Search Results

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

The SmartPilot YpsoMate NS-A2.25 is indicated for use with the compatible disposable autoinjector to capture and record injection information that provides feedback to the user.

The SmartPilot YpsoMate NS-A2.25 is an optional, battery operated, reusable device designed to be used together with a compatible autoinjector (a single use, needle based, pre-filled injection device for delivery of a drug or biologic into subcutaneous tissue). Figure 1 shows the SmartPilot YpsoMate NS-A2.25 with the paired autoinjector. The SmartPilot YpsoMate NS-A2.25 records device data, injection data and injection process status. The SmartPilot YpsoMate NS-A2.25 also provides guidance feedback to the user during the injection.

Note that the SmartPilot YpsoMate NS-A2.25 does not interfere with autoinjector function.

The provided 510(k) clearance letter details the substantial equivalence of the SmartPilot YpsoMate NS-A2.25 device to its predicate. While it lists various performance tests and standards met, it does not contain specific acceptance criteria values or detailed study results for metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or improvement in human reader performance. This document primarily focuses on demonstrating that the new device does not raise new questions of safety and effectiveness compared to the predicate, due to similar technological characteristics and adherence to relevant safety standards.

Therefore, many of the requested details about acceptance criteria, study design (sample size, data provenance, expert adjudication, MRMC studies), and ground truth establishment (especially for AI-driven performance) cannot be extracted directly from this regulatory document. The information primarily pertains to hardware, software, and usability testing.

However, based on the provided text, here's what can be inferred or stated about the device's acceptance criteria and proven performance:

Device: SmartPilot YpsoMate NS-A2.25

Indication for Use: The SmartPilot YpsoMate NS-A2.25 is indicated for use with the compatible disposable autoinjector to capture and record injection information that provides feedback to the user. Specifically compatible with Novartis/Sandoz Secukinumab (Cosentyx).

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not provide a table with quantitative acceptance criteria and reported performance values for metrics typically associated with AI/software performance (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy of data capture in a clinical context). Instead, it focuses on meeting established engineering, safety, and quality standards.

Here's a summary of the types of performance criteria implied by the successful completion of the listed tests:

Note: The device's primary function is to "capture and record injection information that provides feedback to the user," and it "does not capture dosing information" or "electronically controlled dosing." Therefore, criteria related to dosing volume accuracy or AI interpretation of medical images/signals for diagnosis are not applicable to this device. The focus is on the accurate capture of event data (injection start/end, result) and providing timely feedback, as well as general device safety and functionality.

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

The document describes various types of tests (e.g., Biocompatibility, EMC, Software V&V, Mechanical, Lifetime, Human Factors), but does not specify the sample sizes used for each test dataset.

Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin for the data or whether the studies were retrospective or prospective. Given that Ypsomed AG is based in Switzerland and the testing references international and US standards, the testing likely involved a mix of internal validation, third-party lab testing, and possibly user studies in relevant regions. All tests described are part of preclinical (non-clinical) performance validation, making them inherently prospective for the purpose of demonstrating device function and safety prior to marketing.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth

The document does not mention the use of experts in the context of establishing ground truth for the device's functional performance, as it is not an AI-driven diagnostic or interpretative device that relies on human expert consensus for its output. Its performance is evaluated against engineering specifications and physical/software functional requirements. The "Human Factors" testing would involve users, but not necessarily "experts" adjudicating correctness in the sense of accuracy for a diagnostic task.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. The device's performance is determined by meeting pre-defined engineering and regulatory standards and testing protocols, not by expert adjudication of its output, as it does not produce subjective or interpretative results like an AI diagnostic algorithm.

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

Not performed/applicable. An MRMC study is relevant for AI systems that assist human readers in tasks like image interpretation to demonstrate improved diagnostic accuracy. This device is an "Injection Data Capture Device" providing feedback and recording information; it does not involve human readers interpreting data that the device enhances.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance

While the device has software and algorithms to detect injection events and provide feedback, the document does not report "standalone" performance metrics in the way an AI diagnostic algorithm would (e.g., sensitivity, specificity). Its performance is demonstrated through the verification and validation of its hardware and software components (e.g., ability to detect spring position, successful data transfer, correct LED/audible feedback). The "Influence Testing" evaluates its performance in conjunction with the autoinjector, proving it does not negatively interfere.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth for the verification and validation of this device is engineering specifications, physical measurements, and adherence to established regulatory and industry standards. For example:

• Biocompatibility: Measured against established thresholds for cytotoxicity, sensitization, and irritation.
• EMC/Safety: Compliance with current versions of IEC standards.
• Software V&V: Compliance with software lifecycle processes and cybersecurity standards, and correct execution of defined functions (e.g., data recording, feedback activation).
• Mechanical/Lifetime: Physical measurements (e.g., activation force, dimension checks), cycle counts, and functional checks after simulated use/aging.
• Human Factors: User performance and subjective feedback against usability goals.

There is no "expert consensus," "pathology," or "outcomes data" ground truth in the context of its direct function (data capture and feedback).

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. This device is not an AI/machine learning system that requires a "training set" in the conventional sense (i.e., for learning to perform a complex, data-driven task like image recognition or diagnosis). Its functionality is based on programmed logic and sensor readings, not statistical learning from a large dataset.

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

Not applicable, as there is no "training set" for the type of device described. Input signals (e.g., from the inductive sensor about spring position) are processed based on predefined engineering parameters and logical rules to determine injection status, not learned from a dataset.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Portable Oxygen Concentrator provides a high concentration of supplemental oxygen to adult patients requiring respiratory therapy on a prescriptive basis. It may be used at home, in institution, vehicle, train, airplane, boats and other transport modalities. This device is to be used as an oxygen supplement and is not intended to be life sustaining or life supporting.

Users should follow their doctor's advice on setting the oxygen flow rate and should not adjust the flow rate without consulting a healthcare professional.

Note: Patients should regularly consult with their physician to evaluate the need for adjustments in their oxygen therapy settings.

The Portable Oxygen Concentrator is a Class II, low-risk medical device designed to provide a high-concentration oxygen supply (87%-95.5%) to adult patients requiring supplemental oxygen therapy as prescribed by a healthcare professional. It is intended for use at home, in institution, vehicle, train, airplane, boats and other transport modalities and complies with FAA regulations for in-flight use. The device is not intended for life-support or life-sustaining purposes.

The Portable Oxygen Concentrator utilizes Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA) technology, which extracts oxygen from ambient air by selectively adsorbing nitrogen through molecular sieve beds. Oxygen is delivered through a pulse dose mechanism, synchronizing oxygen release with the patient's inhalation cycle to optimize efficiency and minimize waste.

The series consists of four models, each offering different pulse dose settings:

• W-R1 (MAX): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, S
• W-R1: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
• W-R2: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
• W-R2 (Lite): 1, 2, 3, 4

The device operates in pulse flow mode and supports multiple power sources, including 100–240V AC (50–60Hz) and a rechargeable lithium-ion battery (14.4V / 6500mAh). While the hardware supports 13.0–16.8V DC input, DC operation is not currently supported, as no DC accessories are provided or authorized. A single battery charge provides up to 4.5 hours of continuous use, ensuring flexibility across various environments.

Designed for portability and efficiency, the W-R Series features a lightweight build (1.8 kg), low noise operation, and an intuitive LCD display. Its ergonomic and user-friendly design has been internationally recognized with six global design awards, including iF, Red Dot, and IDEA, for its usability, portability, and patient-centered innovation.

The device is suitable for operation within a temperature range of -5°C to 40°C (23°F to 104°F), humidity levels of 5% to 90% (non-condensing), and atmospheric pressure from 54kPa to 106kPa. It can function at altitudes up to 5,000 meters (16,400 feet).

The Portable Oxygen Concentrator consists of a casing, compressor, molecular sieve system, solenoid valve, battery, cooling fan, control board, and display screen.

Note: The device does not include a nasal cannula; patients should purchase one separately. The oxygen outlet follows international standards, and recommended cannula specifications can be found in Section 2.12: Cannula Use of the user manual.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter is for a Portable Oxygen Concentrator. This device is not an AI/ML-enabled device. The information requested in the prompt (acceptance criteria, study details, sample size, ground truth, expert adjudication, MRMC studies, etc.) is typically associated with the rigorous evaluation of AI/ML software as a medical device (SaMD) or AI-enabled medical devices, especially those using diagnostic imaging.

