Search Results

CASIA2 is a non-contact, high-resolution tomographic and biomicroscopic device intended for the in vivo imaging and measurement of ocular structures in the anterior segment. CASIA2 measures corneal thickness, anterior chamber depth and lens thickness.

The Tomey Cornea/Anterior Segment OCT CASIA2 (CASIA2) is a non-contact, high resolution tomographic and biomicroscopic device indicated for in vivo imaging of ocular structures in the anterior segment. The Tomey Cornea/Anterior Segment OCT CASIA2 is indicated as an aid in the visualization and measurement of anterior segment findings. CASIA2 measures corneal thickness, anterior chamber depth and lens thickness.

This medical device product has functions subject to FDA premarket review (corneal thickness, curvature, anterior chamber depth and lens thickness) as well as functions that are not subject to FDA premarket review. For this application, for the (510(k) exempt functions that are not subject to FDA premarket review, FDA assessed those functions only to the extent that they either could adversely impact the safety and effectiveness of the overall device.

CASIA2 consists of several components: the main unit, AC input power source, a touch panel LCD monitor, an external hard drive (HDD), a mouse and a keyboard.

Here’s a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets them, based on the provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the Tomey CASIA2.

Device: Tomey Cornea/Anterior Segment OCT (CASIA2)
Measurements evaluated: Central Corneal Thickness (CCT), Anterior Chamber Depth (ACD), and Lens Thickness (LT).

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state pre-defined quantitative acceptance criteria (e.g., "CCT agreement must be within X µm"). Instead, it focuses on demonstrating agreement and precision compared to a legally marketed reference device (LENSTAR LS900). The "acceptance criteria" can be inferred from the study's objective to show substantial equivalence through these performance metrics. The reported device performance is presented as the actual agreement (mean difference and 95% Limits of Agreement - LOA) and precision (Repeatability and Reproducibility %CV).

Therefore, the table below reflects the demonstrated performance and implicitly what was considered acceptable for substantial equivalence.

Note on "Acceptance Criteria": The document implies that meeting or exceeding the performance of the LS900 in terms of precision, and demonstrating good agreement via Bland-Altman analysis, constituted the acceptance for substantial equivalence.

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: A total of 224 subjects were enrolled and completed the study for precision and agreement testing.
  • 55 subjects in the normal group
  • 60 subjects in the cataract group
  • 109 subjects in the special eyes group (eyes without a natural lens or eyes containing artificial materials)
    N for specific analyses (e.g., Agreement Analysis for LT) varied based on acceptable scans (e.g., N=122 for LT agreement, N=138 for CCT/ACD precision, N=76 for LT precision).
• Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin. It indicates "The subjects of this study had no notable or unexpected/untoward assessments..." which suggests a single clinical site. However, no specific country is mentioned.
• Retrospective or Prospective: The study was a prospective clinical study, as subjects were "enrolled," "randomized," and "assigned" to configurations and sequences, and data was collected during the study.

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

• The document implies that the LENSTAR LS900 device itself served as the reference standard for establishing "ground truth" (or more accurately, the comparator for agreement) for the measured parameters.
• It states that "The clinical site had 3 device operators trained on the devices used in the study."
• Qualifications of Experts: The specific qualifications (e.g., radiologist, ophthalmologist, optometrist expertise, years of experience) of these 3 device operators are not explicitly stated in the provided text.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• The document states, "Additional scans were taken at the operator's discretion if image quality was unacceptable based on the device DFU and the Tomey CASIA2 Reference Guide and included, missing scans, truncated scans, image defocus, floaters, presence of eye blinks, eye motion, etc. Each device operator had up to 3 attempts to obtain an acceptable scan for each of the required scans."
• This suggests an operational approach to ensure data quality rather than a formal, independent adjudication process (e.g., 2+1/3+1 consensus by experts) for the measurements themselves. The "ground truth" was derived from the in-device measurements of the LS900, not a separate expert review. Therefore, there was no expert consensus-based adjudication method for the measurements.

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

• No, a traditional MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done.
• The study design was focused on device-to-device agreement and precision (CASIA2 vs. LENSTAR LS900) rather than evaluating how human readers' performance (e.g., diagnostic accuracy) improved with or without AI assistance.
• The CASIA2 is described as a "tomographic and biomicroscopic device intended for the in vivo imaging and measurement of ocular structures," with software providing "quantitative outputs." It does not appear to be an AI-assisted diagnostic aid for image interpretation that would typically require an MRMC study to show human reader benefit.

