Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K110884
    Date Cleared
    2011-07-12

    (104 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    868.5905
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Predicate For
    N/A
    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    The nasal mask is intended for prescription use to be used during nasal CPAP or Bi-level Positive Pressure therapy for adult patients (>30 kg).

    Device Description

    The EasyFit SilkGel Nasal Mask is a molded plastic mask, including an exhalation system, for the delivery of CPAP or Bi-level Positive Pressure therapy. It consists of a mask cushion, mask body, forehead cushion, rough adjustment component, fine adjustment component, headgear clips, pressure measurement connection, tube anchoring strap, rotating sleeve, elbow, and retaining ring. The mask provides a swivel and securely attached elbow connection for simple and secure handling of the tubing between the mask and the therapy device.

    AI/ML Overview

    The provided text describes a 510(k) summary for the EasyFit SilkGel Nasal Mask, which is a medical device intended for CPAP and Bi-level Positive Pressure therapy. The summary primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than detailing specific acceptance criteria and a study proving those criteria are met for the new device.

    Therefore, the following information cannot be extracted from the provided text:

    • A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: The document only generally states that "All tests were verified to meet acceptance criteria" without listing specific criteria or their performance metrics.
    • Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance: No details on sample sizes or data provenance for any tests are provided.
    • Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable as this is not a study involving human experts establishing ground truth for a diagnostic AI device.
    • Adjudication method for the test set: Not applicable.
    • 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 as this is not an AI diagnostic imaging device.
    • If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable as this is not an AI algorithm.
    • The type of ground truth used: Not applicable.
    • The sample size for the training set: Not applicable as this is not an AI algorithm.
    • How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable as this is not an AI algorithm.

    Based on the provided text, here is what can be extracted regarding the "acceptance criteria" and "study":

    1. Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance (General Statement):

    Acceptance CriteriaReported Device Performance
    Material Safety (Biocompatibility)Verified to meet acceptance criteria.
    Performance Equivalence (Bench Testing)Verified to meet acceptance criteria.
    Overall Safety and EffectivenessConcluded to be substantially equivalent to the legally marketed predicate device, and safe and effective for its intended use, performing as well as the predicate device.

    Note: Specific numerical criteria or performance metrics are not provided in the document.

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

    • Sample Size: Not specified.
    • Data Provenance: Not specified. The testing itself (biocompatibility and bench testing) would typically be conducted by the manufacturer (Weinmann - Gerate fur Medizin GmbH + Co. KG, Germany).

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

    • This information is not applicable as the document describes a 510(k) submission for a physical medical device (nasal mask) and not a study establishing ground truth for a diagnostic AI system or a similar type of analysis.

    4. Adjudication method for the test set:

    • Not applicable for this type of device submission.

    5. If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done:

    • No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done, as this is not an AI diagnostic imaging device.

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

    • Not applicable as this is not an AI algorithm.

    7. The type of ground truth used:

    • Not applicable in the context of ground truth for diagnostic accuracy. The "ground truth" here would relate to established scientific standards for biocompatibility and engineering performance standards for a medical device.

    8. The sample size for the training set:

    • Not applicable as this is not an AI algorithm or machine learning device.

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

    • Not applicable as this is not an AI algorithm or machine learning device.
    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1