Medical devices like portable oxygen concentrators are evaluated primarily on their physical performance characteristics, safety standards, and conformity to established regulations for mechanical and electrical safety. The clearance letter outlines the non-clinical tests performed (safety and performance testing, biocompatibility testing, electrical safety and EMC testing, battery safety testing, and software verification/validation), but these are not the types of studies that involve expert readers, ground truth consensus, or MRMC comparative effectiveness specific to AI diagnostics.

Therefore, I cannot extract the requested information (acceptance criteria in the context of an AI study, sample sizes for test/training sets, data provenance, expert adjudication, MRMC studies, standalone performance, or ground truth establishment relevant to AI/ML) directly from this document, as it pertains to a different type of medical device evaluation.

To directly answer your request based on the provided document, which is for a Portable Oxygen Concentrator (not an AI/ML diagnostic device):

The FDA 510(k) Clearance Letter for the Portable Oxygen Concentrator focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device through:

• Same Intended Use: Providing supplemental oxygen to adult patients on a prescriptive basis for respiratory therapy.
• Similar Technological Characteristics: Utilizing breath detection, molecular sieve/pressure swing adsorption, and a pulse dose mechanism.
• Performance Data: Presenting specifications like oxygen concentration, pulse volumes, sound levels, and mechanical/electrical safety.
• Compliance with Recognized Standards: Adhering to various international IEC and ISO standards for medical electrical equipment, biocompatibility, and oxygen concentrators.

The "acceptance criteria" for a device of this type are generally meeting the performance specifications and safety standards outlined in the non-clinical testing section, and demonstrating that any differences from the predicate device do not raise new questions of safety or effectiveness.

Here's a breakdown of the closest equivalents to your requested categories, given the nature of the device and the document:

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

For a portable oxygen concentrator, acceptance criteria are generally related to its physical and performance specifications like oxygen purity, flow rates, noise levels, and battery life, rather than diagnostic accuracy metrics.

Ask a specific question about this device

TENS: The device is designed to be used for temporary relief of pain associated with sore and aching muscles in the shoulder, waist, back, neck, upper extremities (arm), lower extremities (leg), abdomen and bottom due to strain from exercise or normal household work activities.

EMS: The device is designed to be used to stimulate healthy muscles in order to improve and facilitate muscle performance. The device is designed to temporarily increase local blood circulation in healthy leg muscles.

Not Found

The provided FDA 510(k) Clearance Letter for Shenzhen Yicai Health Technology Co. Ltd's Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulator (TENS) does not contain the information requested in your prompt regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving the device meets those criteria, particularly for an AI/ML medical device.

This document is a standard clearance letter for a physical medical device (TENS/EMS) and focuses on regulatory aspects like:

• Substantial equivalence to predicate devices.
• General controls (registration, listing, GMP, labeling, misbranding).
• Quality System (QS) regulation.
• Unique Device Identification (UDI) requirements.
• Indications for Use.

It does not detail performance studies conducted to establish effectiveness or safety beyond establishing substantial equivalence to a predicate. Specifically, it lacks any mention of:

• A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance.
• Sample sizes for test sets or data provenance.
• Number/qualifications of experts for ground truth.
• Adjudication methods.
• Multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) studies or effect sizes for human readers.
• Standalone algorithm performance.
• Type of ground truth used.
• Training set sample size or ground truth establishment for training.

Therefore,Based on the provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter, I cannot describe the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria in the manner requested. The letter is for a physical medical device (Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulator) and outlines its regulatory clearance, not the details of a performance study, especially not one applicable to an AI/ML device as your detailed questions suggest.

The document does not contain any information related to:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance.
2. Sample sizes used for the test set and the data provenance.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and their qualifications.
4. Adjudication method for the test set.
5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, or its effect size.
6. If a standalone (algorithm only) performance study was done.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.).
8. The sample size for the training set.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established.

This is a clearance letter for a device whose mechanism of action is electrical stimulation, not an AI/ML algorithm. The information you are seeking would typically be found in the 510(k) summary or the full submission, which are not included in this clearance letter.

Ask a specific question about this device

Hand-held Hair Removal Device is indicated for the removal of unwanted hair. The device is also indicated for the permanent reduction in hair regrowth, defined as the long-term, stable reduction in the number of hairs regrowing when measured at 6, 9 and 12 months after the completion of a treatment regime.

