Search Results

The Elfor L is intended for measuring micro-vascular perfusion in skin and muscle in humans. It is intended to be used for clinical research applications and pre clinical research applications.

The Elfor-L device is making use of Miniaturized Dynamic Light Scattering (mDLS) technology to non-invasively measure micro-vascular perfusion in the skin. The device is comprised of sensor and signal processing station. The device uses Vertical-Cavity Surface-Emitting Lasers (VCSEL) as the light source and two photodetectors for detection.

The Elfor-L design incorporates three major components:

1. Sensor - the sensor as its predicate includes a laser light source and two photo sensitive elements. The sensor transfers analog signal to the control unit.
2. Control unit - the control unit is connected to the sensor by cable and includes the control circuit for the sensor, microcontroller and communication interface for the PC.
3. Dedicated software that processes, displays and record data on the computer. The computer is not part of the system.

The FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the Elfor-L device mentions that performance testing was conducted, including a comparison to its predicate device and an accuracy evaluation. However, the provided document does not contain the specific details required to fully address your request, such as:

• A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance values. While it states "The test passed and met the predefined acceptance criteria" for comparison testing and "The test passed" for accuracy, the actual numerical criteria and results are not listed.
• Sample sizes used for the test set.
• Data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective).
• Number of experts and their qualifications for ground truth.
• Adjudication method for the test set.
• Details on Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study (effect size, human improvement).
• Details on standalone (algorithm only) performance.
• Type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.).
• Sample size for the training set.
• How ground truth for the training set was established.

The document primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device based on intended use, technological characteristics, and compliance with general safety and performance standards (biocompatibility, software validation, electrical safety, EMC). It implies that the performance was found to be acceptable but does not provide the granular data of the clinical study itself.

Therefore, for the specific questions related to acceptance criteria and study details (especially for an AI/machine learning context, which this device, being a physical measurement device, doesn't explicitly describe), the provided text is insufficient.

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

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

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

• Sample Size: Not specified.
• Data Provenance: Not specified (e.g., country of origin, retrospective or prospective).

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

• Not specified. The performance testing section describes "comparison testing of the Elfor-L to its predicate device" and evaluating accuracy using a "standardized Motility Standard solution." This suggests an objective, instrument-based ground truth (e.g., comparison to a validated device/standard) rather than expert human interpretation in the traditional sense of medical imaging.

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

• Not applicable/not specified, as the ground truth appears to be objective, instrument-based.

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. The Elfor-L is a direct measurement device ("Cardiovascular Blood Flowmeter") not an AI-assisted diagnostic imaging interpretation system. Therefore, MRMC studies are not relevant to its type of performance evaluation.

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

• The device itself is a standalone measurement instrument. Its performance ("Accuracy of the Elfor-L device") was evaluated in comparison to a predicate and against a standard, which fits the concept of standalone performance for this type of device. There isn't an "algorithm" in the sense of AI interpreting an image; rather, it's a signal processing software function for a physical sensor.

7. The type of ground truth used:

• For "Accuracy of the Elfor-L device," the ground truth was established using a "standardized Motility Standard solution."
• For comparison testing, the ground truth was implied to be the performance of the predicate device.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not specified. The document doesn't explicitly mention "training sets" in the context of machine learning, as this device measures physical parameters rather than learning from large datasets to perform a classification or detection task. Its "software validation" refers to V&V for software functionality, not machine learning model training.

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

• Not applicable/not specified, as no machine learning training set is described.

Ask a specific question about this device