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

• The study primarily assessed the measurement performance of the CASIA2 device (algorithm/system) in generating quantitative outputs (CCT, ACD, LT) and compared these directly with a reference device. It's implied that these measurements are generated automatically by the device's software.
• The role of the human operators was to acquire an "acceptable scan" based on predefined image quality criteria, not to interpret the images or provide a human "answer" for comparison with an AI-generated reading.
• Therefore, the precision and agreement studies essentially represent the standalone performance of the CASIA2's measurement capabilities compared to the LS900.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• The "ground truth" (or clinical reference standard) for comparison was the measurements obtained from the legally marketed predicate/reference device, LENSTAR LS900.
• This is a device-based comparative ground truth, not expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data. The study aimed to show that the CASIA2's measurements were interchangeable or highly agreeable with those from an established, cleared device.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• The document describes a clinical study for validation/testing of the updated software. It does not provide any information about a separate training set size for the development of the algorithms generating these quantitative measurements.
• It only mentions: "The device is a software upgraded version of the predicate K213265 that provides quantitative measurements. All quantitative measurements are derived from OCT images acquired with optical coherence tomography." This implies the software update incorporated algorithms to derive these measurements, but details on their development (including training data) are not provided in this 510(k) summary.

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

• As the document does not describe the training set or its development, there is no information provided on how the ground truth for any training set was established.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Tomey Corneal Anterior Segment OCT CASIA2 is a non-contact, high resolution tomographic and biomicrosopic device indicated for the in vivo imaging of ocular structures in the anterior segment. The Tomey Corneal Anterior Segment OCT CASIA2 is indicated as an aid in the visualization of anterior segment findings.

The Tomey Cornea/Anterior Segment OCT CASIA2 (CASIA2) is a non-contact, high resolution tomographic and biomicrocopic device indicated for in vivo imaging of ocular structures in the anterior segment. The Tomey Cornea/Anterior Segment OCT CASIA2 is indicated as an aid in the visualization of anterior segment findings. CASIA2 consists of several components: the main unit, AC input power source, a touch panel LCD monitor, an external hard drive (HDD), a mouse and a keyboard. CASIA2 is an anterior segment OCT that obtains images by A-scanning with swept-source OCT. OCT images are created by the intensity of the light (backscattered light) that returns in the same path as that of incident light among the scattered light of each tissue. Thus, it is created with higher intensity in the tissues that generate strong backward scattering.

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

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

The provided text doesn't explicitly list "acceptance criteria" in a table format with numerical targets. Instead, it describes a comparative clinical study where the Tomey Cornea/Anterior Segment OCT CASIA2 was compared against a predicate device (Optovue RTVue XR OCT Avanti) for image quality and visualization of anatomical structures and pathologies. The "acceptance criteria" are implicitly demonstrated by showing that the CASIA2 performs at least as well as and in many cases better than the predicate device for its intended use of visualizing anterior segment findings.

The following table summarizes the reported device performance and the implicitly met acceptance criteria of being comparable or superior to the predicate device.

Study Proving Device Meets Acceptance Criteria

2. Sample Size and Data Provenance:

• Test Set Sample Size: 134 subjects.
  • 45 Normal subjects
  • 46 Cataract subjects
  • 43 Glaucoma subjects
• Data Provenance: The text states it was a "prospective comparative clinical performance study." While the specific country of origin isn't stated for the clinical data, Tomey Corporation is based in Japan (as per the submitter information), and the consultant ORA, Inc. is in the USA. Clinical studies for FDA submissions typically involve diverse populations or are clearly described if conducted solely in one region. However, the text only specifies "subjects."

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications:

• Number of Experts: 3 masked graders.
• Qualifications of Experts: Not explicitly stated beyond "masked graders." It is highly probable, given the nature of the study, that these graders were ophthalmologists or optometrists with expertise in interpreting OCT images of the anterior segment. The term "masked graders" implies they were blinded to key study parameters (subject, disease population, device, and results from other graders).

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

• The image grading procedure was "pre-specified in the study protocol."
• Images were assessed by 3 masked graders.
• The results report "grader average score" and "individual grader comparisons." This indicates that the individual scores of the three graders were analyzed, and a pooled average was used for comparison. There is no explicit mention of an "adjudication" process in the sense of a definitive consensus or tie-breaking mechanism if graders disagreed. The reporting suggests independent grading followed by aggregation or direct comparison of individual scores.