Hand-held Hair Removal Device, is an over-the-counter, home-use device for unwanted hair reduction by using Intense Pulsed Light (IPL), and it has been designed eight models with the same IPL technology for hair removal, which is model FZ-200A, FZ-201, FZ-202, CT05, CT06, CT07, CT08, CT09. The device works below the skin's surface and does not involve any cutting or pulling, reducing hair growth with minimal pain.

The device is only powered by the external power adapter and its IPL emission activation is by finger switch.

The Hand-held Hair Removal Device has an irreplaceable light exit and it can cover an area of 3.0cm² (Model BFZ-200A, FZ-201, FZ-202, CT05, CT06, CT07, CT08, CT09) that is suitable for multiple hair removal areas, such as upper lip, chin, underarms, legs, arms, bikini area, chest, back, abdomen.

The device contains a skin sensor to detect appropriate skin contact, if the light exit is not in full contact with the skin, the device cannot emit the treatment light pulses. Besides, the Hand-held Hair Removal Device has the cooling function (suitable for model CT05, CT06, CT07, CT08, CT09), which can be activated throughout the whole hair removal process to cool down the treatment area's temperature and provide the user with a better using experience.

The provided 510(k) summary for the "Hand-held Hair Removal Device" does not contain any information about acceptance criteria or a study proving that the device meets specific performance criteria related to hair removal efficacy.

The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device through comparison of technological characteristics and compliance with various safety and regulatory standards.

Here's a breakdown of why I cannot fulfill your request for acceptance criteria and a study proving device performance based on the provided text, and what information is available:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

• Not Available: The document does not list any quantitative acceptance criteria for hair reduction or removal efficacy. It also does not report any device performance metrics related to hair removal (e.g., percentage of hair reduction after a certain number of treatments, hair count at 6, 9, or 12 months).
• What is available: The document states the "Indications for Use" which defines "permanent reduction in hair regrowth" as a "long-term, stable reduction in the number of hairs regrowing when measured at 6, 9 and 12 months after the completion of a treatment regime." However, it doesn't provide data to show if or how much reduction was achieved by this specific device.

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

• Not Available: There is no mention of a clinical test set used to evaluate the device's hair removal efficacy. Therefore, sample size and data provenance are not reported.
• What is available: The document lists various safety and electrical performance tests (Biocompatibility Evaluation, Electrical Safety and EMC, Eye Safety, Software Verification and Validation, Usability), but these are not for efficacy.

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

• Not Available: Since no clinical efficacy study is described, there is no mention of experts establishing ground truth for efficacy.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

• Not Available: Not applicable as no clinical efficacy study is described.

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

• Not Available: This type of study is not mentioned. The document focuses on demonstrating equivalence to predicate devices, not on comparing performance with or without AI assistance for human readers (which is relevant for diagnostic devices, not typically for hair removal devices).

6. Standalone Performance Study:

• Not Available: While the document mentions "Performance Data," it refers to non-clinical tests (biocompatibility, electrical safety, eye safety, software, usability). There is no standalone clinical performance study data presented for the actual hair removal efficacy of the device.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used:

• Not Available: As no clinical efficacy study is described, no ground truth for hair removal efficacy is mentioned.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set:

• Not Available: Since there's no mention of a machine learning or AI component for efficacy (only general "Software Verification and Validation"), there is no "training set" in the context you're asking about (i.e., for learning to perform hair removal or analyze its results).

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

• Not Available: Not applicable, as no such training set is mentioned.

In summary:

The 510(k) summary provided indicates that the "Hand-held Hair Removal Device" is being cleared based on its substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices in terms of intended use, technological characteristics, and compliance with general safety and electrical standards. It does not present specific clinical performance data, acceptance criteria for efficacy, or studies demonstrating the device's hair removal performance. The emphasis is on showing that it is as safe and effective as previously cleared devices based on similarity and non-clinical testing, rather than providing novel clinical trial data for its hair reduction capabilities.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Integral Dental Unit is intended to supply power to and serve as a base for dental devices and accessories. This device includes a dental chair and is intended for use in the dental clinic environment and is designed for use by trained dental professionals, dentists and/or dental assistants.

