Search Results

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

IVA-C (ACIF):
The IVA-C Cage System is indicated for intervertebral body fusion in skeletally mature patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) of the cervical spine with accompanying radicular symptoms at one or two contiguous levels from C2-T1. DDD is defined as discogenic pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. The device is designed for use with supplemental fixation and with autograft to facilitate fusion. Patients should have at least six (6) weeks of non-operative treatment prior to treatment with an intervertebral cage.

AEON-C (ACIF):
The AEON-C Cage System is a stand-alone anterior cervical intervertebral fusion device indicated for use in skeletally mature patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) with accompanying radicular symptoms at one or two contiguous levels from C2-T1. DDD is defined as discogenic pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. The AEON-C Cage System should be packed with autograft and/or allograft comprised of cancellous, cortical and/or corticocancellous bone graft and implanted with an anterior approach. Patients should receive at least six (6) weeks of non-operative treatment prior to treatment with a cervical intervertebral fusion device. If the device is being used without the provided screws, supplemental fixation must be used.

IVA-L (ALIF, PLIF, DLIF, TLIF) & AEON-L (ALIF):
The IVA-L Cage System and AEON-L Cage System are indicated for intervertebral body fusion of the lumbar spine, from L2 to S1, in skeletally mature patients who have had six months of non-operative treatment. The device is intended for use at one level or two continuous levels for the treatment of degenerative disc disease (DDD) with up to Grade 1 spondylolisthesis. DDD is defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. The AEON-L Cage System is designed for use with or without the bone screws, depending on the surgeon's discretion. The device system is designed for use with supplemental fixation and with autograft to facilitate fusion.

The IVA & AEON Cervical and Lumbar Cage System are cervical and lumbar intervertebral fusion cages that are implanted in the disc space between the intervertebral bodies to obtain fusion and mechanical stability. The cages are manufactured via Selective Laser Melting (SLM) 3D printing technology using a medical grade metal powder and/or by machining (CNC method). The cages are manufactured from titanium alloy powder per ASTM F3001 or titanium alloy per ASTM F136 or PEEK per ASTM F2026. The screws are manufactured from titanium alloy per ASTM F136. They are provided non-sterile to the end user. The patient contacting portion of all instruments is made from Stainless Steel per ASTM F899 and all instruments are provided non-sterile and intended to be sterilized by the end user prior to use.

This FDA 510(k) Clearance Letter is for the IVA & AEON Cervical and Lumbar Cage System, which are intervertebral body fusion devices. It is a Class II device.

Crucially, this document focuses on the substantial equivalence of a physical medical device (intervertebral cages) based on engineering performance tests, materials, and design features, not on the performance of an AI/ML software.

Therefore, most of the requested information regarding AI/ML device performance (acceptance criteria table, study details, human reader improvement, ground truth, training set, etc.) is not applicable to this specific submission.

The document states:

• "Summary of Performance Data (Nonclinical and/or Clinical):" and then lists "Non-Clinical Tests" such as Static/Dynamic Compression Bending, Static/Dynamic Compression Shear Bending, Static/Dynamic Torsion, and Subsidence, all referencing ASTM standards.
• "Clinical Tests: - N/A"

This means that the device was cleared based on non-clinical (laboratory/mechanical) testing, not on clinical performance studies involving patient data or AI/ML algorithm evaluation.

To answer your specific questions in the context of this document:

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

   • Not Applicable (N/A) for AI/ML performance.
   • For the physical device, the acceptance criteria would be defined by the referenced ASTM standards (e.g., ASTM F2077, ASTM F2267) for specific mechanical properties (e.g., strength, durability, resistance to subsidence). The document states that the "Results of the non-clinical tests indicate that the device will perform within the intended uses," implying these criteria were met, but specific numerical performance data is not provided in this public summary.

2. Sample sizes used for the test set and the data provenance:

   • N/A for AI/ML performance.
   • For the mechanical tests, the "sample size" would refer to the number of physical devices tested to ASTM standards. This information is not provided in this summary. Data provenance is also N/A as it's not patient data.