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

• Was it done? Yes, a multi-reader, multi-case comparative study was conducted, as 3 masked graders evaluated images from 134 subjects across different disease states and scan types.
• Effect Size (Human Readers Improvement with AI vs. No AI): This study does not involve AI assistance for human readers. It is a comparison of two different OCT devices (Tomey CASIA2 vs. Optovue Avanti) for image quality as assessed by human readers. Therefore, there is no effect size related to human reader improvement with AI assistance. The study implicitly shows that the CASIA2 enables human readers to observe pathology and anatomical structures better or as often as the predicate device due to its image quality.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance:

• The text describes the device as providing "imaging of ocular structures" and being "an aid in the visualization of anterior segment findings." The performance evaluation focuses on the quality of these images as assessed by human graders. There is no mention of an embedded algorithm providing automated diagnoses or measurements that would require a standalone performance study. The device itself is the imaging system, not an AI diagnostic algorithm.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used:

• The ground truth for the assessment of image quality, visibility of structures, and pathology was expert perception/consensus through grading by 3 masked experts. The study directly compared the ability of the new device's images versus the predicate device's images to allow observation by these experts. Patients were categorized by clinical diagnosis (normal, cataract, glaucoma), implying these clinical diagnoses served as the underlying "truth" for evaluating the device's utility in those populations, though the primary outcome was image quality.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set:

• The document does not provide information regarding a training set sample size. This is expected as the Tomey CASIA2 is an imaging device, not an AI algorithm that requires a dedicated training set to learn patterns. The study focuses on the performance of the device's output (images) rather than the performance of a learned model.

9. How Ground Truth for Training Set was Established:

• Since there's no mention of an AI algorithm requiring a training set, this information is not applicable and not provided in the document.

Ask a specific question about this device

The EM-4000 Specular Microscope is a non-contact ophthalmic microscope, optical pachymeter, and camera intended for examination of the corneal endothelium and for measurement of the thickness of the cornea.

The Tomey EM-4000 Specular Microscope is a non-contact ophthalmic microscope and camera intended for corneal endothelium imaging. Its operating principle is based on the Specular optical principle. This device is used for imaging the corneal endothelium. The EM-4000 analyzes and displays data such as cell number, cell density, coefficient of variation and percent hexagonality. When photographing the corneal endothelium, the equipment performs the alignment and automatically focuses by capturing the reflected light from the patient's eye with the CCD camera. Infrared LEDs are used as the light source for the alignment. Operation with the iovstick also makes it possible to focus manually. The green LED light radiates to the cornea, and the endothelium image is captured with the CCD camera by the reflected light from the cornea. The endothelium images are stored in internal memory.

Furthermore, the EM-4000 is able to measure the central corneal thickness. The corneal endothelium is photographed first followed by measuring the central corneal thickness. The infrared LED light for measurement of corneal thickness radiates to the cornea through the objective lens for photographing the cornea, and the central corneal thickness can be calculated by measuring the distance on the optical line sensor between the reflected light from front surface and back surface of cornea.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study detailed in the provided document:

The document describes the Tomey EM-4000 Specular Microscope, a non-contact ophthalmic microscope, optical pachymeter, and camera intended for examination of the corneal endothelium and for measurement of the thickness of the cornea. The study aims to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a predicate device, the Konan Medical, Inc. Cellchek XL (K120264).

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are not explicitly stated as numerical thresholds in this document for all parameters beyond pachymetry. Instead, the study aims to show "agreement, accuracy and precision" with the predicate device, demonstrating substantial equivalence. For pachymetry, a specific accuracy is mentioned.

Ask a specific question about this device

The NON-CONTACT TONOMETER FT-1000 is indicated for the measurement of intraocular pressure without contacting the eye to aid in the screening and diagnosis of glaucoma.

The NON-CONTACT TONOMETER FT-1000 is a tonometer designed using a non-contact measurement system. Air puff gently measures the intraocular pressure of the human eye.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the TOMEY NON-CONTACT TONOMETER FT-1000. This document primarily focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than presenting a standalone study with detailed acceptance criteria and performance metrics of the new device itself.

Therefore, much of the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, specific study design, sample sizes, expert qualifications, and detailed performance metrics cannot be found in the provided text. The document's purpose is to demonstrate that the new device is as safe and effective as a legally marketed predicate, not to report on an independent clinical trial meeting specific quantitative acceptance criteria for the new device's performance.

Based on the provided text, here's what can be extracted:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document doesn't present a table of specific acceptance criteria in the quantitative sense (e.g., "sensitivity must be > X%, specificity > Y%"). Instead, it relies on a comparison table to establish equivalence in technical characteristics and indication for use with the predicate device.

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

The provided text does not include information on a specific test set, its sample size, or data provenance for proving the device's performance against defined acceptance criteria. The submission focuses on technical and functional comparison to a predicate device.

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

This information is not available in the provided document. As no specific test set is described, there's no mention of experts establishing ground truth.