The Integral Dental Unit (Model: YD-A4) is a dental operative unit specially designed and provided for a qualified dentist to be used in a professional clinic or hospital facility to carry out dental procedures.

Integral Dental Unit is intended to be used in a professional environment for dental diagnosis, treatment, or operation.

It includes a treatment chair, dentist element, assistant element and a dental light as offering several additional options and electronically-controlled chair movements with software and water/air unit functions.

The dental unit consists of an electronically operated dental chair and integrated control unit control for electricity, water and air supply to handpieces or some other dental instrument. The device is equipped with an instrument tray, pipes for water supply and tube air supply, a mouth lamp, a saliva aspirator, a spittoon, a three-way syringe, a film viewer, a foot switch and chair with driving motors and armrest.

The dental chair is intended to be used with dental hand pieces, cure light, ultrasonic scaler, camera system or other doctor stool, which is not provided by the manufacturer. The user will select the dental instruments and accessories with FDA clearance by themself. So, the device in the submission does not include these parts and accessories. The connector standard type complies with ISO 9168.

Basic parameters/use conditions/power supply specifications is as follows:

◆Noise ＜70 dBA

◆Base box Power supply: 115/230 Vac, 50/60Hz, single-phase 3core, protective grounding.
Power input: 380 VA
Water filter hole diameter: 15 kPa;

• water pumping rate＞80 mL/min

Strong saliva:

• vacuum degree >25 kPa;
• water pumping rate＞1000 mL/min

◆Instrument tray Rotating angle: >270º
Up-down moving range: >440mm
Max. Load: 85 Ra

◆Foot switch Tripping force: >10N and 25 000 repeats

◆Dental chair Power supply: 24 V dc Inside power supply
Loading capacity: 1323N (about 135 Kg)
Loading capacity of headrest: 300N (about 30Kg)
Moving range of headrest: 120mm
Range of backrest when going backwards: 90º~170º
Seat cushion's maximum height away from ground: 730mm
Seat cushion's minimum height away from ground: 450mm

Attachment
----- Amalgam separation device
It has a medical device product registration card
Attachment parameters are reflected in its operating instructions

◆Work space L: ≥3 000 mm; W: ≥2 000 mm; H: ≥2 500 mm

◆Environment for operation
Temperature: +5°C to +40°C
Relative humidity: 30% - 80%
Atmospheric pressure: 86kPa ~ 106kPa

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter pertains to the Integral Dental Unit, a Class I medical device. This device is an "Operative Dental Unit and Accessories" and is intended to supply power to and serve as a base for other dental devices and accessories, including a dental chair, for use by trained dental professionals in a dental clinic environment.

The document states that clinical performance testing was not performed for this device. As such, information regarding acceptance criteria derived from a clinical study, sample size for test sets (including data provenance, ground truth establishment, expert qualifications, and adjudication methods), MRMC studies, or standalone algorithm performance, and training set details are not provided in this submission.

Instead, the device's acceptance criteria are based on conformance to established international standards for electrical safety, electromagnetic compatibility, biocompatibility, software verification and validation, software life cycle processes, and general performance for stationary dental units and dental patient chairs.

Here's the information extracted from the document:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

Not applicable. Clinical performance testing was not performed. The testing conducted was primarily engineering and bench testing against recognized standards.

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

Not applicable. Ground truth as typically understood for clinical studies (e.g., expert interpretation of medical images) was not established. Performance was assessed against engineering specifications and international standards by relevant testing laboratories.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

Not applicable. No expert review or adjudication method was described as clinical performance testing was not performed.

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. No MRMC study was conducted as this device is an Integral Dental Unit, not an AI-assisted diagnostic or therapeutic tool.

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

Not applicable. This device is not an algorithm or AI system.

7. The type of ground truth used

The "ground truth" for this device's performance is based on conformance to international engineering and safety standards (e.g., IEC, ISO) and the device's adherence to its own design specifications and functional parameters. There is no clinical "ground truth" derived from patient outcomes or expert consensus in this submission.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This is not an AI/Machine Learning device that requires a training set.

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

Not applicable. This is not an AI/Machine Learning device.

