Search Results

The Packet Decoder Process (PDP) is indicated for use as a prescription software device to receive MDDS digital data packets and decode, collate and deliver data to a Class I, MDDS, Enterprise Service Bus according to a proprietary scheme defined by Zephyr Technology.

The Packet Decoder Process (PDP) receives digital data that is transmitted by BioHarness 3.0, K 1 1 3045 in a proprietary structure. PDP receives this complex array of packet coded data. A decoding scheme is used to decode data and organize for presentation and access by Class I MDDS devices. The Packet Decoder Process is manufactured by Zephyr Technology Corporation. This software is loaded and executed in an MDDS operating systems in an MDDS computer. This complex process is defined by a proprietary scheme: Zephyr's General Comms Link Specification.

The provided text describes the Packet Decoder Process (PDP) device and its intended use but does not contain a study demonstrating its performance against specific acceptance criteria. The document states that "A series of factory tests are conducted to verify the intended signals are accurate and can maintain calibration over its useful life," and that the device "has benefited from design, development, testing and production procedures that conform to Quality Systems." However, specific details of these tests, including acceptance criteria and results, are not provided in the given text.

Therefore, many sections of your request cannot be fulfilled due to the lack of detailed performance study information in the provided document.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Not provided in the document. The document mentions "factory tests" to verify intended signals are accurate and maintain calibration but does not specify the acceptance criteria or the results of these tests.

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

Not provided in the document. The document refers to "a series of factory tests" but does not mention the sample size used, the specific data tested, or its provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective).

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

Not applicable/Not provided in the document. The device is a software for decoding digital data packets (Packet Decoder Process, PDP). Its function is to accurately decode and collate data according to a proprietary scheme. This type of device typically relies on factory testing against known inputs and expected outputs, rather than expert-established ground truth in the way medical image analysis or diagnostic AI systems might. The document does not mention any expert involvement in establishing ground truth for testing.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable/Not provided in the document. Given the nature of the device as a data decoder, an adjudication method (like 2+1, 3+1) used for interpreting ambiguous medical cases is not relevant or mentioned. Performance testing would likely involve comparing decoded data against pre-defined correct decodings.

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

Not applicable/Not provided in the document. The PDP is a standalone software component for decoding digital data and delivering it to a Medical Device Data System (MDDS). It is not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool designed to improve human reader performance, so an MRMC study is not relevant.

6. Standalone Performance Study

The document implies that standalone testing was conducted as part of "factory tests" to verify accuracy and calibration. It states, "A series of factory tests are conducted to verify the intended signals are accurate and can maintain calibration over its useful life." However, no specific study details, metrics, or results are provided.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

Not explicitly stated, but inferred: For a data decoding device, the ground truth would typically be the correctly decoded data as defined by the "proprietary scheme: Zephyr's General Comms Link Specification." The "factory tests" would involve feeding known, pre-encoded data into the PDP and verifying that the output matches the expected decoded values according to the specification.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable/Not provided in the document. The PDP functions by executing programmed commands written in Java based on a defined proprietary scheme. It is not an AI/ML model that requires a "training set" in the conventional sense for learning patterns.

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

Not applicable/Not provided in the document. As stated above, this is not an AI/ML device that requires a training set. Its function is deterministic, based on a predefined decoding algorithm.

Ask a specific question about this device

The BioModule 3-M1 is a physiological monitoring telemetry device intended for monitoring ambulatory patients in alternate care settings. The device consists of adhesive electrodes and an electronics module. The device stores and transmits vital sign data including ECG, heart rate, respiration rate, body orientation and activity. The BioModule 3-M1 provides a facility to detect and transmit single lead ECG signals to be received by qualified instruments.

The BioModule 3-M1 collects and transmits measurements captured in alternate care settings as prescribed by the health care professional. Breathing rate values are accurately transmitted only during sedentary periods.

The BioModule 3-M1 is indicated for use as a general patient monitor to provide physiological information as part of general ward monitoring system.

