Search Results

The ColonoSight Model 510B is intended to provide visualization (via a video monitor) and therapeutic access to the lower gastrointestinal tract. The lower gastrointestinal tract includes, but is not restricted to, the organs, tissues, and subsystems of the large bowel. The device is introduced rectally as with any standard colonoscope, when indications consistent with the requirement for the procedure are observed in adult patient populations.

The ColonoSight is a colonoscope covered with a disposable protective sheath and incorporating disposable channels for protective oncain and suction/therapeutic interventions. Intubation, is perfomed using an "air assisted push technology". The main components are: EndoSight, Camera Contol Unit, Hydro-The main componentie t; disposable ColonoSleeve and disposable Hub.

The provided text describes the Sightline Technologies ColonoSight Model 510B, a colonoscope system. However, the document is a 510(k) summary (a premarket notification), which primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing legally marketed devices. It does not contain the detailed acceptance criteria and a study dedicated to proving the device meets those specific acceptance criteria in the way typically expected for a detailed performance study report.

Instead, it lists types of performance data that were collected to demonstrate functionality and safety for the 510(k) submission. Therefore, I can extract information regarding the types of tests done and general statements about performance, but I cannot fulfill many of the specific requests regarding predefined acceptance criteria and a detailed study proving performance against them from this document.

Here's an attempt to answer your questions based only on the provided text, highlighting what is present and what is missing:

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

This information is not explicitly provided in the document as a table of acceptance criteria with corresponding performance data against those criteria. The document states that various tests were performed and that the device "functioned as intended and performed as expected."

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not specified for any of the tests mentioned (microbiological, functional, optical, or clinical trials). The document only mentions "clinical trials" were performed.
• Data Provenance: The manufacturer is based in Israel (Haifa), suggesting the studies likely occurred there, but this is not explicitly stated for all tests. The nature of the studies (retrospective/prospective) is not specified.

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)

This information is not provided. As this is a medical device for direct visualization, the "ground truth" for clinical performance would typically involve comparison to other colonoscopies or subsequent pathology. However, the document does not detail this.

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

This information is not provided.

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

• MRMC study: Highly unlikely and not mentioned. This device is a colonoscope providing visualization and therapeutic access, not an AI-assisted diagnostic imaging interpretation system. Therefore, an MRMC study related to "human readers improving with AI vs without AI assistance" is not applicable to the function of this device as described.

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

• Standalone algorithm performance: No, this is not a software algorithm-only device. It is a physical colonoscope. The document describes "functional tests," "optical performance tests," and "clinical trials" of the system.

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

For the "clinical trials" mentioned, the specific type of ground truth used is not specified. For a colonoscope, positive findings would typically be confirmed by pathology, and visualization quality by expert assessment.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Training Set Sample Size: Not applicable and not provided. The device is a physical medical instrument, not a machine learning model that undergoes a "training phase" on a dataset in the conventional sense.

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

• Ground Truth for Training Set: Not applicable and not provided. See above.

Summary of available performance data from the document:

The document broadly states that the following performance data was collected as part of the 510(k) submission:

• Microbiological barrier bench tests: Performed on the ColonoSleeve component, both in a laboratory and in animals.
• Functional tests: The ColonoSight system was tested for functionality.
• Optical performance tests: Performed both with and without the ColonoSleeve, reported to meet needs.
• Biocompatibility and pyrogenicity tests: Performed.
• Clinical trials: Performed, with "no adverse events reported." In all instances, the device "functioned as intended and performed as expected."

Conclusion from the Document:

The provided 510(k) summary asserts that the ColonoSight Model 510B is substantially equivalent to predicate devices and that various tests confirmed its functionality and safety, with "no adverse events reported" in clinical trials. However, it does not provide the granular detail of acceptance criteria, specific sample sizes for tests, expert qualifications, or adjudication methods that would be found in a comprehensive study report definitively proving performance against predefined criteria.

Ask a specific question about this device