Search Results

1. Acute Hepatic Encephalopathy: The BioLogic-DT System is indicatd for the treatment of acute hepatic encephalopathy due to decompensation of chronic liver disease or fulminant hepatic failure.
2. Drug Overdose and Poisonings: The BioLogic-DT System is indicated for the treatment of drug overdose and poisonings. The only requirement is that the drug or chemical be dialyzable (in unbound form) and bound by charcoal, such as acetaminophen, tricyclics, barbiturates, tranquilizers, anticancer agents, antimicrobials, theophylline, herbicides, and insecticides.

Not Found

This document is a 510(k) clearance letter for the BioLogic-DT® System, which means it's a device that has been deemed substantially equivalent to a legally marketed predicate device. This type of clearance typically relies on demonstrating equivalence rather than extensive clinical studies that would establish acceptance criteria and performance against those criteria in the same way a Premarket Approval (PMA) would.

Therefore, the provided document does not contain the detailed information requested regarding acceptance criteria, specific study designs, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, or expert qualifications as it pertains to a direct performance study of the BioLogic-DT® System itself. The letter focuses on regulatory clearance based on substantial equivalence.

Here's an analysis based on the information provided and what is missing for each point:

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

• Information in document: Not present. The 510(k) clearance letter doesn't include performance data or acceptance criteria for the BioLogic-DT® System. It simply states that the device is "substantially equivalent" to predicate devices. The "Indications for Use" describe what the device is intended for, but not specific performance metrics or thresholds.
• Missing: Specific quantitative performance metrics (e.g., accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, removal rates for toxins, etc.) and the predefined acceptance criteria for these metrics.

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

• Information in document: Not present. The document does not describe any specific clinical test set, its size, or its provenance.
• Missing: Details on a test set, including its size, whether it was retrospective or prospective, and its geographic origin.

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)

• Information in document: Not present. Since no test set is described, there's no mention of experts establishing ground truth.
• Missing: Information about experts, their number, and their qualifications.

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

• Information in document: Not present. No test set is described.
• Missing: Description of any adjudication method.

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

• Information in document: Not present. This document does not describe any MRMC studies, nor does it refer to an AI component for the device. The BioLogic-DT System appears to be a medical device for treatment (acute hepatic encephalopathy, drug overdose/poisonings), not an diagnostic AI tool.
• Missing: Any information related to MRMC studies or AI assistance.

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

• Information in document: Not present. The device is a treatment system, not an algorithm, so this concept is not applicable here.
• Missing: Not applicable for this type of device.

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

• Information in document: Not present. No study or ground truth is described.
• Missing: Information about ground truth.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Information in document: Not present. No training set is described.
• Missing: Sample size for a training set.

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

• Information in document: Not present. No training set or ground truth described.
• Missing: Method for establishing ground truth for a training set.

Summary:

The provided document is a 510(k) clearance letter, which signifies that the BioLogic-DT® System has been found "substantially equivalent" to a legally marketed predicate device. This regulatory pathway primarily focuses on demonstrating that a new device is as safe and effective as an already cleared device, without requiring extensive de novo clinical trials to prove device performance against specific, novel acceptance criteria.

Therefore, the detailed information requested about acceptance criteria, study design, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, and expert qualifications is typically found in design validation documentation, clinical study reports, or a Premarket Approval (PMA) submission, none of which are present in this 510(k) clearance letter. The letter confirms the device's clearance for marketing based on equivalence, not necessarily on a detailed performance study as would be required for innovative, high-risk devices.

Ask a specific question about this device