The BioModule 3-M1, a physiological sensor / transmitter is composed of:

• proprietary hardware and firmware, enclosed in
• a user case (puck) with a re-chargeable battery. .
• . a adhesive electrode set and
• A cradle (to recharge battery and transfer internally stored date to an ancillary computer).

The BioModule 3-M1 is a physiological transmitter manufactured by Zephyr Technology Corporation with disposable, off the shelf electrodes that transmits data to a qualified receiving station. The BioModule 3-M1 is positioned against the patient's skin with light pressure then pressed to adhere.

The document provided is a 510(k) summary for the BioModule 3-M1, a physiological monitoring telemetry device. It focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to a predicate device (BioHarness 3.0, K113045) rather than on presenting a detailed study proving performance against specific acceptance criteria for the algorithm's accuracy.

Therefore, many of the requested details about acceptance criteria, specific study design elements (like sample sizes for test/training sets, ground truth establishment by experts, adjudication methods, or MRMC studies), and "reported device performance" in terms of algorithm accuracy, are not present in this type of regulatory submission.

The document primarily states general safety and effectiveness and claims that the device has been tested to confirm these. It emphasizes the similarity in technological characteristics and principles with its predicate device.

Here's a breakdown of the information that can be extracted or inferred based on the provided text, and what is explicitly not available:

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

• The document does not provide a specific table of acceptance criteria (e.g., minimum sensitivity, specificity, accuracy for ECG detection or heart rate measurement) or quantitative reported device performance metrics against such criteria.
• Instead, it states: "A series of factory tests are conducted to verify the intended signals are accurate and can maintain a calibrated energy pattern over its useful life." This is a general statement about manufacturing quality control rather than a clinical performance study.
• The primary "performance" discussed is the capability to "detect and transmit single lead ECG signals" and that "Breathing rate values are accurately transmitted only during sedentary periods." These are functional descriptions, not quantitative performance metrics.

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

• Not provided. The document does not describe a test set or clinical study with patient data. It refers to "factory tests."

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. Since there's no described test set with clinical data requiring expert ground truth, this information is not present.

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

• Not applicable / Not provided. No clinical test set or adjudication process 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

• No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was NOT done (or at least not described in this document). The device is a physiological sensor/transmitter, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool that would involve human readers interpreting output.

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

• The document implies that "factory tests" were done to verify signal accuracy. However, no specific standalone algorithm performance study (e.g., sensitivity/specificity for arrhythmia detection) is described. The focus is on the device's ability to capture and transmit physiological signals reliably, rather than the performance of a sophisticated AI algorithm.

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

• Not provided. Given the nature of "factory tests," the "ground truth" would likely be derived from calibrated signal generators or known physiological inputs, rather than clinical data requiring expert consensus or pathology.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not provided. The document does not describe a machine learning training set.

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

• Not applicable / Not provided. No training set is mentioned.

Summary of what is present:

• Device Description: BioModule 3-M1, a physiological sensor/transmitter composed of hardware, firmware, user case, adhesive electrode set, and a cradle. It captures electrical pulses from the skin via electrodes, converts them to digital signals, processes them, and transmits them.
• Intended Use/Indications for Use: Monitoring ambulatory patients in alternate care settings, providing physiological information (ECG, heart rate, respiration rate, body orientation, activity) as part of a general ward monitoring system. Breathing rate is accurate only during sedentary periods.
• Predicate Device: Zephyr Technology, BioHarness 3.0, K113045.
• Substantial Equivalence Claim: The BioModule 3-M1 is "substantially equivalent" to BioHarness 3.0, with "incidental and not significant" differences. Both use electrodes, convert analog to digital signals, use microprocessors/firmware/signal processing, and transmit signals for ECG waveforms.
• Safety and Effectiveness Justification: "Factory tests are conducted to verify the intended signals are accurate and can maintain a calibrated energy pattern over its useful life."

