Search Results

The Delivery Catheter is indicated for the introduction of pacing and defibrillation leads to the right heart, inclusive of the Left Bundle Branch Area.

The subject Delivery Catheter (CPS Locator 3D Delivery Catheter) is a single-use percutaneous catheter intended for venous introduction of pacing or defibrillation leads.

The subject Delivery Catheter is packaged with a dilator for introduction into the vasculature. Proximally, the subject Delivery Catheter is equipped with a hemostatic valve, and the distal soft, rounded, radiopaque tip facilitates imaging under fluoroscopy. The subject Delivery Catheter is designed to be slittable, thereby allowing its removal after device placement. A variety of curves and lengths are available to accommodate various anatomies and different locations.

This FDA 510(k) clearance letter pertains to a medical device, not an AI/ML software. Therefore, the detailed acceptance criteria and study information requested, which are typical for AI/ML device evaluations, are not applicable in this context.

The document discusses the CPS Locator 3D Delivery Catheter, a physical medical device. The 510(k) process for such devices focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, primarily through performance testing (bench testing, biocompatibility, sterilization, etc.) and, in this case, some real-world usage data. It does not involve AI/ML performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or ground truth established by expert consensus for diagnostic accuracy.

Here's a breakdown of why many of your requested points are not applicable, followed by the information that can be extracted:

• Acceptance Criteria Table & Reported Performance: Not available in an AI/ML context. The document focuses on demonstrating the device's functional integrity and equivalence to a predicate.
• Sample Size (Test Set) & Data Provenance: Not applicable for an AI/ML test set. The clinical data mentioned is retrospective/real-world observational data on the previously cleared device.
• Number of Experts & Qualifications (Ground Truth): Not applicable as there's no diagnostic AI/ML algorithm requiring ground truth establishment by experts.
• Adjudication Method: Not applicable.
• MRMC Comparative Effectiveness Study: Not applicable.
• Standalone Performance: Not applicable as it's a physical catheter, not an AI/ML algorithm.
• Type of Ground Truth: Not applicable. The "ground truth" for a physical device is its functional performance and safety during use.
• Sample Size (Training Set): Not applicable as there's no AI/ML model to train.
• How Ground Truth for Training Set was Established: Not applicable.

Information that can be extracted from the provided document regarding the CPS Locator 3D Delivery Catheter:

The document describes the acceptance criteria and study to demonstrate substantial equivalence for a physical medical device, not an AI/ML system. Therefore, many of the requested fields related to AI/ML software evaluation are not directly applicable.

Here's a summary of the relevant information provided:

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

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance

• Test Set (Bench/Performance Testing): Not explicitly stated as a separate "test set" for the new submission, but the document mentions "All testing was performed on test units representative of finished devices." The specific number of units for each bench test is not provided in this summary.
• Clinical Data (Real-World Evidence):
  • Post-market study: Data collected from 42 physicians at multiple US centers.
  • Retrospective Observational Study 1: Not explicitly stated sample size, but mentioned "patients."
  • Retrospective Observational Study 2: 66 patients.
  • HeartRhythm Publication: 8 patients.
• Data Provenance: Primarily United States (US) centers. The data is described as post-market, real-world observational, and retrospective from the previously cleared predicate device (K230363).

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

• Not Applicable. This is a physical medical device clearance, not an AI/ML diagnostic device requiring expert-established ground truth for performance metrics like sensitivity/specificity. The "ground truth" for the clinical data related to lead delivery success was based on actual surgical outcomes reported by physicians.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• Not Applicable. No expert adjudication for an AI/ML algorithm's output was performed.

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 a physical medical device, not an AI/ML system.

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

• Not Applicable. This is a physical medical device.

7. The type of ground truth used

• For the clinical data, the "ground truth" was based on observed clinical outcomes (e.g., successful lead delivery, achievement of LBBAP, reported complications/adverse events) as documented and reported by treating physicians and study investigators. This is akin to patient outcomes data in real-world settings.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not Applicable. There is no AI/ML algorithm with a training set.

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

• Not Applicable. There is no AI/ML algorithm with a training set.

Ask a specific question about this device

The MicroScan Dried Gram-Negative MIC/Combo Panel is used to determine quantitative and qualitative antimicrobial agent susceptibility of colonies grown on solid media of rapidly growing aerobic and facultative anaerobic gram-negative bacilli. After inoculation, panels are incubated for 16-20 hours at 35°C ± 1°C in a non-CO2 incubator, and read either visually or with MicroScan instrumentation, according to the Package Insert.

This particular submission is for the addition of the antimicrobial cefepime at concentrations of 0.12-64 µg/mL to the test panel. Testing is indicated for Enterobacterales, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Aeromonas spp., as recognized by the FDA Susceptibility Test Interpretive Criteria (STIC) webpage.

The MicroScan Dried Gram-Negative MIC/Combo Panels with Cefepime (CPE) (0.12-64µg/mL) has demonstrated acceptable performance with the following organisms:

Enterobacterales (Enterobacter spp., Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Proteus mirabilis, Citrobacter koseri, (formerly Citrobacter diversus), Citrobacter freundii complex (Citrobacter freudnii, Citrobacter werkmanii and Citrobacter youngae), Klebsiella oxytoca, Morganella morganii, Proteus vulgaris, Providencia stuartii, Providencia rettgeri, Serratia marcescens)

Pseudomonas aeruginosa

Aeromonas spp.