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

   • N/A. Ground truth establishment by experts is relevant for diagnostic or AI/ML interpretation performance, not for the mechanical testing of a physical implant.

4. Adjudication method:

   • N/A. Adjudication is relevant for expert consensus in AI/ML or clinical studies.

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:

   • N/A. This is a physical implant, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.

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

   • N/A. This is not an algorithm.

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

   • N/A for AI/ML. For the device, the "ground truth" would be established mechanical properties as defined by the ASTM standards (e.g., material properties, structural integrity under load).

8. The sample size for the training set:

   • N/A. There is no training set as no AI/ML algorithm is involved.

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

   • N/A. There is no training set.

In summary, the provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter pertains to a surgical implant, not an AI/ML software. Therefore, the questions related to AI/ML device performance and associated studies are not applicable to this document. The clearance is based on the substantial equivalence to predicate devices and adherence to mechanical performance standards, as indicated by the non-clinical tests section.

Ask a specific question about this device

MIS dental implant system is intended to be surgically placed in the bone of the upper or lower jaw arches to provide support for prosthetic devices, such as artificial teeth, in order to restore masticatory function. When a one-stage surgical procedure is applied, the implant may be immediately loaded when good primary stability is achieved and the occlusal load is appropriate.

Narrow implants (Ø3.30mm) are indicated for use in surgical and restorative applications for placement only in the mandibular central, lateral incisor and maxillary lateral incisor regions of partially edentulous jaws, to provide support for prosthetic devices such as artificial teeth. Mandibular central and lateral incisors must be splinted if using two or more narrow implants adjacent to one another.

The subject devices, MIS Implants, are supplied sterile and packaged together with a cover screw which can be connected to the implant during the initial healing period after implant placement.

The implants and cover screws are made of titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V ELI complying with standard ASTM F136-13 - Standard Specification for Wrought Titanium-6Aluminum-4Vanadium ELI (Extra Low Interstitial) Alloy for Surgical Implant). The design and material of the implants and cover screws remain unchanged since most recently cleared 510(k).

The implants are also used with a wide range of previously cleared abutments which are sold separately.

This document is a 510(k) clearance letter for dental implants, not an AI/software as a medical device (SaMD) submission. Therefore, it does not contain the information requested regarding acceptance criteria and study proving device meets acceptance criteria for an AI/SaMD product.

The document discusses dental implants and their physical and material characteristics, regulatory classifications, predicate devices, and performance testing for mechanical properties, sterility, and packaging. The "Performance Data" section specifically mentions "Hydrophilicity testing" for "wet-packed implants" and other physical tests, but none of these relate to AI/SaMD performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or reader studies.

Therefore, I cannot provide a table of acceptance criteria, sample sizes for test sets, expert qualifications, or details on MRMC studies, standalone performance, or ground truth establishment relevant to an AI/SaMD product based on the provided text.

The prompt asks for information that this type of medical device submission (dental implants) would not typically include.

Ask a specific question about this device

RO handpiece, AGNES (F) RF handpiece and AGNES (B) RF handpiece of RFMagik are intended for use in dermatologic and general surgical procedures for electrocoagulation and hemostasis.

RFMagik is a medical device combined with RF current, to function as an electrosurgical device for use in dermatology and general surgical procedures. It is possible to select and change modes, parameters, outputs, etc. using the panel on the main body. It consists of the main device, LCD screen, two handpieces, single use electrodes, electrode pad, NE pad cable, food switch.

There are three handpieces. RO handpiece, AGNES (F) RF handpiece and AGNES (B) RF handpiece that delivers RF energy through the disposable electrode in the handpiece.

This document is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter for an RF Electrosurgical Device (RFMagik). It states that the device is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices.

However, the provided document does NOT contain information about acceptance criteria, device performance results, sample sizes, expert ground truth establishment, or clinical study details. The section on "Clinical Testing" explicitly states: "Clinical testing is not a requirement and has not been performed."