In essence, this 510(k) summary focuses on demonstrating that the new device is fundamentally similar to an already cleared predicate device, and that its basic function and manufacturing processes ensure safety and effectiveness, rather than detailing a clinical study with stringent acceptance criteria for an AI algorithm's specific performance metrics.

Ask a specific question about this device

The BioHarness 3.0 is a physiological monitoring telemetry device intended for monitoring of adults in the home, workplace and alternate care settings. The device consists of a chest strap and an electronics module that attaches to the strap. The device stores and transmits vital sign data including ECG, heart rate, respiration rate, body orientation and activity. The BioHarness 3.0 provides a facility to detect and transmit single lead ECG signals to be received by Bluetooth / USB qualified ECG instruments.

The BioHarness 3.0 collects and transmits measurements captured during both sedentary as well as rigorous activity for Heart Rate, Posture and Activity. Breathing rate values are accurately transmitted only during sedentary periods.

The BioHarness 3.0 is indicated for use as a general patient monitor to provide physiological information as part of an occupational welfare monitoring system, for general research and performance measurement purposes, or where prescribed by a healthcare professional.

The intended use of the BioHarness 3.0 is to provide a facility in the home, workplace and alternate care settings for detecting, storing and transmitting Adult - single lead ECG data to third party ECG instruments for interpretation by qualified persons. The BioHarness 3.0 stores over 140 hours of ECG signals for transmission via USB or real time Bluetooth. The scientific concept on which this device is based is the principle that low level electrical pulses from the heart are measurable of the surface of the skin. This device functions by capturing these electrical pulses via electrodes and delivering these signals to sophisticated electronics for signal processing. The calibration is established by the factory and yields accurate and calibrated signals that can maintain calibration over its useful life.

The BioHarness 3.0, a cardiographic electrode transmitter is composed of:

• proprietary hardware and firmware, enclosed in
• a user case (puck) with a re-chargeable battery,
• various sensors embedded in a reusable chest harness, and
• ECG detection and transmission and.
• A cradle (to recharge battery and transfer internally stored date to an ancillary computer).

The BioHarness 3.0 is a physiological / cardiographic electrode transmitter manufactured by Zephyr Technology Corporation with reusable electrodes in a chest harness consisting of an electrode assembly, an elastic chest belt, and an electronics package containing a Bluetooth transmitter. The BioHarness 3.0 electrodes are positioned against the patient's skin with light pressure, using the elastic chest belt. The BioHarness 3.0 is designed to be used without electrolytic gels and without adhesives on unprepared skin: that is without the requirements for shaving, abrading, or other skin preparation. This device transmits ECG information to a compatible Bluetooth - enabled device. This transmitter is a class I Bluetooth radio with a range of approximately 100 meters (spherical range).

The provided text does not contain information about acceptance criteria, device performance, or any studies conducted to prove the device meets specific criteria. It primarily focuses on the 510(k) summary, device description, indications for use, intended use, and substantial equivalence to predicate devices, as part of a regulatory submission to the FDA.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested table and study details. The document states that "A series of factory tests are conducted to verify the intended signals are accurate and can maintain a calibrated energy pattern over its useful life" and mentions that the device "has been tested to confirm safety and efficacy," but provides no specific data, methodologies, or results from these tests.

Ask a specific question about this device

The BioHarness is a physiological monitoring telemetry device intended for monitoring of adults in the home, workplace and alternate care settings. The device consists of a chest strap and an electronics module that attaches to the strap. The device stores and transmits vital sign data including heart rate, respiration rate, thoracic skin temperature, body orientation and activity.

The BioHarness collects and transmits measurements captured during both sedentary as well as rigorous activity for Heart Rate, Skin Temperature, Posture and Activity. Breathing rate values are accurately transmitted only during sedentary periods.

The BioHarness is indicated for use as a general patient monitor to provide physiological information as part of an occupational welfare monitoring system, and for general research and performance measurement purposes.

The BioHarness is a compact physiological monitor that consists of two components:

1. A chest strap with conductive fabric skin electrodes and a thoracic expansion sensor.
2. A battery-powered electronics module that attaches to the chest strap.