MicroScan Dried Gram-Negative MIC/Combo Panels are designed for use in determining quantitative and qualitative antimicrobial agent susceptibility of colonies grown on solid media of rapidly growing aerobic and facultative anaerobic gram-negative bacilli.

The principle of MicroScan panels with antimicrobial susceptibility tests are miniaturizations of the broth dilution susceptibility test that have been diluted in broth and dehydrated. Various antimicrobial agents are diluted in broth to concentrations bridging the range of clinical interest. Panels are rehydrated with water after inoculation with a standardized suspension of the organism. After incubation in a non-CO2 incubator for 16-20 hours, the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) for the test organism is read by determining the lowest antimicrobial concentration showing inhibition of growth.

The product is single-use and intended for laboratory professional use.

Device Performance Acceptance Criteria and Study Details for MicroScan Dried Gram-Negative MIC/Combo Panels with Cefepime

Based on the provided FDA 510(k) Clearance Letter, the device in question is the MicroScan Dried Gram-Negative MIC/Combo Panels with Cefepime (CPE) (0.12-64 µg/mL), which is an Antimicrobial Susceptibility Test (AST) System. The study described focuses on demonstrating the substantial equivalence of this new configuration (with Cefepime) to a predicate device.

Given the nature of the device (an AST System), the "acceptance criteria" are typically related to the accuracy of determining Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) and the resulting categorical agreement (Susceptible, Intermediate, Resistant) compared to a reference method. The "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" refers to the performance evaluation conducted for the 510(k) submission.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

For AST systems, the key performance metrics are Essential Agreement (EA) and Categorical Agreement (CA) when compared to a CLSI (Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute) frozen reference panel. The FDA document "Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Antimicrobial Susceptibility Test (AST) Systems; Guidance for Industry and FDA", dated August 28, 2009, likely outlines the specific acceptance criteria thresholds for EA and CA. While the exact numerical acceptance criteria are not explicitly stated in the provided text, the performance "demonstrated acceptable performance" implies meeting these pre-defined thresholds.

Important Note: The document highlights some instances where the performance was "outside of essential agreement" for Enterobacterales with Prompt inoculation and "below 90%" for Aeromonas spp. with turbidity inoculation and WalkAway read method. These discrepancies are "mitigated with a limitation" in the product labeling, suggesting that while initial performance in those specific conditions did not meet implicit criteria, the overall robust performance with other methods/organisms, coupled with labeling limitations, made the device acceptable for clearance.

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

• Sample Size: The document does not explicitly provide a total number for the test set sample size (e.g., number of isolates tested). It refers to "contemporary and stock Efficacy isolates and stock Challenge strains" used for external evaluations.
• Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin of the data. It mentions "external evaluations," which generally implies testing conducted at clinical sites or contract research organizations. The study appears to be retrospective in the sense that it uses "stock Efficacy isolates and stock Challenge strains" which are pre-existing collections of bacterial isolates. It also mentions "contemporary" isolates, suggesting some recent collection. It implies a laboratory-based performance study rather than a clinical trial with patient outcomes.

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

This type of device (AST System) does not typically rely on human expert interpretation for establishing the "ground truth" of the test set. The ground truth for antimicrobial susceptibility testing is established by a reference method, which for this device is stated as a "CLSI frozen Reference Panel."

Therefore:

• Number of Experts: Not applicable in the context of creating the ground truth for AST.
• Qualifications of Experts: Not applicable.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

As the ground truth is established by a reference method (CLSI frozen Reference Panel), there is no human adjudication method like 2+1 or 3+1 typically used for image-based diagnostics. The device's results are directly compared to the quantitatively or qualitatively determined results from the CLSI reference 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

There is no indication that an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was performed. This type of study is not relevant for this device, which is an automated or manually read laboratory diagnostic for antimicrobial susceptibility, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool that aids human readers in interpretation. The device itself performs the susceptibility test.

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

Yes, the performance data presented is effectively standalone performance of the device (MicroScan Dried Gram-Negative MIC/Combo Panels with Cefepime). The device "read either visually or with MicroScan instrumentation" and its performance (Essential Agreement, Categorical Agreement) is directly compared to the reference standard. The "human-in-the-loop" would be the laboratory professional reading the results, and the study evaluates the accuracy of the device itself in producing those results. Where visual reads are mentioned, it's about the device's ability to produce clear inhibition patterns for visual interpretation, not a human independently interpreting raw data without the device.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used was established by a CLSI frozen Reference Panel. This is a recognized and standardized method for determining antimicrobial susceptibility, often involving broth microdilution or agar dilution methods where organisms are tested against known concentrations of antimicrobials. It is a highly controlled and quantitative method to determine the true MIC value against which the device's performance is compared.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not mention a training set or any details about its sample size. This is consistent with the nature of the device. AST systems are generally rule-based or empirically derived systems based on established microbiological principles, rather than machine learning models that require distinct training sets. The development of such panels involves extensive empirical testing during the R&D phase to ensure the correct concentrations and formulations, but this isn't typically referred to as a "training set" in the context of an AI/ML model.

