitivity, specificity thresholds) nor does it report performance metrics against such criteria. The "Performance Data" section states: "The ML24000 UVA-1 Phototherapy Unit performance data is the same as or very similar to that of the claimed predicate devices. The UV lamps and cabinet construction used in the production of the predicate device and the ML24000 UVA-1 Phototherapy Unit are similar." This implies equivalence through comparison rather than meeting specific performance thresholds.

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

   Not applicable. This is a medical device (phototherapy unit), not an AI/CADe system relying on a "test set" of data for algorithm evaluation in the conventional sense. The "performance data" refers to the physical characteristics and operation of the device being similar to existing cleared devices, not algorithmic performance on a dataset.

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. Ground truth for a test set is not relevant for this type of device submission.

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

   Not applicable. Adjudication methods for test sets are not relevant for this type of device.

5. If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance

   Not applicable. This device is a phototherapy unit, 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 an algorithm in the context of an AI/CADe system.

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

   Not applicable. Ground truth is not relevant for this type of device submission. The "ground truth" for a phototherapy unit would be its physical specifications, spectral output, safety, and efficacy in treating skin conditions, which are established through general medical knowledge and clinical practice guidelines, not a specific dataset ground truth.

8. The sample size for the training set

   Not applicable. There is no "training set" for this kind of medical device.

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

   Not applicable. There is no "training set" or corresponding ground truth for this device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Ab Belt Pro device is indicated for use for the improvement of abdominal muscle tone, for strengthening of the abdominal muscles and for developing a firmer abdomen.

The Ab Belt Pro is a single channel battery operated muscle stimulation system specifically designed to exercise the abdominal muscles for the purposes of improving abdominal muscle tone, strengthening the abdominal muscles and developing a firmer abdomen. It comprises an electronic stimulation controller module which generates the required electrical stimulation signals and an abdominally worn electrode belt which connects the signals from the stimulator to the skin electrodes located on the inner surface of the belt.

This document is a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device called the Ab Belt Pro, a powered muscle stimulator. The purpose of this notification is to demonstrate that the Ab Belt Pro is substantially equivalent to a legally marketed predicate device, the Slendertone™ Flex (K010335).

Here's an analysis of the provided information regarding acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided document does not contain a table of acceptance criteria or reported device performance in the way typically expected for a detailed clinical or performance study. Instead, it focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

The "acceptance criteria" here are implied by the criteria for substantial equivalence to the predicate device:

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

Not applicable. This document is a 510(k) submission focused on substantial equivalence, not a clinical trial report with a test set of patients. There is no mention of a test set, sample size, or data provenance from a prospective or retrospective study on human subjects for the Ab Belt Pro's performance in achieving its indicated uses. The testing mentioned refers to technical compliance and biocompatibility.

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

Not applicable. As there is no clinical test set described, there are no experts used to establish ground truth for a test set in the context of device efficacy. The "experts" involved would be those performing testing for technical standards compliance or biocompatibility, but these are not clinical experts establishing ground truth for treatment outcomes.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

Not applicable. No clinical test set or efficacy study on human subjects is described, so no adjudication method is mentioned.

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 muscle stimulator, not an AI-powered diagnostic or imaging interpretation tool. Therefore, an MRMC study related to readers and AI assistance is not relevant or described.

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

Not applicable. This device is a physical muscle stimulator and does not involve algorithms in the context of diagnostic or interpretive performance.

7. The type of ground truth used

For the purpose of substantial equivalence, the "ground truth" implicitly refers to:

• The established regulatory requirements and standards (e.g., 21 CFR 898).
• The characteristics and established safety/efficacy profile of the predicate device (Slendertone™ Flex: K010335).
• Biocompatibility standards and prior clearance of the conductive gel.

There is no mention of ground truth established through expert consensus on muscle toning, pathology results, or patient outcomes data for the Ab Belt Pro itself to demonstrate its effectiveness in the 510(k) application. This is because 510(k) focuses on equivalence, not de novo demonstration of safety and efficacy.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. As this is not an AI/ML device, there is no concept of a "training set" in the context of an algorithm.

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

Not applicable. See point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Conductive Gel is intended for use with TENS (transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulators) and EMS (electrical muscle stimulators). The Conductive Gel is used with external electrodes to reduce the impedance of the contact between the electrode surface and the skin.

The Conductive Gel is a colored gel used for reducing the impedance between electrodes and the skin. The gel is to be generously applied to the area under an electrode, which is to be used. The gel can be washed off the skin after use.

This submission describes a Conductive Gel and does not include a study with acceptance criteria, device performance, or human readers as described in your request. The provided text is a 510(k) summary for a medical device (conductive gel) intended for use with TENS and EMS devices.