The device provides both storage and real-time transmission of the user's Heart Rate, Respiration Rate, Temperature, Posture and Activity Level. The device uses heart electrical activity signals and respiratory breathing frequency inferred from thoracic movement to derive the Heart Rate and Respiration Rate respectively.

An accessory cradle is provided to recharge the internal battery and transfer internally stored data to a computer.

The transmitted data provided by the device over Bluetooth may be integrated into third party monitoring applications. A simple software utility that displays vital sign data is provided. Users may transmit vital sign data from the BioHarness to the application on a PC via Bluetooth using the Bluetooth adapter.

The Zephyr BioHarness device is a physiological monitoring telemetry device intended for monitoring of adults in the home, workplace, and alternate care settings. It measures heart rate, respiration rate, thoracic skin temperature, body orientation, and activity.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and supporting studies based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state quantitative acceptance criteria for each physiological measure. Instead, it relies on demonstrating compliance with recognized performance standards and substantial equivalence to predicate devices. The device's performance is described in terms of its ability to meet these standards and its functional characteristics.

• Substantial equivalence to predicate devices like Hidalgo Equivital EQ-10 (K061993) and Respironics Actiheart (K052489) in heart rate sensing and derivation. | * Monitors electrical signals from the heart via a chest strap with conductive fabric electrodes (V4 lead position).
• Derives heart rate based on proprietary analysis of the QRS complex.
• A single-ended ECG circuit is used to detect QRS complexes, incorporating ESD protection, filtering, and ADC.
• Proprietary digital filtering and signal analysis are performed to derive heart rate.
• The device provides function as a heart rate meter, but is not indicated for use as an ECG monitor.
• Collects and transmits measurements during both sedentary and rigorous activity. |
  | Respiration Rate | * Substantial equivalence to predicate devices like Hidalgo Equivital EQ-10 (K061993) and VivoMetrics LifeShirt Real Time (K043604) in respiration rate sensing and derivation. | * Inferred from thoracic movement sensed by a chest strap containing a proprietary capacitive sensor.
• Sensor capacitance changes due to thoracic expansion/contraction, driving changes in impedance and signal amplitude.
• Detects, filters, and amplifies this change to produce a varying voltage signal representing thoracic movement.
• Signal passed to ADC, proprietary digital filtering, and signal analysis to derive respiration rate.
• Breathing rate values are accurately transmitted only during sedentary periods. |
  | Skin Temperature | * Compliance with relevant requirements of ASTM E1965 - 98(2009) (Standard Specification for Infrared Thermometers for Intermittent Determination of Patient Temperature).
• Substantial equivalence to predicate device Hidalgo Equivital EQ-10 (K061993) for skin surface temperature measurement. Both methods (infrared vs. thermistor) provide "similar accuracy." | * Measurement of skin temperature on the chest performed with an integrated infrared thermometer.
• Infrared thermometer is mounted internally but has a viewing window facing the user's chest.
• Collects and transmits measurements during both sedentary and rigorous activity. |
  | Activity/Body Orientation | * Substantial equivalence to predicate devices like Hidalgo Equivital EQ-10 (K061993) and Respironics Actiheart (K052489) for activity and motion detection using tri-axis accelerometers. | * Derives activity and body orientation from signals from an internal tri-axis accelerometer (Analog Devices ADXL330).
• Proprietary algorithms analyze acceleration values.
• Provides a measure of user posture (upright, supine) in degrees from vertical.
• Provides activity level in Vector Magnitude Units (VMU).
• Collects and transmits measurements during both sedentary and rigorous activity. |
  | Basic Safety & Performance | * Compliance with ANSI/AAMI ES60601-1:2005 (General requirements for basic safety and essential performance).
• Compliance with ANSI/AAMI/IEC 60601-1-2:2007 (EMC).
• Compliance with ANSI/AAMI/ISO 10993-1:2003 (Biocompatibility). | * Tested and shown compliant with these standards through reviews and tests for electrical safety, mechanical safety, radiation hazards, temperature/other safety concerns, accuracy of controls, hazardous situations/fault conditions, construction, electromagnetic compatibility, and biocompatibility. |
  | Software | * Compliance with IEC 60601-1-4:1996/(R)2005 (Collateral Standard: Programmable electrical medical systems). | * Developed using a structured software development process that meets the requirements of IEC 60601-1-4. |