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

As no training set (in the AI/ML sense) is indicated, this point is not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

As a TENS device, the CP Relief Wand Rx - TENS/NMES is intended for use as an adjunctive therapy for pain management for medical purposes such as symptomatic relief of chronic intractable pain and relief of acute post surgical and post-traumatic pain.

As an EMS device, the CP Relief Wand Rx - TENS/NMES is intended for use for relaxation of muscle spasm, increasing local blood circulation, muscle re-education, prevention or retardation of disuse atrophy, prevention of venous thrombosis of the calf muscles immediately after surgery, and maintaining on increasing range of motion.

The CP Relief Wand Rx - TENS/NMES®("Wand") is a multitherapy medical device that combines the treatment capabilities of TENS (Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation) and EMS (Electrical Muscular Stimulation).

The CP Relief Wand Rx - TENS/NMES is portable with self-contained electrodes. The device is powered by a standard non-rechargeable 9-volt alkaline battery. A charger is not used due to the low current drain and long battery life of the low power circuitry.

In operation, the electrode end of the CP Relief Wand Rx - TENS/NMES is positioned to touch the skin. The electrical pulses travel from one electrode, through the skin, through the underlying tissue, and back through the skin to the other electrode. Controls on the unit are provided for power, intensity, pulse width, and pulse polarity.

This FDA 510(k) clearance letter pertains to a TENS/NMES device, not an AI/ML-driven medical device. Therefore, the information typically found in a study proving an AI/ML device meets acceptance criteria (such as performance metrics, sample sizes for test/training sets, expert qualifications, and ground truth establishment) is not present in this document.

The document discusses the substantial equivalence of the "CP Relief Wand Rx - TENS/NMES" to predicate devices based on regulatory parameters, specifications, and the leveraging of performance testing from the primary predicate. It does not describe a new study specifically designed to assess the performance of the device against acceptance criteria in the context of an AI/ML model.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information for acceptance criteria and study details as they relate to an AI/ML device, as this document does not contain that type of data.

The document primarily focuses on:

• Substantial Equivalence: Arguing that the new device is as safe and effective as previously cleared devices.
• Expansion of Indications for Use: Adding EMS functionality, which is justified by comparison to a second predicate device that already has EMS indications.
• Performance Data (Leveraged from Predicate): Citing existing standards compliance from the primary predicate device, rather than new performance studies on an AI/ML algorithm.

If you have a document describing an AI/ML device and its validation study, I would be happy to analyze it for the requested information.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Quantum Perfusion Centrifugal Blood Pump CP20NG with Integrated Sensors indicated for use exclusively with Spectrum Medical Systems is intended to pump the blood through an extracorporeal circuit and to monitor pressure for periods up to 6 hours for the purpose of providing either:

(i) Full or partial cardiopulmonary bypass (i.e., circuit includes an oxygenator) during open surgical procedures on the heart or great vessels; or

(ii) Temporary circulatory bypass for diversion of flow around a planned disruption of the circulatory pathway necessary for open surgical procedures on the aorta or vena cava.

Device is intended for adolescent (i.e., patients greater than 12 through 21 years of age).

The Quantum Perfusion Centrifugal Blood Pump CP20NG with Integrated Sensors (CP20V-NG) is a standalone, single-use device intended for use in medical procedures requiring extracorporeal circulation. The device is designed to pump blood via centrifugal force through an extracorporeal circuit for periods lasting up to six (6) hours.

The device is non-toxic, non-pyrogenic, EtO-sterilized, and packaged in a single blister. Blood contact surfaces are coated with a stable, biocompatible compound to reduce platelet activation and adhesion while preserving platelet function.

This document describes the 510(k) clearance for the Quantum Perfusion Centrifugal Blood Pump CP20NG with Integrated Sensors. This is a medical device, not an AI/ML powered device, so several aspects of your request (e.g., number of experts, adjudication method, MRMC study, ground truth for AI/ML models) are not applicable.

Here's an analysis of the provided text in relation to your request, focusing on the available information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly present a table of acceptance criteria with corresponding performance data in a structured format as one might find for an AI/ML device where metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or AUC are reported against specific thresholds.

Instead, the acceptance criteria are implicitly met by demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device (K220842) through non-clinical performance testing. The reported performance is an affirmation that the device met these implicit criteria by performing comparably to the predicate.

The non-clinical performance tests conducted to demonstrate this are listed:

• Operating Parameters
• Dynamic Blood Damage
• Heat Generation
• Air Entrapment
• Mechanical Integrity
• Durability/Reliability

The conclusion is that "Performance data confirmed that the subject device is equivalent to the predicate device and any differences in the device do not raise new questions of safety or effectiveness." This statement is the reported device performance in the context of a 510(k) for this type of device – it met the standards for substantial equivalence. No specific numerical thresholds or results are provided in this summary, as is common for non-AI/ML 510(k) submissions unless a specific performance standard requires it to be explicitly stated in the summary.

