Search Results

Femtex 100% Cotton Gentle Touch tampons are menstrual tampons that are inserted into the vagina and used to absorb menstrual fluid.

Femtex 100% Cotton Gentle Touch Tampons are menstrual tampons used to absorb menstrual fluid. Femtex 100% Cotton Gentle Touch Tampons will be provided with 2 absorbencies, regular and super.

Femtex 100% Cotton Gentle Touch Tampons are made from cotton absorbent, cotton cord and cotton sewing thread.

The material used in Femtex 100% Cotton Gentle Touch tampons are similar to those used in other legally marketed tampons.

The provided document is a 510K summary for a medical device called "Femtex 100% Cotton Gentle Touch Tampons." However, the document focuses on the safety and basic performance (absorbency) in comparison to legally marketed tampons, rather than presenting a detailed study with acceptance criteria and a comprehensive study showing how a device meets those criteria in the way typically expected for advanced AI/ML medical devices.

Therefore, many of the requested categories are not applicable or cannot be determined from the provided text, as the document describes a traditional medical device (tampons) and not an AI-powered one.

Here's an attempt to answer the questions based only on the provided text, highlighting where the information is absent or not relevant to the typical context of your questions:

Acceptance Criteria and Study to Prove Device Meets Acceptance Criteria

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

Based on the document, the "performance" is primarily framed as "equivalence" to legally marketed tampons in terms of safety and effectiveness, and confirmed absorbency. Specific quantitative acceptance criteria are not detailed in this summary.

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

• Test set sample size: Not specified. The document mentions "testing" but does not quantify the number of products, biological samples, or human subjects involved.
• Data provenance: Not specified. The study types mentioned are "in vitro" (biocompatibility tests like irritation, cytotoxicity, sensitization) and a "Standard Syngyna testing" (an in vitro absorbency test). No human data provenance (country, retrospective/prospective) is described.

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)

• Number of experts: Not applicable/Not specified. For traditional device testing like biocompatibility, "ground truth" is typically established through standardized laboratory procedures and scientific analysis performed by trained technicians/scientists, rather than a consensus of medical experts in the way AI model validation often requires.
• Qualifications of experts: Not applicable/Not specified.

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

• Adjudication method: Not applicable. This concept is typically relevant for studies involving human interpretation or subjective assessment (e.g., in diagnostic imaging), not for the objective laboratory tests described for tampons.

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

• MRMC study: Not applicable. This type of study is specific to AI-assisted diagnostic devices where human readers interpret medical images or data. The Femtex tampons are a physical product for menstrual fluid absorption.

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

• Standalone study: Not applicable. This concept is for AI algorithms. The "performance" here refers to the physical and biological properties of a tampon.

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

• Type of ground truth: For biocompatibility tests, the "ground truth" is typically established by the quantitative and qualitative results of the specific in vitro assays (e.g., cell viability, irritation scores) compared against established safety thresholds and controls as per ISO standards (though not explicitly stated, this is standard practice). For absorbency, it's the measured absorption capacity via the Syngyna method against predefined absorbency ranges. It is not expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data in the medical diagnostic sense.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Training set sample size: Not applicable. This device does not involve an AI algorithm that requires a training set.

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

• Ground truth for training set: Not applicable. This device does not involve an AI algorithm with a training set.

Ask a specific question about this device