Ask a specific question about this device

Hasla is intended to produce two-dimensional digital x-ray images including panoramic and cephalometric image, and three-dimensional digital x-ray images of the dental, oral, maxillofacial region, at the direction of healthcare professionals as diagnostic support for adult and pediatric patients.

This device is not intended for use on patients less than approximately 21 kg (46 lb) in weight and 113 cm (44.5 in) in height; these height and weight measurements approximately correspond to that of an average 5 year old.

The product (Dental CBCT X-ray System, Model: Hasla) uses cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) through X-ray cone-beam, panoramic radiography, cephalometric radiography to produce images of the dental, oral and maxillofacial areas to provides diagnostic details for the medical facilities. This product consists of Frame, X-ray generator (including Integrated X-ray source tube head, X-ray tube, Collimator), Image receptor and Image processing system (including Computer, Monitor, and Software workstation).

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter and summary for the Yian Medical Technology (Haining) Co., Ltd. Dental CBCT X-ray System (Model: Hasla) indicate that this is a Special 510(k) for a device modification. This means the company is asserting that the modified device is substantially equivalent to their own previously cleared predicate device (Dental Cone-beam Computed Tomography, Model: iDT901X1, K232710) and that the modifications do not raise any new safety or effectiveness concerns.

Therefore, the submission relies on the previous clearance and asserts that the current device meets the same acceptance criteria as the predicate without requiring new comprehensive studies to prove that from scratch. Instead, it demonstrates that the modifications themselves do not negatively impact the performance, safety, or efficacy previously established.

Given this context, here's a breakdown of the information requested. It's important to understand that the document does not report on a new study for the current device to explicitly prove it meets acceptance criteria with new data. Instead, it leverages the prior clearance through a demonstration of equivalence.

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance (as related to the predicate device and the claim of equivalence)

The document states: "The subject device and the predicate device are equivalent in the model name, same in the indications for use, patient population, use environment, software functions, and software level of documentation, performance characteristics and technical specification." It further specifies that "Any difference between the predicate device and the subject device have no impact on safety or efficacy of the subject device and do not raise any new potential or increased safety risks."

Therefore, the "acceptance criteria" for the current device are implicitly met by demonstrating that its performance and safety characteristics are unchanged from the predicate device, which had previously met its own acceptance criteria during its clearance process (K232710).

The summary provides a detailed comparison table (Table 1) between the subject device (Hasla) and the predicate device (iDT901X1). Essentially, all listed specifications and performance characteristics are presented as identical between the two.

Table 1: Acceptance Criteria (Implied from Predicate Equivalence) and Reported Device Performance

Study Details (Based on the provided document for the current 510(k) submission)

It's crucial to reiterate that this is a Special 510(k). The document explicitly states: "The modifications of the device have no impact on the product's design, working principle, software function, software documentation level, performance characteristic and technical specification indication for use, patient population, environment of use, user needs, thus no impact on the previously conducted Bench Testing and validation. No new bench testing or validation was needed. The previously conducted and submitted verification and validation test results are still valid for the modified device..."

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

   • Test Set Sample Size: Not applicable/Not specified as new data. The submission relies on the testing of the predicate device (K232710) and general compliance with standards.
   • Data Provenance: Not applicable/Not specified, as no new clinical or standalone performance studies were explicitly conducted for this submission beyond bench testing to confirm compliance with recognized standards. The submitter is Yian Medical Technology (Haining) Co., Ltd. in China.

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

   • Not applicable. This submission does not detail a study involving expert readers or ground truth establishment, as it's a Special 510(k) relying on equivalence to a previously cleared device.

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

   • Not applicable. No such study or adjudication method is described.

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:

   • No. This device is a Dental CBCT X-ray System, which is an imaging acquisition device, not an AI-based diagnostic tool for human reader interpretation improvement. The document explicitly states: "The subject of this premarket submission, did not require clinical studies to support substantial equivalence."

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

   • No. This device is an imaging system, not a standalone algorithm. The clearance is based on the device's ability to produce images compliant with established standards, not on an algorithm's diagnostic performance. The document explicitly states: "The subject of this premarket submission, did not require clinical studies to support substantial equivalence." The bench testing cited ("Bench Testing Summary") confirms the physical and technical specifications against standards (e.g., spatial resolution, focal spot size, etc.), which are standalone performance characteristics of the device (hardware/software combined for image generation), but not a "standalone algorithm" in the typical sense of AI performance.

