Search Results

The proposed catheters are intended for use in the drainage/collection of urine from the urinary bladder and simultaneous monitoring of the body core temperature during surgical or post-surgical intervals. General drainage is accomplished by inserting the catheter through the urethra and into the urine bladder. The catheter is retained in the bladder by inflation of balloon. Drainage is sometimes accomplished by suprapubic or other placement of the catheter, such as a nephrostomy tract.

Not Found

Please note that the provided document is a 510(k) clearance letter from the FDA for a medical device (a Foley catheter with a temperature sensor). This type of document does not contain the detailed study information, acceptance criteria, or performance metrics that would be generated by a clinical or performance study.

The FDA 510(k) process is primarily about demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than proving novel performance against specific acceptance criteria. Therefore, most of the requested information regarding study details, ground truth, and sample sizes will not be present in this document.

However, I can extract the following relevant information and explain why other requested details are not available:

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

This document does not specify quantitative acceptance criteria or detailed reported device performance in this format. The FDA 510(k) clearance process focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device. This typically involves showing that the new device has the same design, materials, and intended use, and performs as safely and effectively as the predicate. Performance data, if submitted, would be intended to support this equivalence, not necessarily to meet pre-defined, publicly disclosed acceptance criteria in the manner one might find for a novel drug or a high-risk device requiring a PMA.

The closest to "performance" mentioned is in the "Indications for Use" section (Page 3), which states: "The proposed catheters are intended for use in the drainage/collection of urine from the urinary bladder and simultaneous monitoring of the body core temperature during surgical or post-surgical intervals." This is a statement of intended function, not a quantitative performance metric.

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

This information is not available in the provided document. The 510(k) clearance letter itself does not include details about specific test set sample sizes or data provenance. Such information would be part of the predicate device's historical data or a new device's performance testing reports, which are part of the full 510(k) submission, but not typically summarized in the clearance letter.

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)

This information is not applicable and therefore not available in the provided document. This device is a physical medical device (Foley catheter with temperature sensor), not an AI or diagnostic imaging device that would require expert-established ground truth for a test set. Its performance relies on physical specifications, material compatibility, and temperature sensing accuracy, not on interpretations of complex data by experts.

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

This information is not applicable and therefore not available. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are typically used in studies involving subjective interpretation, often in diagnostic imaging or clinical trials where multiple experts assess the same cases. This is not relevant for a physical device like a Foley catheter.

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 information is not applicable and therefore not available. An MRMC study is relevant for diagnostic performance, particularly with AI assistance, where different readers analyze cases. This device is a physical catheter, not an AI diagnostic tool.

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

This information is not applicable and therefore not available. A "standalone algorithm" is not relevant for a physical medical device like a Foley catheter.

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

Again, the concept of "ground truth" as it applies to AI diagnostics or complex clinical endpoints is not directly applicable to this device in the context of this 510(k) letter. For a Foley catheter with a temperature sensor, "ground truth" would be related to:

• Physical measurements: Accuracy of the temperature sensor against a calibrated standard.
• Biocompatibility: In vitro and in vivo testing for material safety.
• Mechanical integrity: Tensile strength, balloon inflation/deflation, tip integrity, etc.
• Sterility: Confirmation of sterility.
  These types of "ground truth" are established through engineering testing, laboratory standards, and biocompatibility assessments, not typically through expert consensus on clinical cases or pathology. The document does not detail these specific test methods or their "ground truth" establishment.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not available in the provided document and likely not applicable in the context of this device. Training sets are relevant for machine learning algorithms. This device is a conventional medical device, not an AI/ML product.

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

This information is not applicable and therefore not available, for the same reasons as point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device