Search Results

The EASYGLUCO Blood Glucose Monitoring System is used for the quantitative measurement of glucose level in whole blood as an aid in monitoring the effectiveness of diabetes management in the home and in clinical settings. The EASYGLUCO Blood Glucose Monitoring System is for testing outside the body (in vitro diagnostic use only). Testing sites include the traditional fingertip testing along with alternate site testing on the arm, palm, thigh, and calf.

The EASYGLUCO Blood Glucose Monitoring System is an in vitro diagnostic device designed for measuring the concentration of glucose in whole blood, which is used with the EASYGLUCO Test Strips. The test principle is: This device is an in vitro diagnostic product intended for the measurement of glucose concentration in human blood. The principle of the test relies upon a specific type of glucose in the blood sample, the dehydrogenase glucose that reacts to electrodes in the test strip. The test strip employs an electrochemical signal generating an electrical current that will stimulate a chemical reaction. This reaction is measured by the Meter and displayed as your blood glucose result.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the EASYGLUCO Blood Glucose Monitoring System. It does not contain the detailed study information required to answer all the questions. The document focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to predicate devices and provides basic device description and intended use.

Therefore, I can only address the questions for which information is available in the provided text.

Here's a breakdown of the information that cannot be provided from the given document:

• A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: This detailed information is typically found in the full submission, not the summary.
• Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance: Not mentioned in the summary.
• Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not mentioned in the summary.
• Adjudication method for the test set: Not mentioned in the summary.
• 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 device is a blood glucose monitor, not an AI-assisted diagnostic imaging device, so an MRMC study is not applicable.
• If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: As a blood glucose monitor, its primary function is standalone measurement, but the specific performance study details are not provided.
• The type of ground truth used: While the principle of "in vitro diagnostic product intended for the measurement of glucose concentration in human blood" implies comparison to a reference method, the specific ground truth used in a validation study is not detailed.
• The sample size for the training set: Not mentioned in the summary. The device's operation doesn't suggest a traditional "training set" in the context of machine learning, but rather calibration/validation data.
• How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not mentioned in the summary.

Based on the provided text, here's what can be extracted:

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

The provided text does not contain a table of acceptance criteria or reported device performance data. The 510(k) summary states that the submission provides "sufficient data to understand the basis for a determination of substantial equivalence," implying that such data would be in the full submission.

2. Sample size 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 510(k) summary.

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 available in the provided 510(k) summary. Given that this is an in vitro diagnostic device for glucose measurement, "experts" in this context would likely be reference laboratory personnel performing comparative measurements, rather than medical specialists interpreting images.

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

This information is not applicable/not available in the context of an in vitro diagnostic blood glucose monitor. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are typically used in studies involving subjective interpretation of medical images or other diagnostic tests where there's potential for inter-observer variability. For a quantitative device like a blood glucose meter, validation involves comparing its output against a reference method, not expert adjudication of its readings.

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

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done, as this device is a blood glucose monitoring system, not an AI-assisted diagnostic imaging system that involves human readers interpreting results.

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

The EASYGLUCO Blood Glucose Monitoring System is designed as a standalone device for measuring glucose concentration. The device itself performs the measurement and displays the result without direct human intervention in the measurement process beyond sample application. The 510(k) summary implies that its performance was validated in this standalone capacity, but the details of such a study are not provided.

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

The document doesn't explicitly state the specific "ground truth" used. However, for a blood glucose monitoring system, the ground truth would typically be established by a highly accurate laboratory reference method for glucose measurement (e.g., hexokinase method or isotope dilution-mass spectrometry) on the same blood samples used for device testing.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not available in the provided 510(k) summary.

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

This information is not available in the provided 510(k) summary.

Ask a specific question about this device