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

   • Not applicable. No new clinical studies requiring external ground truth were conducted for this Special 510(k). The evaluation revolves around compliance with engineering and radiation safety standards, and performance characteristics (like spatial resolution, scan time) derived from bench testing using phantoms or calibrated equipment.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable. This is not an AI algorithm requiring a training set in the conventional sense. The "software functions" mentioned are for image acquisition, data management, display, processing, and system settings, which are intrinsic to the operation of the imaging device itself.

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

   • Not applicable, as there is no specific training set described for an algorithm in this context.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Sterilization Pouch and Roll are intended to provide health care workers with an effective method to enclose devices intended for steam sterilization. The recommended sterilization cycle is as follows:
• Pre-vacuum Steam: 4 minutes at 132°C (270°F); 30 minutes dry time.

The sterilization pouch and roll are made with medical grade paper and medical compound film. The sterilization pouch and roll maintain the sterility of the enclosed devices for up to 6 months post steam sterilization. The pouch's external chemical ink indicators are designed to indicate to the user that the pouch has undergone a steam sterilization process. The steam sterilization indicator color will change from blue before sterilization to dark grey after sterilization.

The subject Sterilization Pouch and Roll device has five types:
(1) Self-sealing sterilization pouches:
These pouches are made from a medical grade plastic film that is heat sealed on three sides. The fourth side has an adhesive strip that is used to seal the pouch. Release paper used in the pouch is a laminated sheet with composing structure of PE/paper/PE. It is a strip to cover the adhesive area and is released before seal the pouch. The medical grade paper conforms to recognized material standards and can be sterilized by steam. The Process Indicators Ink printed on the medical grade paper will exhibit a color change after the pouch is exposed to steam.

(2) Sterilization pouches, Flat:
These pouches have the same components with the Self-sealing sterilization pouches, except the fourth side is left opened instead of an adhesive strip and will be heat-sealed when using.

(3) Sterilization pouches, Gusseted:
These pouches are the same with the Sterilization pouches, flat, except that the plastic film is folded on both longest sides instead of flat. This design is convenient to enclose the medical devices with certain height.

(4) Sterilization rolls, Flat:
These rolls are made from a medical grade paper and plastic film that are heat sealed on opposite two sides. It will be cut into the suitable length and the opened sides will be heat-sealed. The indicators printed on the medical grade paper are the same with the self-sealing sterilization pouches.

(5) Sterilization rolls, Gusseted:
These rolls are the same with the flat sterilization roll, except that the plastic film is folded on both longest sides instead of flat. This design is convenient to enclose the medical devices with certain height.

The Sterilization pouch and roll is composed of medical grade paper (60g/m2) and medical compound film (52μm), it is intended to be used to contain medical devices to be terminally sterilized by the Steam sterilization process. The recommended sterilization cycle parameters are:
Pre-vacuum Steam: 4 minutes at 132°C (270°F); 30 minutes dry time.

The medical devices are inserted into the Pouch/Roll, sealed, and then sterilized for the Steam Sterilization Process. The heat-sealed pouch/roll are heat sealed prior to sterilization processing. After completion of the sterilization process, the Pouch/Roll maintain sterility of the enclosed medical devices until the seal is opened.

The device is intended to allow sterilization of enclosed devices and to maintain sterility of the enclosed devices until used up to 6 months post sterilization. The shelf life of the device is 3 months.

The Pouch/Roll is printed with a chemical indicator bar that changes from Blue to Dark grey when exposed to steam during the sterilization process. The steam chemical Indicator offers an addition way to verity processing in the sterilization cycle. The endpoint stability of the chemical indicator color change to dark grey is 3 months. The chemical Indicator should be used in addition to, not in place of, the biological indicator. The steam chemical indicator does not signify sterilization; it only indicates that the indicator has been exposed to steam.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter and summary describe a Sterilization Pouch and Roll device, which is a Class II medical device. This is NOT an AI/ML device. Therefore, the questions related to AI/ML device performance metrics, such as effect size of human readers improving with AI, standalone algorithm performance, number of experts for ground truth, and training set information, are not applicable.