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

This information is not available in the provided document.

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 available and is not relevant to this submission, which is for a standalone measurement device rather than an AI-assisted diagnostic tool for human readers.

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

The device described is a standalone measurement device (a tonometer) that measures intraocular pressure. Its performance is inherent to the device itself. The primary "study" presented is the comparison to the predicate device, demonstrating that its technical characteristics and function are substantially equivalent. The 510(k) process often relies on such comparisons rather than new, large-scale clinical trials if substantial equivalence can be demonstrated through technical and functional grounds.

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

The concept of "ground truth" in the diagnostic sense (e.g., for sensitivity/specificity) is not explicitly addressed as no diagnostic performance study of the new device is detailed. For a measurement device like a tonometer, the "truth" would typically relate to the accuracy and precision of its IOP measurements compared to a gold standard tonometry method (e.g., Goldmann applanation tonometry) if a clinical study were performed to establish these. However, this level of detail for a new study is not present. The submission relies on the predicate's established performance as a reference.

8. The sample size for the training set:

This information is not available. The device is an electro-mechanical measurement device, and the concept of a "training set" in the context of an algorithm or AI model does not apply here.

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

This information is not available for the reason stated in point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Tomey "ConfoScan" Confocal Microscope is intended for use in carrying out a visualization of the cell layers of the anterior parts of the eye.
The Tomey "ConfoScan" Confocal Microscope is intended for use as a diagnostic tool for looking at the cell layers of the anterior parts of the eye.

The Tomey "ConfoScan" Confocal Microscope is a scanning slit microscope system that is used to carry out a visualization of the cell layers of the anterior parts of the eye. The prime attributes of a Confocal Microscope include both improved contrast and spatial resolution over more conventional microscopy. The improved image rendition is accomplished in the Tomey "ConfoScan" Confocal Microscope by the introduction conjugate scanning slits into the viewing and illuminating light paths of the microscope. By illuminating and viewing an object through restricted apertures, it is possible to eliminate the contributions of scattered light from other regions in the object plane that can degrade contrast and spatial resolution.

The provided text describes the Tomey ConfoScan Confocal Microscope, but it does not contain explicit acceptance criteria or a detailed study proving the device meets specific performance criteria. Instead, it focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices.

Here's a breakdown based on the information available:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

No explicit acceptance criteria are provided in terms of performance metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, resolution targets). The document highlights characteristics of the ConfoScan and compares them to predicate devices, implying these characteristics are accepted by virtue of being similar or equivalent to already approved devices.

Ask a specific question about this device

The ImageScape is intended to be used to capture, store and manipulate digital images of the retina taken by fundus camera.
The ImageScape is intended to capture, store, and manipulate digital images of the retina taken by a fundus camera.

The ImageScape consists of: (1) a digital camera; (2) an imaging board; (3) a personal computer; (4) a monitor; and (5) Tomey's Windows-based image processing software. The ImageScape is used during ophthalmic procedures such as digital angiography during which the patient's retina is viewed through a slit lamp with a fundus camera. Images are transferred to the ImageScape's imaging board, located in the ImageScape's personal computer, and stored in the computer's Random Access memory ("RAM") and hard drive. As the images accumulate, the user downloads the images from the hard drive onto the computer's Jaz drive, a removable media drive, by using the computer keyboard and mouse to operate the icons.

The provided 510(k) summary for the Tomey Corporation's ImageScape Digital Retinal Image System (K971685) does not contain information related to specific acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets such criteria in terms of clinical performance.

Instead, the submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices based on:

• Intended Use: All devices (ImageScape, DFC, Imagenet, ORIMS) are intended to capture, store, and manipulate digital images of the retina taken by a fundus camera.
• Technological Characteristics: Similar components (e.g., Kodak MegaPlus digital camera), storage capabilities (Jaz drive, TIFF format), operating systems (Pentium chip, Windows/Macintosh), and input methods (keyboard, mouse).
• Software Functions: Similar functions for image acquisition, analysis, storage, and retrieval, including manipulation (zoom, invert, flip, rotate, brightness/contrast, sharpen) and enhancement (shadow, edge trace, blur).
• Operational Manner: Used by an ophthalmologist with a slit lamp and fundus camera, preparing the patient using standard ophthalmic procedures, and operating icon-driven interfaces.
• Software Verification and Validation: A statement that "Tomey has performed the software verification and validation. The verification and validation results demonstrate that the device meets the system and software specifications and requirements."