The document focuses on:

• Regulatory details: Device classification, product codes, indications for use.
• Technological comparison: Detailed comparison of the subject device (RFMagik) with a primary predicate device (RFMagik Lite) and a reference device (AGNES). This comparison highlights similarities and differences in handpieces, electrodes, output power, etc., and explains why these differences do not affect substantial equivalence.
• Non-clinical testing: Biocompatibility, sterility, shelf-life, and performance bench testing. An "Ex Vivo Study" was conducted on tissue types (liver, skin, muscle) for thermal testing.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request for a table of acceptance criteria, device performance, sample sizes for the test set, data provenance, number/qualifications of experts, adjudication methods, MRMC study details, standalone performance, type of ground truth, training set sample size, or how training ground truth was established. This information is typically found in specific study reports or sections of a 510(k) submission that go beyond what is published in the clearance letter itself.

The document indicates that the substantial equivalence was primarily demonstrated through bench testing and comparison to predicate devices, rather than clinical trials or extensive human-in-the-loop performance studies.

Summary of what CANNOT be provided from the given document:

1. Table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance: Not present.
2. Sample size for the test set and data provenance: No clinical test set. Ex vivo study mentioned, but specific sample sizes are not detailed.
3. Number of experts and qualifications for ground truth: Not applicable as no clinical study with expert ground truth review was performed.
4. Adjudication method for the test set: Not applicable.
5. MRMC comparative effectiveness study: Not conducted.
6. Standalone (algorithm only) performance: Not applicable as this is a physical electrosurgical device, not an AI algorithm.
7. Type of ground truth used: Not applicable for a clinical study. Ex vivo study used physical tissue, but no "ground truth" akin to medical image labeling.
8. Sample size for the training set: Not applicable as there is no mention of an AI/ML algorithm requiring a training set.
9. How ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

The EndoWrist Cadiere Forceps instrument is used with the Intuitive Surgical IS2000 da Vinci S Surgical System and the Intuitive Surgical IS3000 da Vinci Si Surgical System for grasping and manipulation of tissue.

The Endoscopic Instrument Control System is intended to assist in the accurate control of Intuitive Surgical Endoscopic Instruments including rigid endoscopes, blunt and sharp endoscopic dissectors, scissors, scalpels, ultrasonic shears, forceps/pick-ups, needle holders, endoscopic retractors, stabilizers, electrocautery and accessories for endoscopic manipulation of tissue, including grasping, cutting, blunt and sharp dissection, approximation, ligation, electrocautery, suturing, and delivery and placement of microwave and cryogenic ablation probes and accessories, during urologic surgical procedures, general laparoscopic surgical procedures, gynecologic laparoscopic surgical procedures, transoral otolaryngology surgical procedures restricted to benign and malignant tumors classified as T1 and T2, and for benign base of tongue resection procedures, general thoracoscopic surgical procedures, and thoracoscopically assisted cardiotomy procedures. The system can also be employed with adjunctive mediastinotomy to perform coronary anastomosis during cardiac revascularization. The system is indicated for adult and pediatric use (except for transoral otolaryngology surgical procedures). It is intended to be used by trained physicians in an operating room environment in accordance with the representative, specific procedures set forth in the Professional Instructions for Use.

The subject device is a remanufactured 420049 Cadiere Forceps with a grasping end effector to be used with the Intuitive Surgical da Vinci Endoscopic Instrument Control System (IS 2000 / IS 3000) for grasping and manipulating tissue during an endoscopic procedure. The mechanism of action and principles of operation for the subject device are identical to the predicate device, as there has been no modification to the mechanical design, materials, or dimensions. There are no changes to the claims, intended use, clinical applications, patient population, or method of operation.

This FDA 510(k) clearance letter pertains to a remanufactured medical device, the Remanufactured EndoWrist Cadiere Forceps. Unlike typical AI/software device clearance documents, this document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence for a physical device that has undergone a process to extend its lifespan and enable additional uses. Therefore, it does not contain the typical information related to acceptance criteria, test set, ground truth establishment, or AI model training as one would find for an AI/ML-based device.

