Search Results

for collecting vaginal and cervical cell samples for cytological evaluation and infection diagnosis. The device is not indicated for endometrial cell sampling or for use on pregnant patients.

The Detect™ Cytology Brush II is a one-time use device for collecting vaginal and cervical cell samples for cytological evaluation and infection diagnosis. The device is not indicated for endometrial cell sampling or for use on pregnant patients. The materials of construction have undergone biocompatibility testing and met the requirements of the tests. Testing was also conducted to characterize the performance and integrity of the device. Results were comparable to those obtained when similarly testing a predicate device.

This 510(k) Premarket Notification for the Detect Cytology Brush II is a pre-amendment filing from 1996. It falls under a different regulatory framework than modern medical devices that rely on extensive clinical studies and AI performance metrics.

Therefore, the requested information regarding "acceptance criteria" based on device performance, "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria," "sample sizes," "expert ground truth," "adjudication methods," "MRMC studies," "standalone performance," and "training set details" is not applicable to this document.

This document describes a medical device, a cytology brush, that is substantially equivalent to predicate devices already on the market at the time. The 510(k) pathway for this type of device in 1996 primarily focused on:

• Indications for Use: Ensuring the new device is intended for the same purpose as existing devices.
• Technology/Design: Demonstrating that the technology and design are similar to already approved devices.
• Safety (Biocompatibility): Confirming that the materials used are safe for human contact.
• Performance and Integrity (Bench Testing): Showing that the device functions as intended and is robust, often through comparison to a predicate device in controlled lab settings.
• Manufacturing and Quality Assurance: Describing the processes in place to ensure consistent product quality.

Here's a breakdown of what can be extracted from the document in relation to your questions, and why most of your requested fields are not applicable:

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

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

• Not applicable. This document describes bench testing and comparison to a predicate device, not clinical studies with human participants that would involve "test sets" for performance evaluation in the context of diagnostic accuracy. The "testing" mentioned refers to internal engineering and materials testing.

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. See point 2. No clinical "test set" requiring expert ground truth in the diagnostic sense was used for this premarket notification.

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

• Not applicable. See point 2.

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 a manual cytology brush, a physical instrument. It does not involve AI or human "readers" in the context of image interpretation or diagnostic effectiveness.

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

• Not applicable. This device is a manual instrument, not an algorithm.

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

• Not applicable. The "ground truth" for this device involved engineering specifications and material science for biocompatibility and mechanical performance, and a comparison to an existing predicate device for functional equivalence. It doesn't relate to diagnostic accuracy ground truth.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable. This device does not use machine learning or AI, and therefore has no "training set."

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

• Not applicable. This device does not use machine learning or AI, and therefore has no "training set."

In summary: The provided document is a 510(k) summary for a relatively simple, non-AI manual medical device from 1996. The regulatory requirements and the type of evidence presented are fundamentally different from what would be expected for a diagnostic AI device today.

Ask a specific question about this device