Therefore, many sections of your requested outline will be marked as "Not provided" or "Not applicable" based on the content of the K971685 submission. This is typical for 510(k) submissions demonstrating substantial equivalence for devices like this, where clinical performance studies are often not required if technological characteristics and intended use are similar to legally marketed predicate devices.

Here's the breakdown based on the provided document:

1. Table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

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

• Sample Size (Test Set): Not provided. This type of information is typically part of a clinical performance study, which was not the primary basis for this 510(k) submission.
• Data Provenance: Not provided.

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/Not provided. Ground truth establishment for a clinical test set is not part of this substantial equivalence submission.

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

• Not applicable/Not provided.

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/Not provided. This device is a digital imaging system, not an AI-powered diagnostic aid that assists human readers.

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

• Not applicable/Not provided. The device is described as being operated by an ophthalmologist.

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

• Not applicable/Not provided. The submission relies on demonstrating functional and technical equivalence to predicate devices, rather than a direct clinical performance study requiring a gold standard ground truth.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not provided. Given that this is an imaging system and not a machine learning algorithm in the modern sense, a "training set" as concept might not directly apply. The device's software was developed and validated against specifications.

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

• Not applicable/Not provided. The software verification and validation would have been against predetermined system and software specifications and requirements, as stated in the document. This is distinct from establishing a clinical "ground truth" for a diagnostic algorithm.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Tomey DTL Electrode is intended for use in the measurement and recording of ERG signals from the ocular surfaces of the eye. These measurements are only to be performed by licensed practitioners and trained technicians within a medical environment.

There are no differences with respect to the predicate devices for indications for use, or target population.

Tomey DTL Electrode consists of soft silver impregnated nylon fiber threads that are normally placed under the lower eye lid. The electrodes are constructed with 3 to 10 individual fibers between 5 and 20 microns in diameter. The fibers are stabilized at both ends with adhesive attachments. A thin wire is connected to an adaptor cable that permits the electrodes to be used with various ERG Recording systems including the Tomey PE-400/PS-400.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the Tomey DTL Electrode. It describes the device, its intended use, and substantial equivalence to predicate devices, along with non-clinical testing performed.

Here's an analysis of the provided information regarding acceptance criteria and studies:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• Elution Testing: Sample size for this specific test is not mentioned. The test was "performed according to the requirements of the Ministry of Health and Welfare in Japan," suggesting the data provenance is Japan. This would be considered retrospective in the context of the device's clearance application, as the testing was conducted prior to the submission.
• Rabbit Eye Irritation Testing: Sample size for this test is not mentioned. The test was performed by the "Juridical Foundation, Japan Food Research Laboratory," indicating data provenance is Japan. This is also retrospective.
• Biocompatibility (General): The text refers to "extensive use by many investigators." No specific sample size or formal prospective study is described. This relies on existing literature and collective experience, making it retrospective.
• Safety and Compatibility: This appears to be based on design verification and internal testing, not a formal test set with a specific sample size.

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

This document does not describe the use of experts to establish "ground truth" for a test set in the way this question typically implies (e.g., for diagnostic accuracy). The tests conducted are non-clinical, focusing on material properties and basic safety.

• For the eye irritation test, the "Juridical Foundation, Japan Food Research Laboratory" conducted the test, implying qualified personnel, but specific expert qualifications are not detailed.
• For biocompatibility, it refers to "many investigators, including Dawson, Prager and Lachapelle," but not in the context of establishing a ground truth for a specific test set for the Tomey device.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. The tests described are not clinical diagnostic studies requiring an adjudication method (like 2+1 or 3+1). They are laboratory and material-based tests.

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

No. An MRMC comparative effectiveness study is not mentioned. The device is an electrode for measuring ERG signals, and the testing focuses on its safety and compatibility, not its impact on human reader performance in interpreting ERG results.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance Study

No. This device is a physical electrode, not an algorithm, so a standalone algorithm performance study is not applicable. The document focuses on the electrode's physical properties and biological reactions.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• Elution Testing: The "ground truth" is defined by the requirements and standards of the Ministry of Health and Welfare in Japan for elution.
• Rabbit Eye Irritation: The "ground truth" is typically defined by the observation of irritation in the rabbit eyes according to established toxicological protocols.
• Biocompatibility: The "ground truth" is derived from a lack of adverse biological reactions (irritation, toxicity) in established animal models and from extensive clinical experience with similar devices.
• Safety and Compatibility: The "ground truth" is based on engineering specifications and direct observation/testing of the device's physical connections and electrical isolation.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. This document describes non-clinical testing for a medical device (electrode), not the development or training of an AI algorithm based on a "training set."

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

Not applicable, as no training set for an AI algorithm is mentioned or relevant to the device described.

Ask a specific question about this device