Search Results

The Assure 4 Blood Glucose Monitoring System is intended for the quantitative measurement of glucose in fresh capillary whole blood. Testing is done outside the body (In Vitro diagnostic use). It is indicated for use at home (over the counter [OTC]) by persons with diabetes or in clinical settings by healthcare professionals, as an aid to monitor the effectiveness of diabetes control.

Assure 4 consists of a meter, test strips, and control solutions for use in measuring blood glucose as an aid to monitor the effectiveness of diabetes control. The Assure 4 measures electrical current generated by the interaction of glucose with glucose oxidase in its biosensor test strip. It uses a code chip for strip lot calibration.

The provided text describes the Assure 4 Blood Glucose Monitoring System and its modifications compared to the Assure 3, but does not include detailed acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets specific performance criteria with numerical results.

The document K070088 is a 510(k) summary, which typically focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than presenting full study results against explicit acceptance criteria. While it mentions "Clinical testing was done with persons with diabetes in addition to in-house testing for precision, interferences, linearity, altitude effects, hematocrit effects, minimum sample volume, stability, control solution functionality, and temperature and humidity effects," it lacks the specific data, acceptance thresholds, sample sizes, and expert details requested.

Therefore, many of the requested fields cannot be fully populated from the provided text.

Here's what can be extracted and what is missing:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Limitations: The document states that clinical and in-house testing was performed for various factors, but it does not provide the specific acceptance criteria or the numerical results that demonstrate the device meets these criteria. The table above reflects the characteristics of the device but not the performance metrics of the study conducted.

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not specified. The document only states "Clinical testing was done with persons with diabetes."
• Data Provenance: Not specified, but the submitter is from Hsinchu, Taiwan (ROC). The regulatory body is the US FDA. Given this, the clinical data could be from Taiwan, the US, or other locations. It does not state if the data was retrospective or prospective.

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

• This information is not provided in the given text.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• Adjudication method is not 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

• This information is not applicable. The device is a Blood Glucose Monitoring System, an in vitro diagnostic device, not an image interpretation or AI-assisted diagnostic tool for human readers. Therefore, an MRMC study and AI assistance improvement are not relevant to this device type.

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

• This information is not directly stated in terms of a "standalone" study separate from the clinical testing. However, the device itself is an automated system for measuring glucose. The "testing is done outside the body (In Vitro diagnostic use)." The performance of the system (meter and test strip) is its standalone performance. The document states "Clinical testing was done with persons with diabetes in addition to in-house testing for precision, interferences, linearity, altitude effects, hematocrit effects, minimum sample volume, stability, control solution functionality, and temperature and humidity effects," which implies the system's performance was evaluated.

7. The type of ground truth used

• For blood glucose monitoring systems like this, the "ground truth" would typically be established by a laboratory reference method (e.g., a YSI analyzer or similar glucose oxidase-based laboratory instrument) against which the device's readings are compared. The document states, "Reference: Plasma," indicating that the device's measurements for whole blood are compared to plasma glucose values obtained from a laboratory reference method.

8. The sample size for the training set

• This information is not provided. The document describes modifications to an existing device and discusses clinical and in-house testing for performance validation, but does not detail a separate "training set" or its size, which might be relevant for AI/machine learning models but not typically for a biosensor like this unless complex algorithms were being trained.

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

• As a "training set" is not explicitly mentioned and the device's fundamental chemistry and algorithm are stated to be "Identical base software and algorithm" to the predicate, it's unlikely a distinct ground truth for a new training set was established for the purpose of a novel algorithm unless incremental model updates were done, which is not detailed here. If a training set was used for initial algorithm development for the Assure 3, its ground truth would have also likely been established via a laboratory reference method (e.g., plasma glucose).

Ask a specific question about this device