Study Details

The provided document describes the premarket notification and focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices and compliance with recognized standards. It does not present a specific comparative clinical study (e.g., an MRMC study) or a standalone performance study with detailed numerical results for the device's accuracy in measuring physiological parameters against a gold standard.

Instead, the "studies" primarily consist of:

• Reviews and comparisons to predicate devices' technological characteristics and intended use.
• Testing for compliance with recognized consensus standards (e.g., electrical safety, EMC, biocompatibility, heart rate meter performance, infrared thermometry).
• Development testing at the bench level and under simulated field conditions for general functionality.

However, based on the information provided, we can infer some aspects and highlight what is not present:

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

   • Test Set Sample Size: Not explicitly stated. The document refers to "reviews and tests" and "development testing... at the bench level and under simulated field conditions (i.e. field trials)." This suggests internal verification and validation testing, but no specific human subject sample size for a formal clinical test set is provided.
   • Data Provenance: Implied to be internal Zephyr Technology development and testing. "Simulated field conditions (i.e. field trials)" suggests some limited real-world testing, but no details on country of origin or whether it was retrospective/prospective are given for a formal performance study.

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

   • Not applicable/Not mentioned. The document describes compliance with standards and comparison to predicate devices, not the establishment of a ground truth by human experts for a specific performance evaluation of its measurements. Ground truth for compliance testing typically refers to the reference methods defined within the standards themselves (e.g., electrical safety test equipment, calibrated thermometers, etc.).

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

   • Not applicable/Not mentioned. Adjudication methods are typically used in studies where human readers interpret data, and their interpretations are compared against an expert-adjudicated ground truth. This type of study is not 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, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. The BioHarness is a physiological sensor, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool that aids human readers. The document focuses on the accuracy and safety of the device's measurements themselves, not on improving human interpretation of those measurements.

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

   • Yes, the primary "performance studies" described are standalone. The evaluations of the BioHarness against various standards (electrical safety, EMC, biocompatibility, heart rate metering accuracy, infrared thermometry accuracy, software lifecycle) are all evaluations of the device's inherent performance as an algorithm-driven sensor, without a human "in the loop" for the measurement process itself. The software lifecycle development meeting IEC 60601-1-4 confirms this focus on the algorithm's integrity.

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

   • Reference standards and calibrated equipment. For electrical safety, the ground truth is compliance with the limits specified in ANSI/AAMI ES60601-1. For heart rate, the ground truth would be a clinically accepted reference ECG/heart rate monitor as specified in ANSI/AAMI EC13. For infrared thermometry, the ground truth would be a highly accurate reference thermometer as per ASTM E1965. For biocompatibility, it's about material properties and tests defined in ISO 10993-1. In essence, the "ground truth" for these tests comes from the rigorous definitions and test methodologies embedded within the referenced industry standards.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable/Not mentioned. The BioHarness is described as using "proprietary analysis of the QRS complex" for heart rate, "proprietary digital filtering and signal analysis" for respiration rate, and "proprietary analysis of acceleration values" for body orientation and activity. This suggests algorithms likely developed using internal data and signal processing expertise, but there's no mention of a distinct "training set" in the context of machine learning for a regulatory submission of this nature. The device's algorithms are likely based on established physiological principles and signal processing techniques rather than large-scale data-driven machine learning in the contemporary sense.

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

   • Not applicable/Not mentioned for the reasons stated above (no explicit "training set" for machine learning is described). For the development of its proprietary algorithms, the ground truth would have been established through physiological experiments, engineering validation, and comparison to known physiological responses measured by established reference methods.

Ask a specific question about this device