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

The document states "In vitro performance tests have been performed to support claimed substantial equivalence."

• Sample Size: The document does not specify the exact sample sizes (e.g., number of pumps tested) for each of the non-clinical performance tests. This information is typically detailed in the full 510(k) submission, not necessarily in the public summary.
• Data Provenance: The tests are described as "In vitro performance tests," implying laboratory-based testing. "Performance testing in accordance with the special controls of 21 CFR 870.4360 was performed with the subject device (CP20V-NG)." This is prospective testing performed on manufactured devices. The country of origin of the data is not specified, but the applicant company is located in Italy (Spectrum Medical S.r.l., Mirandola, Italy).

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

This question is not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an AI/ML device that requires human expert annotation for ground truth. The "ground truth" for a device like this comes from standardized engineering and biocompatibility testing methods, not expert consensus on medical images or patient outcomes.

4. Adjudication Method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the Test Set

This question is not applicable. There is no human interpretation or subjective assessment that would require an adjudication method. Performance is measured against physical properties and engineering specifications.

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 question is not applicable. This is not an AI-powered diagnostic or assistive device. No MRMC study was conducted.

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

This question is not applicable. This is not an algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" for this device is established through:

• Engineering Specifications and Standards: The device's performance is measured against established engineering parameters and standards (e.g., relating to flow, pressure, heat, mechanical durability, blood damage).
• Biocompatibility Standards (ISO 10993-1:2018): Ensuring the materials are safe for biological contact.
• Sterilization Standards (ISO 11135:2014): Verifying the sterility of the device.
• Packaging Standards (ISO 11607-1:2019): Ensuring the integrity of the packaging.
• Regulatory Special Controls (21 CFR 870.4360): Specific performance requirements for nonroller-type blood pumps.

The "ground truth" is not based on expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data in the traditional sense of an AI/ML diagnostic.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This question is not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device that uses a "training set." The device is designed, manufactured, and tested, not "trained."

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

This question is not applicable. There is no "training set" or corresponding "ground truth" establishment in the context of this device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Automatic Blood Pressure Monitor is designed to measure blood pressure (systolic and diastolic) and pulse rate in adult patients with arm circumference range between 7.1 inches (18.0 cm) to 16.5 inches (42 cm).

The Automatic Blood Pressure Monitor (models: CH-S693L, CH-B601L, CP-B01, CH-S603, CH-S691L, CH-B607, CH-B606, CH-S692L, CH-S602, CH-W701L) is a kiosk-type, automated, single upper-arm cuff oscillometric BP monitor developed for measurement of BP and pulse rate in healthcare facility/hospital or at home.

It is designed for BP measurements on either the right or left upper arm and has a fixed tubular (Arm barrel) opening to insert the user's arm, with an integral single-arm cuff, which when inflated surrounds the upper arm. It is suitable for arm circumference range 18~42 cm. The device has an elbow groove to ensure correct positioning of the arm and measures BP during inflation. A wide LED screen presents systolic and diastolic BP, heart rate and time of measurement. After the user pushes the start button, the cuff is inflated automatically by an internal pump, the systolic and diastolic blood pressures are determined by oscillometric method.

Principle of operation:

The product uses the Oscillometric Measuring method to detect blood pressure.

When the user presses the "START" button to initiate the measurement, the winding mechanism, driven by a geared motor, begins to operate. It stops winding when it starts to encounter resistance from the arm. At this point, the cuff is adapted to the arm size. Subsequently, the cuff is automatically inflated by an internal pump to reach a pressure above systolic pressure, no blood flow occurs through the artery. As the cuff is deflated below the systolic pressure, the reducing pressure exerted on the artery allows blood to flow through it and sets up a detectable vibration in the arterial wall. When the cuff pressure falls below the patient's diastolic pressure, blood flows smoothly through the artery in the usual pulses, without any vibration being set up in the wall. Vibrations occur at any point where the cuff pressure is sufficiently high that the blood has to push the arterial wall open in order to flow through the artery. The vibrations are transferred from the arterial wall, through the air inside the cuff, into a transducer in the monitor that converts the measurements into electrical signals. Hence when it starts inflating the arm cuff, meanwhile, the unit detects pressure oscillations generated by beat-to-beat pulsatile, which is used to determine the systolic and diastolic pressure, and pulse rate.

This document is a 510(k) clearance letter for an Automatic Blood Pressure Monitor, which means it describes a non-invasive blood pressure measurement system, not an AI/ML device in the context of the requested questions. The provided text is a standard FDA 510(k) summary for a traditional medical device and does not contain information about AI model performance, expert ground truth adjudication (for AI), or MRMC studies.

Therefore, many of the requested fields are not applicable or cannot be extracted from the provided text because they pertain to AI/ML device studies, which is not what this document describes.

However, I can extract information related to the device's performance based on the provided clinical accuracy testing for the Automatic Blood Pressure Monitor.

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance (Non-AI/ML Device):

The device's clinical accuracy was tested according to ISO 81060-2 Third edition 2018-11 Amendment 1 2020-01. The document explicitly states:

"The test data showed the clinical accuracy of the subject device complied with the requirements of ISO 81060-2 Third edition 2018-11 Amendment 1 2020-01."