Based on the provided text, here's what can be extracted regarding the device's acceptance criteria and the study proving it meets them:

Core Reason for Clearance: The manufacturer is demonstrating that the remanufactured device performs equivalently to the original (predicate) device, especially given that its "use counter has been reset to permit an additional controlled set of uses." The acceptance criteria are implicitly tied to ensuring the remanufactured device maintains the safety and efficacy of the original.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and the Reported Device Performance

Since this is a remanufactured physical device and not an AI/ML diagnostic tool, the "acceptance criteria" are not reported in terms of diagnostic metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, AUC). Instead, they relate to the continued functional and safety performance of the remanufactured forceps.

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

• Test Set Sample Size: The document does not specify a numerical sample size for "life testing," "electrical safety evaluation," "biocompatibility testing," "reprocessing validation," or "cybersecurity assessment." These types of tests typically involve a defined number of units or cycles to statistically demonstrate compliance with performance specifications. However, the specific numbers are not disclosed in this summary.
• Data Provenance: The data comes from internal testing and assessments conducted by Rebotix (the manufacturer) or their designated testing facilities. There is no mention of external data sources, clinical study sites, or patient data (retrospective or prospective). The reference to K241872 (remanufactured EndoWrist ProGrasp Forceps) as a reference for testing methods suggests a consistent internal methodology.

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

This information is not applicable for this type of device and submission. "Ground truth" in the context of AI/ML devices typically refers to the definitive determination of a condition (e.g., disease presence, lesion type) established by expert consensus or other definitive methods for labeling data. For a remanufactured physical device, "ground truth" is not established in this manner. Instead, performance is validated against established engineering and safety standards.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not applicable. Adjudication methods (like 2+1, 3+1) are used to resolve disagreements among multiple experts when establishing ground truth for diagnostic decisions, typically in AI/ML performance studies. This is not relevant for the engineering and safety tests conducted for a remanufactured physical device.

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. An MRMC study is specific to evaluating the clinical performance of AI-assisted diagnostic tools and measuring the impact of AI on human reader performance. This submission is for a remanufactured surgical instrument, not an AI diagnostic system.

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

This information is not applicable. "Standalone performance" refers to the performance of an AI algorithm independent of human interaction. This is not an AI/software device.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.)

The "ground truth" for this device's performance validation is primarily based on:

• Established engineering specifications and performance benchmarks for the original (predicate) device.
• Compliance with international safety standards (e.g., IEC 60601-1 for electrical safety, ISO 10993-1 for biocompatibility).
• Validation against Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) instructions for reprocessing.
• Demonstrating that the remanufactured device behaves mechanically and functionally identically to the predicate.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not applicable. "Training set" refers to data used to train an AI/ML model. This is a remanufactured physical device, not an AI/ML model.

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

This information is not applicable for the same reasons as #8.

Ask a specific question about this device

The MBT Sepsityper is a qualitative in vitro diagnostic device consisting of an MBT-CA (Sepsityper) software extension and a reagent kit (MBT Sepsityper Kit US IVD) for use in conjunction with other clinical and laboratory findings to aid in the early diagnosis of bacterial and yeast infections from positively flagged blood cultures using the MALDI Biotyper CA System.

The MBT Sepsityper Kit US IVD is a disposable blood culture processing device that includes associated reagents that are intended to concentrate and purify microbial cells from blood culture samples identified as positive by a continuous monitoring blood culture system and confirmed to demonstrate the presence of a single organism as determined by Gram stain. This sample preparation manual method is performed by laboratory health professionals in a clinical diagnostic setting. Subculturing of positive blood cultures is necessary to recover organisms for identification of organisms not identified by the MBT-CA System, for susceptibility testing and for differentiation of mixed growth.

Positive MBT Sepsityper results do not rule out co-infection with organisms that may not be detected by the MBT-CA System. Results of the MBT Sepsityper should not be used as the sole basis for diagnosis, treatment, or other patient management decisions. Results of the MBT Sepsityper should be correlated with Gram stain results and used in conjunction with other clinical and laboratory findings to aid in the diagnosis of bacterial and yeast bloodstream infections.