Therefore, I cannot extract the information required concerning:

• A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance.
• Sample sizes for test or training sets.
• Data provenance.
• Number/qualifications of experts.
• Adjudication methods.
• MRMC comparative effectiveness study or related effect sizes.
• Standalone algorithm performance.
• Type of ground truth used.
• How ground truth was established.

This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device (Skylark Batch #6060 Conductive Gel) rather than presenting a performance study with specific acceptance criteria that would apply to software or AI-driven devices. The "study" here is essentially the comparison to the predicate device to argue for substantial equivalence in safety and effectiveness.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Ab Belt device is indicated for use for the improvement of abdominal muscle tone, for strengthening of the abdominal muscles and for developing a firmer abdomen.

The Ab Belt is a single channel battery operated muscle stimulation system specifically designed for improving abdominal muscle tone, for strengthening the abdominal muscles and for developing a firmer abdomen. It comprises an electronic stimulation controller module which generates the required electrical stimulation signals and an abdominally worn electrode belt which connects the signals from the stimulator to the skin electrodes located on the inner surface of the belt. The device is supplied with a set of three identical electrodes, a tube of conductive gel, an instruction manual, a set of batteries and a fabric belt extension for fuller figures. Power is derived from three (3) 1.5V AAA batteries located on an external pop-on connector and slid into a pocket on the belt facia. The central umbilical electrode is common to each of the left and right stimulation circuits.

The electrodes connect mechanically to 'press-studs' mounted on the inner face of the abdominal belt. The studs are presented in such a way that each of the outer electrodes may be rotated about a single common stud to accommodate both inner and outer muscle groups. Only these single common studs of the outer electrodes and the central umbilical electrode are electrically connected to the stimulator unit. This prevents stimulation to the user through a stud, which is not covered by an electrode pad.

The user extends the belt and puts it in a wrapping motion from front to back, closing it at the back using Velcro patches. When the belt is in place the central electrode locates over the umbilicus and the two outer electrodes locate on either side of the body towards the mid axillary line, between the pelvis and the rib cage. It is well known in the art that this electrode positioning is particularly useful for stimulating the abdominal muscles.

The pulsed stimulation current passes between the outer and center electrodes only. There is no current passed from outer electrode to outer electrode. The user has no access to the wiring or connectors as they are stored internally within the belt structure. As a result he or she cannot alter the current path and so the possibilities for misuse are greatly reduced.

The provided text describes a muscle stimulator called "Ab Belt" and its 510(k) submission, confirming its substantial equivalence to a predicate device. However, it does not contain any information about acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets acceptance criteria. The document is primarily a 510(k) summary and an FDA clearance letter, which focuses on regulatory aspects rather than detailed performance study results.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request for the tables and details regarding acceptance criteria and performance studies, as this information is not present in the provided text.

Specifically, the following information you requested is missing:

• A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: Not present. The document only states the indications for use and compares the device's characteristics to a predicate device.
• Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance: Not present. No performance testing data is discussed.
• Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable as no performance study is described.
• Adjudication method: Not applicable.
• Multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study: Not present. The device is a muscle stimulator, not an AI diagnostic tool that would typically involve MRMC studies with human readers.
• Standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance): Not applicable, as this is a physical device, not an algorithm.
• Type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc): Not applicable, as no performance study is detailed.
• Sample size for the training set: Not applicable, as this is not an AI/machine learning device.
• How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

The document states:

• "The Ab Belt device has the same indications for use as the predicate device."
• "The Ab Belt device has equivalent technological characteristics and instructions for use, as compared to the predicate device."
• "The device meets the mandatory performance standard identified in 21 CFR 898."
• "The biocompatibility of the electrodes has been established."

These statements indicate that the device meets regulatory requirements and is considered equivalent to a predicate, but they do not provide specific performance metrics, acceptance criteria, or study details. The "mandatory performance standard identified in 21 CFR 898" would specify certain electrical or safety performance aspects, but the text does not elaborate on these or provide test results against them.

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

The Posi-Stop/Posi-Trac System consists of 12 drills plus a starter drill utilized in osteotomy procedures before implant insertion. The Posi-Stop/Posi-Trac System is designed for use with or without a surgical guide. The system allows the dental practitioner to increase size gradations in 0.5mm steps for final sizing for implant type customization. The system is truly generic in that its 0.5mm size gradations allows the doctor to switch to a final sizing drill for implant type customization.