This standard outlines the requirements for clinical investigations of intermittent automated measurement type non-invasive sphygmomanometers. While the specific numerical performance metrics (e.g., mean difference and standard deviation of differences between device and reference measurements) are not quantitatively stated in the summary table, the statement of compliance confirms that the device met the acceptance criteria defined by this international standard for blood pressure measurement accuracy.

The summary also specifies instrumental accuracy for blood pressure and pulse rate:

• Blood Pressure Measurement Accuracy: ±3 mmHg
• Pulse rate measurement accuracy: ±5%

Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (as inferred from the document):

Regarding the specific questions about AI/ML studies:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: See table above. More specific quantitative clinical performance results (e.g., mean difference and standard deviation of differences of BP readings compared to reference) are not explicitly detailed in the provided summary but are implied by the compliance statement.
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:
   • Test Set Sample Size: 85 subjects.
   • Data Provenance: Not specified (e.g., country of origin). It's a clinical trial, implying prospective data collection for the validation study.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. This is for a traditional blood pressure monitor validated against a reference sphygmomanometer (aneroid/auscultation method), not an AI/ML device requiring expert consensus for ground truth. The reference device was a "CM-BPM-D Aneroid sphygmomanometer" by Shanghai Caremate Medical Device Co. Ltd.
4. Adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable for this type of device and study. The accuracy is determined by comparison to the reference measurements.
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 a traditional medical device, not an AI/ML product assisting human readers.
6. If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: The device itself is a standalone automatic blood pressure monitor. Its performance is measured directly, not as an algorithm's output to be interpreted by a human.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc): The ground truth for the clinical accuracy study was established by measurements from an "Aneroid sphygmomanometer" using the "Aneroid/auscultation method." This is the established reference method for validating automatic BP monitors per ISO 81060-2.
8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. This is a traditional device; there is no "training set" in the AI/ML sense. The device's measurement algorithm is predetermined and fixed.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable. No AI model training set.

Ask a specific question about this device

Inion CPS™ 1.5 Baby Bioabsorbable Fixation System implants are intended for use in trauma and reconstructive procedures in the craniofacial skeleton (e.g., infant craniofacial surgery, craniosynostosis, congenital malformations, craniotomy flap fixation), mid-face and maxilla.

The Inion CPS™ 1.5/2.0/2.5 Bioabsorbable Fixation System implants are intended for use in trauma and reconstructive procedures and to maintain the relative position of bone grafts or bone graft substitutes in the cranium, including craniotomy flap fixation.

Inion CPS™ and Inion CPS™ Baby implants are bioabsorbable plates, screws and mesh plates made of bioabsorbable co-polymers. Inion CPS™ 1.5/2.0/2.5 System implants are composed of L-lactic acid, D-lactic acid and Trimethylenecarbonate. Inion CPS™ 1.5 Baby System implants are composed of L-lactic acid, D-lactic acid and Poly-Glygolic acid. These polymers have a long history of safe medical use and they degrade in vivo by hydrolysis into alpha-hydroxy acids that are metabolised by the body. The implants retain sufficient strength to fulfil their intended function during the healing period of the fracture or osteotomy, and degrade gradually thereafter. Bioresorption of Inion CPS™ implants takes place within 2-4 years, and Inion CPS™ Baby implants within 2-3 years.

The systems consist of fixation plates, meshes and screws offered in different sizes and designed to be used with the Inion CPS™ bone drill bits, bone taps, self-drilling bone taps, countersinks, screw drivers, plate bending pliers and heating device. The instruments are nonsterile and reusable. They are intended to be cleaned and sterilized before initial use and after each use.

The implants are provided sterile by gamma irradiation. They are intended for single use and shall not be re-sterilized or re-used. Implants are non-pyrogenic and fully synthetic.

This FDA 510(k) clearance letter is for bioabsorbable fixation systems, not an AI/ML powered medical device. Therefore, many of the requested fields are not applicable. I will provide information from the document as it relates to the general acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them, while noting when a specific AI/ML related field is not relevant to this type of device.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• Test Set Description: Not directly applicable as this is not an AI/ML device with a specific "test set" in the context of algorithm validation. The "testing" refers to various evaluations:
  • Biocompatibility/Non-pyrogenicity Testing: Representative samples of the subject devices were selected for rabbit pyrogen tests. The exact number of samples or rabbits is not specified but it generally follows standard laboratory protocols. The provenance is likely from laboratory testing.
  • Clinical Evaluation: The clinical evaluation relied on published clinical studies.
    • Inion CPS™ Baby 1.5 Bioabsorbable Fixation System: 11 publications including 240 patients.
    • Inion CPS™ 1.5/2.0/2.5 System: 39 publications including 1755 patients.
  • Data Provenance for Clinical Studies: The document does not specify the country of origin of the data or whether the studies were retrospective or prospective, beyond being "published clinical studies."

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. This device is a physical implant, not an AI/ML diagnostic tool that requires experts to establish ground truth for image interpretation or similar tasks. The "ground truth" for its performance is assessed through physical testing (material properties, pyrogenicity) and clinical outcomes reported in published literature.