Organisms recovered from positive blood culture bottles that are suitable for identification using the MBT Sepsityper Kit US IVD and MBT-CA Systems are listed in the MALDI Biotyper CA System Package Insert Reference Library.

The MALDI Biotyper CA System uses MALDI (matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization) TOF (time of flight) mass spectrometry technology for the identification of organisms isolated from clinical samples. Identification can be performed from an isolated colony or from a cell extract. The sample material is transferred to a target plate, dried and overlaid with a matrix. The MBT FAST Shuttle US IVD is an optional hardware tool that may be used for drying the samples deposited on the MALDI target plate under controlled conditions.

The MALDI process transforms the proteins and peptides from the isolated microorganisms into positively charged ions. This is achieved by irradiating the matrix-sample composite with a UV laser. The matrix absorbs laser energy and transfers protons to the intact proteins or peptides in the gas phase. These ions are electrostatically accelerated and arrive in the flight tube at a mass-dependent speed. Because different proteins/peptides have different masses, ions arrive at the detector at different times (time of flight). The MBT-CA System measures the time (in the nanosecond range) between pulsed acceleration and the corresponding detector signal of the ions, and the time is converted into an exact molecular mass.

The highly abundant microbial ribosomal proteins result in a mass spectrum with a characteristic mass and intensity distribution pattern. This pattern is species-specific for many bacteria and yeasts and can be used as a 'molecular fingerprint' to identify a test organism. The spectrum of the unknown test organism, acquired through the software MBT Compass HT CA of the MBT-CA System, is electronically transformed into a peak list. Using a biostatistical algorithm, this peak list is compared to reference peak lists of organisms in the MBT-CA Reference Library and a log(score) between 0.00 and 3.00 is calculated. The higher the log(score), the higher the degree of similarity to a given organism in the MBT-CA Reference Library. The log(score) ranges reflect the probability of organism identification.

The FDA 510(k) submission document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to an existing predicate device rather than presenting a traditional acceptance criteria study for a new device. Therefore, the "acceptance criteria" discussed are largely driven by proving that the new components (MBT Compass HT CA software and MBT FAST Shuttle US IVD) maintain or improve the performance and safety established by the predicate device.

Here's an analysis of the provided text to fulfill your request:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The concept of "acceptance criteria" in this context isn't a single set of predefined thresholds for a novel device's performance against a clinical gold standard (e.g., sensitivity/specificity targets). Instead, it's about demonstrating that the new components do not negatively impact the established performance of the predicate device and potentially offer improvements (like accelerated drying time). The "reported device performance" is presented as evidence that these conditions are met.

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

Study Details

Based on the provided text:

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

   • MBT FAST Shuttle - Repeatability: 120 mass spectra (presumably from 12 bacterial/yeast strains * 10 repeats * 2 runs across DT, eDT, Ext, Sepsityper workflows as indicated in Table 3 headers, although the text says "each out of 2 runs" for "each workflow/method" - suggesting 10 per method/workflow per run).
   • MBT FAST Shuttle - Reproducibility (Site-to-Site): 2700 samples for MBT workflow (900 samples per study site * 3 sites) and 1350 samples for Sepsityper workflow (450 samples per study site * 3 sites). The document mentions "10 microorganisms" used per study site.
   • MBT FAST Shuttle - Reproducibility (Device-to-device): 1080 samples for MBT workflow (360 samples per MBT FAST Shuttle * 3 shuttles) and 540 samples for Sepsityper workflow (180 samples per MBT FAST Shuttle * 3 shuttles).
   • MBT FAST Shuttle - Reproducibility (Operator-to-operator): 900 samples for MBT workflow (450 samples per operator * 2 operators) and 450 samples for Sepsityper workflow (225 samples per operator * 2 operators).
   • MBT FAST Shuttle - Reproducibility (Day-to-day): 900 samples for MBT workflow (180 samples per day * 5 days) and 450 samples for Sepsityper workflow (90 samples per day * 5 days).
   • MBT FAST Shuttle - Method Comparison (Drying): 279 mass spectra for air-dried and 279 mass spectra for MBT FAST Shuttle dried from three study sites (93 mass spectra per site per drying method). Ten (10) microorganisms and a blood culture, each spotted in triplicates.
   • MBT Compass HT CA - Low Confidence Results: 15,270 spectra in total, with 1,670 yellow log(scores) re-analyzed.
   • MBT Compass HT CA - IDealTune: Data collected from 133 BTS-QC runs at Site 1 (over 17 months) and 76 BTS-QC runs at Site 2 (over 14 months).

