Search Results

The Quik gel is intended to enhance electrical conductivity by facilitating transmission of the electrode-to-skin interface. It also helps the electrodes adhere to the patient.

A jellylike mass consisting of salts combined with carbohydrate thickening agent, hypo-allergenic organic emollient, anti-fungal agents all in a aqueous solvent.

This is a 510(k) premarket notification for an electroconductive gel, not an AI-powered medical device. Therefore, most of the requested information regarding acceptance criteria for device performance, ground truth, expert adjudication, multi-reader multi-case studies, and training/test sets is not applicable.

Here's an explanation of why and what information can be extracted:

• Device Type: The device, "Quik Gel, EEG Electrodeconductive Gel," is a physical substance (a gel) intended to improve electrical conductivity and electrode adherence. It's not a software algorithm or an AI-powered diagnostic tool.
• 510(k) Pathway: A 510(k) submission generally focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device. This means the new device is as safe and effective as the predicate, often through comparisons of technological characteristics, intended use, and performance where applicable. For a simple gel, this typically involves material compatibility, electrical impedance measurements, and safety (e.g., biocompatibility, non-irritancy).

Here's a breakdown of the relevant (and irrelevant) sections:

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

• Not Applicable in the provided text: The document explicitly states, "The Quik-Gel® has the same technological characteristics as the predicate device." For this type of device and 510(k), explicit performance acceptance criteria and reported numerical performance in the submission document are usually not detailed for simple physical characteristics when substantial equivalence is claimed based on identical characteristics to a predicate. The focus is on the equivalence rather than novel performance metrics.
• Likely underlying criteria (not in text): For electroconductive gels, typical performance criteria would involve:
  • Electrical Impedance/Conductivity: The gel should reduce skin impedance sufficiently for its intended use (e.g., EEG). This would be measured in ohms.
  • Adherence Properties: The gel should facilitate electrode adhesion.
  • Biocompatibility/Safety: Non-irritating, non-cytotoxic, non-sensitizing.
  • Stability: Shelf life, consistency over time.
  • pH: Within a range suitable for skin contact.

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

• Not Applicable: No clinical or performance test sets in the context of diagnostic accuracy, which would require AI-specific data. The comparison is based on the inherent characteristics of the gel being "the same" as predicate devices.

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)

• Not Applicable: No ground truth establishment for diagnostic performance as this is an electroconductive gel, not a diagnostic AI.

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

• Not Applicable: No test set involving human interpretation requiring adjudication.

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

• Not Applicable: This is not an AI device.

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

• Not Applicable: This is not an AI device.

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

• Not Applicable: No ground truth for diagnostic performance. The "ground truth" for this device would be its physical and chemical properties matching or performing equivalently to predicate devices for its intended function (e.g., impedance reduction, adherence).

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not Applicable: No training set for an AI model.

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

• Not Applicable: No training set for an AI model.

Summary based on the provided text:

The provided documents describe a 510(k) clearance for an electroconductive gel based on substantial equivalence to predicate devices (K022006 Conductive Gel and TEN20 Conductive K883149). The core argument for acceptance is that the "Quik-Gel® has the same technological characteristics as the predicate device." This means the product is fundamentally similar in composition and function to existing, legally marketed gels, and therefore is presumed to be as safe and effective. No specific performance metrics or studies beyond this declaration of equivalence are detailed in the provided text.

Ask a specific question about this device