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

Not applicable. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are typically used for establishing ground truth in AI/ML performance studies, where multiple human experts independently review cases and then resolve disagreements. This concept does not apply to the evaluation of a physical bioabsorbable fixation system.

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. MRMC studies are specific to evaluating human reader performance with and without AI assistance for tasks like medical image interpretation. This device is a physical surgical implant and does not involve "human readers" in this context.

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

Not applicable. This device does not have an algorithm for standalone performance.

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

The "ground truth" (or basis for acceptance) for this device is established through:

• Physical Properties: Material composition, degradation profile, and strength retention are measured against pre-defined specifications.
• Biocompatibility and Non-pyrogenicity: Demonstrated through laboratory testing (e.g., rabbit pyrogen tests) against established biological safety standards (ISO 10993-1, USP chapters).
• Clinical Outcomes Data: Safe and effective use, performance rates, and complication rates are evidenced by published clinical literature and post-market follow-up data.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This device is not an AI/ML model that requires a training set.

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

Not applicable. This device is not an AI/ML model that requires a training set with established ground truth.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Delivery Catheter is indicated for the introduction of various types of catheters and pacing or defibrillator leads.

The modified Delivery Catheter (CPS Locator 3D Delivery Catheter) is a single-use percutaneous catheter indicated for the introduction of various types of catheters and pacing or defibrillation leads.

The modified Delivery Catheter is packaged with a dilator for introduction into the vasculature. Proximally, the modified Delivery Catheter is equipped with a hemostatic valve, and the distal soft, rounded, radiopaque tip facilitates imaging under fluoroscopy. The modified Delivery Catheter is designed to be slittable, thereby allowing its removal after device placement. A variety of curves and lengths are available to accommodate various anatomies and different locations.

This document describes the FDA 510(k) clearance for the CPS Locator 3D Plus Delivery Catheter, a medical device. Based on the provided text, the device is a percutaneous catheter used for introducing various types of catheters and pacing or defibrillator leads. The clearance is based on its substantial equivalence to a predicate device (CPS Locator 3D Delivery Catheter, K230363).

However, the provided text does not contain any information about an AI/ML-based device or any study that would typically be described with the requested criteria (e.g., sample sizes, expert adjudication, MRMC studies, ground truth establishment, training sets). The acceptance criteria mentioned are related to engineering and biological performance of a physical medical device (catheter) rather than the performance of an AI/ML algorithm.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request for information related to an AI/ML device's acceptance criteria and study data based on this document. The document describes a traditional medical device clearance, not an AI/ML software clearance.

**If your intention was to ask about the acceptance criteria and supporting studies for a physical medical device as described in the document, here is the information: **

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document outlines performance tests conducted, implying these tests have acceptance criteria which the device met ("passed the following tests"). Specific quantitative acceptance criteria (e.g., "leak rate must be

Ask a specific question about this device

The Quantum Perfusion Centrifugal Blood Pump CP22NG with Integrated Sensors indicated for use exclusively with the Quantum Centrifugal Drive is intended to pump the blood through an extracorporeal circuit and to monitor pressure for periods lasting less than 6 hours for the purpose of providing either:

(i) Full or partial cardiopulmonary bypass (i.e., circuit includes an oxygenator) during open surgical procedures on the heart or great vessels; or

(ii) Temporary circulatory bypass for diversion of flow around a planned disruption of the circulatory pathway necessary for open surgical procedures on the aorta or vena cava.

Device is intended for adult patients.

The Quantum Perfusion Centrifugal Blood Pump CP22NG with Integrated Sensors (CP22V-NG) is a standalone, single-use device intended for use in medical procedures requiring extracorporeal circulation. The device is designed to pump blood via centrifugal force through an extracorporeal circuit for periods lasting up to six (6) hours.

The device is non-toxic, non-pyrogenic, EtO-sterilized, and packaged in a single blister. Blood contact surfaces are coated with a stable, biocompatible compound to reduce platelet activation and adhesion while preserving platelet function.

The furnished document is a 510(k) clearance letter for a medical device which is a physical blood pump, not an AI/software as a medical device (SaMD). Therefore, the questions related to AI/SaMD testing methodologies (such as sample size for training/test sets, expert ground truth, MRMC studies, standalone performance, etc.) are not applicable here.

However, I can extract the relevant information regarding the performance data and the conclusion of the substantial equivalence for this physical device.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document states that performance testing was conducted according to the special controls of 21 CFR 870.4360 and confirmed the subject device is equivalent to the predicate. While specific numerical acceptance criteria and precise performance data are not explicitly detailed in this summary, the categories of tests performed indicate the areas where the device's performance was evaluated against established benchmarks (likely derived from the predicate device's performance or regulatory standards).

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

This information is not provided in a quantifiable manner (e.g., number of units tested).

• Sample Size: Not specified. The document states "Performance testing...was performed with the subject device (CP22V-NG)." This implies a sufficient number of devices were tested to draw conclusions, but the exact count is not given.
• Data Provenance: The tests were likely conducted by the manufacturer, Spectrum Medical S.r.l., as part of their 510(k) submission. The document lists the company's address in Mirandola, MO, Italy. It's a retrospective study from the perspective of the submission, as the tests were completed before the submission.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth and Qualifications

This is not applicable as the device is a physical blood pump, not an AI/SaMD requiring human expert annotation for ground truth. The "ground truth" for this type of device would be established through engineering specifications, validated test methods, and performance against established physiological or mechanical standards as outlined in the special controls (21 CFR 870.4360).

