Search Results

The AVL COMPACT 3 pH / Blood Gas Analyzer is intended to be used for the measurement of pH, PCO2 and PO2 in samples of whole blood.

The AVL COMPACT 3 pH / Blood Gas Analyzer is a fully automatic, microprocessor-controlled medical instrument that measures pH, PCO2 and PO2. Communication to the device is accomplished simply with the use of a keypad. The analyzer communicates to the user through a 4-line alphanumeric display with 20 characters per line and with a thermal printer using heat sensitive paper to output measured values, calibration reports, electrode voltages and other information.

Here's an analysis of the provided text, focusing on acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets those criteria:

Device: AVL COMPACT 3 pH/Blood Gas Analyzer

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document primarily focuses on demonstrating that the AVL COMPACT 3 is substantially equivalent to its predecessor (COMPACT 2) and that the changes made (numeric keypad, optimized sample volume requirements) do not introduce significant differences in performance. The acceptance criteria are implicitly derived from the existing performance of the COMPACT 2 and the statistical comparison to the "gold standard" methods (tonometry and AVL OMNI).

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

• Sample Size:
  • Numeric Keypad: Not explicitly stated, but "input values from the upper and lower limits in addition to typical input values" were tested. This suggests a qualitative rather than large quantitative test.
  • Optimization of Sample Volume Requirements (pH, PCO2, PO2): "The means of five measurements in each mode taken at 10 levels of CO2 and O2 gas mixtures spanning the reportable range" were compared. This means for each parameter (pH, PCO2, PO2) and each sample mode (syringe, capillary, mini, micro), 10 levels of gas mixtures were used, with 5 measurements per level.
    • Total measurements per parameter per mode: 10 levels * 5 measurements/level = 50 measurements.
    • Total measurements for all 3 parameters across all 4 modes: 3 parameters * 4 modes * 50 measurements/mode = 600 measurements.
    • For pH specifically, the comparison with AVL OMNI used "7 of the CO2 gas concentrations used" (tonometry levels), so presumably 7 levels * 5 measurements/level = 35 measurements per mode for this specific comparison.
• Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin of the data. The data is presented as prospective in nature, as it describes validation tests conducted on the new device and its specific modifications. It does not appear to be retrospective analysis of existing clinical data.

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

• Number of Experts: Not applicable. The ground truth for the device's performance validation was established using objective scientific methods:
  • Tonometry: Gravimetrically prepared gas mixtures serve as the "gold standard" for PCO2 and PO2.
  • AVL OMNI pH/Blood Gas Analyzer: This is a pre-existing, presumably validated, reference device used for pH comparison.
• Qualifications of Experts: Not applicable. The ground truth relies on established laboratory methodologies and reference instruments, not human expert interpretation.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

Not applicable. The study involved direct measurement and statistical comparison to objective standards (tonometry and a reference instrument), rather than subjective interpretation requiring adjudication among multiple human readers.

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, a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done.
• This device is a diagnostic instrument (pH/Blood Gas Analyzer), not an AI-assisted diagnostic imaging tool or a system involving human interpretation. Therefore, the concept of "human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance" does not apply here.

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

Yes, the studies described are, in effect, standalone performance evaluations of the device. The "algorithm" here refers to the instrument's internal measurement and calculation processes. The validation tests directly assess the accuracy of these measurements and calculations against recognized standards, without human intervention in the measurement or interpretation process.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

• Tonometry: For PCO2 and PO2, the ground truth was established using gravimetrically prepared gas mixtures (a highly accurate, fundamental measurement method).
• Reference Instrument: For pH, the ground truth included comparison to measurements obtained from an AVL OMNI pH/Blood Gas Analyzer, which serves as a validated reference device. This falls under the category of a "reference standard" or "comparative method."

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

Not applicable. This device is a traditional analytical instrument, not a machine learning or AI algorithm that requires a "training set" in the conventional sense. The instrument's algorithms are based on established electrochemical principles and fixed mathematical equations.

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

Not applicable, as there is no "training set" for this type of device. The device's operational parameters and calibration are established through engineering design and physical chemistry principles, rather than learning from data. The document mentions "Calibration is performed automatically by the instrument on power-on" and describes various calibration modes, but this refers to internal self-calibration using known reference solutions, not a machine learning training process.

Ask a specific question about this device