Search Results

Not Found

Cutaneous Compression Device for Use in Hemodialysis.

This document is a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device submitted in 1997. It describes a "Cutaneous Compression Device for Use in Hemodialysis." The purpose of a 510(k) is to demonstrate that a device is substantially equivalent to a legally marketed predicate device. This process does not inherently require the same level of detailed performance studies or AI-specific validation metrics that would be expected for a modern AI/ML-driven device.

Therefore, many of the requested items related to AI device performance, sample sizes for training/test sets, ground truth establishment, expert adjudication, and MRMC studies are not applicable to this 1997 submission for a non-AI physical medical device.

I will address the applicable sections based on the provided text.

Acceptance Criteria and Study Details for K964041 - Cutaneous Compression Device for Use in Hemodialysis

This submission is for a physical medical device (Cutaneous Compression Device) and predates the common use of AI/ML in medical devices. The "acceptance criteria" in this context refer to demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than meeting specific performance metrics of an AI algorithm. Similarly, the "study" referred to is the submission itself and the comparison made, not a clinical trial involving AI performance.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Given that this is a 510(k) submission for a non-AI device focused on substantial equivalence, the "acceptance criteria" are implicitly met by demonstrating similarity to predicate devices in terms of safety, effectiveness, and intended use. There are no quantitative performance metrics for "device performance" in the AI sense provided in this summary.

Remaining Questions:

Most of the following questions are related to AI/ML device validation and are not applicable to this submission given its nature and date.

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: This is a pre-AI physical device submission. There is no "test set" in the context of an algorithm's performance. The "test" is the comparison to predicate devices based on design and intended use.

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: There is no "ground truth" establishment for an algorithm's performance in this submission. The regulatory ground truth is the FDA's determination of substantial equivalence.

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

• Not Applicable: No test set or expert adjudication process for an AI algorithm's output.

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 device is not an AI diagnostic or assistance tool, and therefore no MRMC study would be relevant.

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

• Not Applicable: This is a physical device, not an algorithm.

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

• Not Applicable: No ground truth in the context of AI performance is used. Substantial equivalence relies on comparing the device's design, materials, and intended use to legally marketed predicate devices.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not Applicable: There is no AI algorithm, so no training set exists.

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

• Not Applicable: There is no AI algorithm, so no training set or its ground truth establishment.

Ask a specific question about this device