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable for a physical device. Performance is measured objectively through lab tests and engineering evaluation, not through subjective reviewer adjudication.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

Not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool designed to be used by human readers.

6. Standalone Performance

Yes, standalone performance testing was conducted. The non-clinical performance tests listed (Operating Parameters, Dynamic Blood Damage, Heat Generation, Air Entrapment, Mechanical Integrity, and Durability/Reliability) directly evaluate the device's inherent performance characteristics independently. The device's performance was then compared to that of the predicate device to establish substantial equivalence.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

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

• Engineering Specifications: The device is designed to meet specific technical parameters (e.g., flow rate, pressure monitoring accuracy, heat generation limits).
• Regulatory Standards: Performance was measured against the special controls outlined in 21 CFR 870.4360, which define acceptable parameters for non-roller type blood pumps.
• Predicate Device Performance: The primary method for proving substantial equivalence was demonstrating that the subject device's performance was equivalent to that of its predicate device, which has a proven safety and effectiveness record.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. This is a physical device, not an AI/Machine Learning model that requires a training set.

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

Not applicable, for the reason stated above.

Ask a specific question about this device

The NM-01/CPT neurometer is a noninvasive electrodiagnostic device intended for verifying nerve integrity in conscious adult patients, with intact skin surface.

The population of subject for whom this device may be used for diagnostic purposes would include any individual capable of communicating their perception of cutaneous sensation.

The NM-01/CPT neurometer may be conducted as a part of a routine neurological examination. The measured data can be utilized in evaluating patients suspected of having neuropathies. The measured data must be used in the context of other patient information and must be reviewed and interpreted by a physician. The device is intended for use on adults in medical clinics, healthcare practices and out-patient departments of hospitals.

The NM-01/CPT neurometer is a noninvasive device intentity in conscious adult patients, with intact skin surface. The population of subject for whom this device may be used for diagnostic purposes would include any individual capable of communicating their perception of cutaneous sensation. The NM-01/CPT neurometer may be conducted as a part of a routine neurological examination. The measured data can be utilized in evaluating patients suspected of having neuropathies. The measured data must be used in the context of other patient information and interpreted by a physician. The device is intended for use on adults in medical clinics, healthcare practices and out-patient departments of hospitals.

The NEUROMETER NM-01/CPT is a unique neurodiagnostic device that painlessly evaluates the functioning of small unmyelinated (C, small myelinated (A) and large myelinated (A) sensory nerve fibers at any cutaneous site by determining neuro selective sensory nerve conduction threshold. The electronic unit emits non-aversive transcutaneous electrical stimuli through a pair of special noninvasive electrodes in three fixed frequency ranges (thick myelincoated fiber 250Hz, thin myelin-coated fiber 2000Hz) with a manually adjustable current value. The emitted stimulus pulses canbe changed between 0.01 and 9.99 mA and their values qiven by the software are in CPT (Current Precipitation Threshold) values accepted in clinical practice (1CPT = 0.01mA). The test method is sensitive to both hyperesthetic abnormalities, and has more than 800 peer reviewed research publications documenting its diagnostic capabilities. The device can measure sensory nerve function at any cutaneous site including mucosal surfaces such as the bladder and the measures are not affected by skin temperature, edema or electromag-netic interference unlike traditional electro-diagnostic and biopsy procedures. The conducted tests are painless, noninvasive and non-aversive procedure is easy to perform and safe and harmless however it is only for profession clinical use. The evaluation of the tests result could only be approved by a medical doctor but the tests could be conducted by a trained assistant.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the NM-01/CPT neurometer (K240189) and its substantial equivalence to predicate devices. It includes a summary of non-clinical testing performed.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study details based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are not explicitly stated in a numerically quantified target, but the study implies an acceptance range for the ratio of measurements between the NM-01/CPT neurometer and the predicate device (Neurometer) to be within 10%.

For CPT 10, the mean of the ratio is 1.109, with a 90% confidence interval of (1.0531; 1.1648), meaning the two measurements cannot be considered equivalent within the 10% limit for CPT 10. However, the document states such values are "not expected in the population under study." |

Conclusion on Acceptance: The device generally met the implicit acceptance criteria of equivalence within a 10% limit, with a noted exception for CPT 10 values, which the submitter claims are not clinically relevant for the target population.

2. Sample Size and Data Provenance

• Test Set Sample Size: Not explicitly stated. The text mentions "Bench testing was performed on the NM-01/CPT neurometer measured values with the results of the Neurometer used in clinical practice," but it does not specify the number of resistance measurements or CPT measurements performed for this comparison.
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective). The study is described as "Bench testing," implying it was conducted in a controlled environment as opposed to a clinical trial with human subjects.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth

Not applicable. The study described is a bench test comparing the performance of the new device against a predicate device, not involving human interpretation for establishing ground truth regarding a medical condition.