   Data Provenance: The studies were performed at multiple sites (at least 3 for reproducibility studies), and one study explicitly mentions that microorganisms were shipped to both US study sites. This implies the data is, at least in part, prospectively collected in a multi-center setting for verification/validation. The "low confidence results" study was a retrospective non-interventional validation using data from previous clearances.

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

   • The document does not specify the number or qualifications of experts used to establish ground truth for most of these performance studies. The studies primarily focus on performance consistency and equivalence compared to established methods using what appears to be common laboratory standards (e.g., identity confirmed organisms, BTS quality checks).
   • For the "low confidence results" study, it states: "Isolates from clinical routine were used to compare the results of the MBT-CA System against a gold standard (16S sequencing)." This suggests the ground truth was established by 16S sequencing, a molecular method, rather than solely by human experts, and then potentially interpreted by experts.

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

   • No adjudication method involving multiple human readers for conflict resolution is mentioned or appears to be applicable given the nature of the device (mass spectrometry-based organism identification). The performance is assessed on the agreement with an expected identification or log(score) thresholds.

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 MRMC or human-in-the-loop comparative effectiveness study with human readers assisting or being assisted by AI is described in this document. The device is a "clinical mass spectrometry microorganism identification and differentiation system," not an AI-assisted diagnostic imaging tool.

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

   • Yes, the performance validation studies of the MBT FAST Shuttle US IVD and MBT Compass HT CA software are essentially standalone performance evaluations of these components within the overall MALDI Biotyper CA System. The "outputs" (identification results, log(scores)) are generated by the system (including the hardware, software, and reference library) without direct human interpretation of the raw mass spectra. Human involvement is in sample preparation and operating the system, but the core identification is algorithmic.

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

   • For the analytical performance of organism identification, the ground truth appears to be based on:
     • Reference strains/known microorganisms: Used in repeatability and reproducibility studies.
     • 16S sequencing: Explicitly stated as the "gold standard" for comparing results in the "low confidence results" study.
     • Internal quality control standards: Like the Bacterial Test Standard (BTS) for IDealTune validation.
   • This is primarily laboratory-based "gold standard" ground truth (molecular methods, established reference cultures), rather than expert consensus on clinical cases.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • This document describes the validation of new components for an existing system. It does not provide details about the training set size for the underlying MALDI Biotyper CA System's reference library or analytical algorithms. The "reference library" (which acts as a form of "training data" for identifying unknown spectra) is mentioned as being continually updated, but its size is not specified.

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

   • Similar to the above, the document does not detail how the ground truth was established for the training data (the reference library) of the overall MALDI Biotyper CA System. However, standard practice for building such libraries involves:
     • Well-characterized bacterial and yeast strains: Often from culture collections, with identity confirmed by a variety of methods including 16S rRNA gene sequencing, traditional biochemical tests, and possibly whole-genome sequencing.
     • Internal validation and verification: Ensuring the spectral patterns are consistent and representative for each species.

In summary, this 510(k) submission successfully demonstrates substantial equivalence by showing that the new components (MBT Compass HT CA software and MBT FAST Shuttle US IVD) maintain the safety and effectiveness of the predicate device, and in some cases, enhance usability (faster drying time, improved instrument maintenance) without introducing new risks or compromising diagnostic accuracy. The studies presented are analytical validations focusing on performance characteristics relevant to microorganism identification in a laboratory setting.

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device