Search Results

Not Found

The design follows traditional principles of operation for Hearing Aids. The device is manufactured and assembled with equivalent manufacturing practices and performance guidelines.

This document is a 510(k) summary for the "Ethical ComfortAid Hearing Aid" from 1997. It is extremely brief and provides very limited technical detail. As such, it does not contain the kind of detailed information about acceptance criteria, study design, and performance metrics that you are requesting for a modern medical device submission.

Here's a breakdown of what can be extracted and why most of your questions cannot be answered from this document:

What can be extracted:

• Device Name: Ethical ComfortAid Hearing Aid
• Manufacturer: Ethical Hearing Instrument Portsmouth. 0 Fleet Str
• Submission Type: 510(k) Summary/Statement Certification
• Date of Submission: January 24, 1997
• Purpose of Submission: To demonstrate substantial equivalence to predicate devices, as required by the "Safe Medical Devices Act (SMDA)" of 1990.
• General Performance Statement: "Performance of this instrument meets requirements specified by ANSI S3.2-1987."

Why most of your questions cannot be answered from this document:

This document is from 1997, and the regulatory requirements and expectations for detailed clinical study reports, particularly for software-driven AI devices, were vastly different then. This summary focuses on demonstrating "substantial equivalence" based on traditional design, manufacturing practices, and meeting a specific ANSI standard, rather than presenting a detailed clinical study with performance metrics against acceptance criteria using modern methodologies.

Therefore, for almost all of your specific questions, the honest answer based solely on the provided text is: "Not provided in the document."

Let's go through your questions and provide the most accurate answer based on the given text:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance
   • Acceptance Criteria (as implied): "meets requirements specified by ANSI S3.2-1987."
   • Reported Device Performance: "Performance of this instrument meets requirements specified by ANSI S3.2-1987."
   • Note: The document does not provide specific numerical performance metrics, thresholds, or a detailed breakdown of what ANSI S3.2-1987 entails. It only states that the device meets the standard.

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

   • Answer: Not provided in the document. The document refers to "performance guidelines" and "substantial equivalence" rather than a specific clinical test set.

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)

   • Answer: Not provided in the document. This is a hearing aid, not an imaging device, and the context doesn't suggest a need for ground truth established by medical experts in the way AI models require for diagnostic tasks. The performance is assessed against an engineering standard.

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

   • Answer: Not provided in the document.

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

   • Answer: Not applicable and not provided. This is a hearing aid, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.

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

   • Answer: Not applicable. This is a standalone hearing aid, but it's not an algorithm only device in the sense of modern AI. The "performance" refers to its physical and acoustical characteristics meeting the ANSI standard.

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

   • Answer: Not specified. Performance is stated to meet an engineering standard (ANSI S3.2-1987), which implies an objective measurement against defined specifications, rather than a clinical "ground truth" derived from patient outcomes or expert clinical consensus.

8. The sample size for the training set

   • Answer: Not applicable and not provided. This device predates the common use of "training sets" for AI/machine learning in medical devices.

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

   • Answer: Not applicable and not provided. See above.

In summary: The provided 510(k) summary is a very high-level statement of compliance with an engineering standard for a traditional medical device from 1997. It does not offer the granular detail required for a comprehensive modern AI/ML device study report.

Ask a specific question about this device