4. Adjudication Method

Not applicable for a bench test comparing device measurements.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

No, a MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. The study was a bench test comparing the device's measurements to a predicate device.

6. Standalone Performance Study

Yes, a standalone performance study (bench testing) was done. The NM-01/CPT neurometer's measured values were compared against the results of the legally marketed predicate device (Neurometer). This comparison assesses the algorithm/device's technical performance.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" for this bench test was the measurements obtained from the predicate device, the "Neurometer used in clinical practice." This means the new device's performance was evaluated against an established and accepted device's output.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. This document describes a performance evaluation of a device, not the development of a machine learning algorithm that typically involves a training set. The device appears to be an electrodiagnostic tool that directly measures nerve conduction thresholds, rather than an AI/ML diagnostic system.

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

Not applicable, as there is no mention of a training set or machine learning algorithm.

Ask a specific question about this device

The MENTOR™ CPX™4 PLUS Enhance Smooth Breast Tissue Expander with fill volume to 1445cc can be used for breast reconstruction after mastection of an underdeveloped breast, scar revision and tissue defect procedures. The devices are intended for temporary subcutaneous or submuscular implantation and are not intended for use beyond six months.

The MENTOR™ CPX™4 PLUS Enhance Breast Tissue Expander is used for breast reconstruction following mastectomy and is intended for temporary subcutaneous or submuscular implantation and is not intended for use beyond six months. The proposed device consists of a smooth surface shell made with successive cross-linked layers of silicone elastomer identical to the predicate device (K241918). Again, identical to the predicate device, the subject device contains superior and anterior reinforcement which allows for directional expansion in the lower pole of the device has an integral, silicone elastomer, magnetically detected, injection dome and incorporates a BUFFERZONE™ area with self-sealing technology (containing silicone gel) to the front patch of the device to minimize and/or prevent leakage in the event of an accidental needle puncture. The CPX™4 PLUS Enhance Breast Tissue Expander Injection Dome houses a rare-earth, permanent magnet. This internal magnet, when in conjunction with the CENTERSCOPE™ Magnetic Injection Port Locator accessory, helps the injector accurately identify the injection dome during patient tissue expander fill procedures.

This FDA 510(k) premarket notification is for the Mentor™ CPX™4 PLUS Enhance Breast Tissue Expander, which is a medical device for breast reconstruction. The submission is specifically to expand the lower limit fill volume of the device from 930cc to 850cc, aligning it with a predicate device (K152496).

Based on the provided text, here's a description of the acceptance criteria and the study that demonstrates the device meets these criteria:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

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

No new test set was used for this 510(k) submission. The submission relies on the established performance of the predicate device (K241918) and the equivalence of the materials and design. The change is solely to expand the lower limit of the fill volume range.

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

Not applicable, as no new clinical or performance test set was described for this specific submission. The submission leverages the prior clearance of predicate devices, which would have undergone their own testing and validation processes.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

Not applicable, as no new test set requiring expert adjudication was described for this specific submission.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done:

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This device is a breast tissue expander, not a diagnostic imaging AI algorithm that would typically be evaluated with MRMC studies.

6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Was Done:

Not applicable, as this is a physical medical device (breast tissue expander), not an algorithm or AI software.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

For the original predicate device clearances on which this submission relies, the ground truth for mechanical performance would have been established through objective measurement of physical properties and performance benchmarks (e.g., pressure testing, leak testing) according to ASTM standards. Biocompatibility ground truth would be established through established biological evaluation tests based on ISO 10993.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

Not applicable, as this is a physical medical device, not an AI algorithm requiring a training set.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established:

Not applicable, as this is a physical medical device, not an AI algorithm requiring a training set.

Summary of the Study Proving the Device Meets Acceptance Criteria for this specific 510(k):

The submission for the Mentor™ CPX™4 PLUS Enhance Breast Tissue Expander with fill volumes from 850cc to 1445cc does not describe new studies or new acceptance criteria. Instead, it presents a special 510(k) where the core argument for meeting acceptance criteria is that:

1. Identical Technology and Materials: The proposed device has the same scientific technology, principles of operation, intended use, indications for use, and all patient contact materials as the cleared predicate device (K241918).
2. Worst-Case Mechanical Testing Already Performed: Previous mechanical testing on the predicate device (K241918) was conducted at the maximum labeled fill volume of 1445cc. This volume represents the "worst case" for overexpansion and bladder leak testing, as it results in the most internal pressure.
3. No Impact of Lower Fill Volume: Reducing the lower limit fill volume from 930cc to 850cc does not adversely affect the mechanical performance (overexpansion and bladder leak) already demonstrated at the worst-case 1445cc. Therefore, no new mechanical testing was deemed necessary.
4. Established Biocompatibility: Since all patient contact materials are identical to the predicate device, which has already established biocompatibility, no new biocompatibility testing was required for this submission.

In essence, the "study" proving the device meets acceptance criteria for this particular submission is the analysis of device equivalence and the justification that prior testing on the predicate device at its most challenging parameters (highest fill volume) sufficiently covers the slightly expanded range offered by the subject device (lower fill volume).

Ask a specific question about this device