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

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

• The weight difference before sterilization and after drying shall not exceed 3% | Pass |
  | Biocompatibility - Cytotoxicity | Non-cytotoxic | Under conditions of the study, did not show potential toxicity to L-929 cells. Pass |
  | Biocompatibility - Irritation | Non-irritating | Under the conditions of the study, not an irritant. Pass |
  | Biocompatibility - Sensitization | Non-sensitizing | Under conditions of the study, not a sensitizer. Pass |
  | Package Appearance | The appearance of the sterilization pouch is clean, intact, and sealed on all four sides. | Pass |
  | Thickness | 52 ± 12% μm | Pass |
  | Tensile Strength of Paper | MD ≥ 4.4 KN/m
  CD ≥ 2.2 KN/m | Pass |
  | Bursting Test | Burst value > 3 Kpa or No Burst | Pass |
  | Dye Penetration Test | The dye solution is no any leakage across the seal width of sterile barrier system. (No Infiltration) | Pass |
  | Seal Strength Test | ≥ 2.5 N/15mm | Pass |
  | Vacuum Leakage Test | No water can penetrate the sterilization pouch. | Pass |
  | Microbial Barrier | 0 CFU No growth | Pass |
  | Chemical Indicator Functionality | Color of indicator changes from blue to dark grey after Steam sterilization | Pass |
  | Chemical Indicator Shelf Life & Endpoint Stability | Shelf life: 3 months
  Endpoint stability: 3 months | Pass |
  | Shelf Life (Product) | Shelf life: 3 months | Pass |
  | Maintenance of Sterility | Maintains sterility of enclosed devices for up to 6 months post steam sterilization. (This is an indication from the "Indications for Use" and is generally supported by the package integrity and microbial barrier tests over time, often through accelerated aging studies). | The document states "The device is intended to allow sterilization of enclosed devices and to maintain sterility of the enclosed devices until used up to 6 months post sterilization." The "Maintenance of Sterility" is listed as a "Different" characteristic compared to the predicate (6 months vs. 3 years for EO and 6 months for Steam). The microbial barrier test is passed, supporting the general concept of sterility maintenance, but the specific validation for the 6-month claim is not detailed in the summary table. |

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

The provided document details various performance tests such as sterilant penetration, biocompatibility, package integrity, and chemical indicator testing. However, it does not explicitly state the sample sizes used for each of these test sets. The tests are "bench testing" (non-clinical) and do not involve human subjects.

The data provenance is from non-clinical bench testing. The tests were performed to evaluate the performance and functionality of the device against a requirement specification. There is no mention of country of origin for the data or whether it was retrospective or prospective, as these terms are typically relevant for clinical studies or data collection in human populations.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth

Not applicable. This device is a physical sterilization pouch and roll, and its performance is evaluated through standardized laboratory and bench testing against established physical, chemical, and biological criteria, not by human expert interpretation of data or images. Ground truth is established by objective measurements and standardized test methods.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. As described above, the evaluation relies on objective measurements and established standards rather than expert interpretation requiring adjudication.

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

No, a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is relevant for AI/ML devices where human performance with and without AI assistance is being compared. This document is for a physical sterilization product.

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

Not applicable. This device is a physical product, not an algorithm or software. Therefore, there is no "standalone" algorithm performance to evaluate.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth for this device's testing is based on:

• Standardized Test Methodologies and Acceptance Criteria: As outlined in the "Test Methodology" and "Acceptance Criteria or End Point" columns in Table 3 of the 510(k) summary. These include standards like ISO 17665-1, ISO 10993 series, ASTM F1886, ASTM F2251, ISO 1924-2, ASTM F1140, ASTM F1929, ASTM F88, ASTM D3078, DIN 58953-6, ISO 11140-1, and ASTM F1980.
• Physical and Chemical Measurement: For properties like thickness, tensile strength, burst strength, seal strength, and the color change of the chemical indicator.
• Microbiological Evaluation: For the microbial barrier test (e.g., 0 CFU No growth).
• Biocompatibility Testing: Evaluating potential toxicity, irritation, and sensitization in laboratory settings (e.g., L-929 cells).
• Sterilization Effectiveness: Meeting a specified Sterility Assurance Level (SAL 10-6).

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. There is no AI/ML component described for this device, so there is no training set in the context of machine learning.

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

Not applicable, as there is no training set.

Ask a specific question about this device