The Posi-Stop/Posi-Trac System consists of 12 drills plus a starter drill utilized in osteotomy procedures before implant insertion. The system is designed for use with or without a surgical guide and allows for size gradations in 0.5mm steps for final sizing for implant type customization. The system includes a 1.6mm starter drill, Posi-Trac drills, and Posi-Stop instruments. The 1.6mm drill is the only depth cutting instrument, while the remaining drills cut only on the outer 0.5mm to prevent excessive depth penetration. The Posi-Trac drill has a pilot end of 1.6mm and is used to widen the osteotomy. The Posi-Stop instrument is utilized until the correct width is achieved. The Posi-Stop can be adjusted along a track guide. The 2.0 - 4.5mm sizes are safety ended.

I am sorry, but the provided text is a letter from the FDA regarding a 510(k) premarket notification for a dental medical device. It does not contain any information about acceptance criteria or a study that proves the device meets specific criteria (such as performance metrics, sample sizes, expert qualifications, or ground truth establishment).

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request to describe the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them based on the given information. The document focuses on regulatory approval and classification, not on the technical performance study details.

Ask a specific question about this device

"MINIMAX" Peak Flow Meter is a portable device for measurement of peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) for the evaluation of lung function of persons with asthma.

"MINIMAX" Peak Flow Meter is a portable device for measurement of peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR)

The provided text is a 510(k) clearance letter from the FDA for a medical device called "miniMAX" Peak Flow Meter. It states that the device is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices. However, this document does not contain any information regarding acceptance criteria, performance studies, sample sizes, expert qualifications, or ground truth establishment.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information based on the given text.

The document primarily focuses on:

• The FDA's decision of substantial equivalence for the "miniMAX" Peak Flow Meter.
• The regulatory classification of the device (Class II).
• General controls and potential additional controls applicable to the device.
• Contact information for further regulatory inquiries.
• The intended use of the device: "measurement of peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) for the evaluation of lung function of persons with asthma."

To answer your questions, I would need a different document, such as the actual 510(k) summary or the premarket notification submission itself, which would detail the performance data and testing conducted for the device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Belzer UW Cold Storage Solution preserves organs, by cold storage, just as well as currently marketed media, such as Collins' solution. Belzer UW Cold Storage Solution, hereafter known as BELZER UW-CSS, can be used for cold storage of the liver, pancreas, and kidney. BELZER UW-CSS has the potential to be used as a general solution for most organs, both for initial cooling during in situ donor organ flushing and for subsequent cold storage.

Not Found

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them, based on the provided text:

Device: BELZER UW Cold Storage Solution (BELZER UW-CSS)
Purpose: Preservation of organs (liver, pancreas, kidney) by cold storage for transplantation.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are implicitly defined by demonstrating equivalence or superiority to existing solutions (Collins' or EuroCollins' Solution - ECS) in terms of preservation time and post-transplant organ function.

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

• Kidney (Preclinical Data):

  • Sample Size: Not explicitly stated, described as a "dog transplant model."
  • Data Provenance: Preclinical animal study.

• Liver (Clinical Data):

  • Test Set (BELZER UW-CSS): 122 livers
  • Control/Comparator Set (ECS): 126 livers
  • Data Provenance:
    • BELZER UW-CSS: Prospective clinical study, potentially multi-institutional (donor and recipient selection followed requirements established by "respective institutions").
    • ECS: Retrospective clinical data.

• Pancreas (Clinical Data):

  • Test Set (BELZER UW-CSS): 9 grafts
  • Control/Comparator Set (ECS): 6 grafts
  • Data Provenance:
    • BELZER UW-CSS: Prospective clinical study.
    • ECS: Retrospective clinical data.

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

Not applicable based on the provided text. This study involves clinical outcomes and laboratory measurements, not expert review of images or diagnoses. The "ground truth" is derived from physiological measurements and clinical events (e.g., survival, retransplantation, laboratory values).

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable based on the provided text. This involves objective clinical and laboratory measurements, not subjective evaluations requiring adjudication.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done

No, an MRMC study was not done. The study design is a comparison of organ preservation solutions based on clinical outcomes and laboratory markers.

6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Was Done

Not applicable. This is a medical device (a solution) used during a surgical procedure, not an AI algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• Kidney: Dog survival rates, initial post-transplant renal function (serum creatinine values).
• Liver: Post-transplant graft function assessed by selected clinical laboratory variables (SGOT, SGPT, alkaline phosphatase, total bilirubin, prothrombin time and partial thromboplastin time), retransplantation rates, deaths, incidence of hepatic artery thrombosis.
• Pancreas: Post-transplant graft function assessed by serum and urinary amylase values, and blood glucose levels.

These are all outcomes data and laboratory data/physiological markers.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. This is a medical device (a solution), not a machine learning model that requires a training set.

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

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

Ask a specific question about this device