Search Results

Used for collection of cells in the biliary system.

The subject devices, the Fusion Cytology Brush and CytoMax II Double Lumen Cytology Brush, consist of a nylon brush on a stainless-steel drive wire with a stainless-steel tip, a double lumen catheter with ink markings, radiopaque markers, wire guide access via a wire guide hub or and IDE port, a detachable extension line with a luer lock for optional flushing of the wire guide hub and a pin-vise handle.

The Fusion Cytology Brush and CytoMax II Double Lumen Cytology Brushes are used by passing the device through an endoscope over a prepositioned wire guide to a target location. The cytology brush is located at the distal end (patient contacting) of the device with the pin vise handle located at the proximal end (non-patient contacting). The handle is actuated by pushing the pin vise handle forward to extend the cytology brush and then pulling backward to retract the brush.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the Fusion Cytology Brush and CytoMax II Double Lumen Cytology Brush. This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices after a design modification. It does not describe an AI medical device, nor does it contain information about acceptance criteria for an AI model, a study proving an AI device meets acceptance criteria, sample sizes for test or training sets for AI, expert involvement for AI ground truth, or MRMC studies.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request for information about acceptance criteria and studies related to an AI device based on this input.

The document discusses non-clinical bench testing to ensure the modified devices meet performance requirements and function as intended, specifically:

• Tensile Strength Testing: Assesses the strength of the device.
• Tensile Strength of Handle: Evaluates the handle's ability to withstand pulling forces.

These tests are to ensure the physical integrity and functionality of the cytology brushes themselves, not the performance of an AI algorithm.

Ask a specific question about this device

Used for collection of cells in the biliary system.

The Fusion® Cytology Brush and CytoMax II® Double Lumen Cytology Brush (subject devices) represent modifications made to the Wilson-Cook Double Lumen Biliary Cytology Brush and Fusion® Cytology Brush (predicate devices) cleared to market via 510(k) K171573 by Wilson-Cook Medical, Inc.

The Fusion® Cytology Brush and CytoMax II® Double Lumen Cytology Brushes consist of a nylon brush on a stainless-steel drive wire with a stainless-steel tip, a double lumen catheter with ink markings, radiopaque markers, wire guide access via a wire guide hub or an IDE port, a detachable extension line with a leur lock for optional flushing of the wire guide hub and a pinvise handle.

The Fusion® Cytology Brush and CytoMax II® Double Lumen Cytology Brushes are used by passing the device through an endoscope over a prepositioned wire guide to a target location. The cytology brush is located at the distal end (patient contacting) of the device with the pin vise handle located at the proximal end (non-patient contacting). The handle is actuated by pushing the pin vise handle forward to extend the cytology brush and then pulling backward to retract the brush.

This document is a 510(k) summary for a medical device (Fusion Cytology Brush, CytoMax II Double Lumen Cytology Brush) and primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device based on modifications and non-clinical bench testing. It does not present a clinical study or performance data related to AI/algorithm performance, which is what your request is specifically asking for regarding acceptance criteria, training/test sets, ground truth establishment, or human reader improvement with AI assistance.

Therefore, I cannot provide the information requested in your prompt based on the provided text, as the document does not contain any details about:

1. Acceptance criteria and reported device performance (in the context of an AI/algorithm). The "performance data" mentioned here refers to mechanical and material properties, not clinical diagnostic accuracy or AI metrics.
2. Sample sizes used for a test set or data provenance for an AI/algorithm.
3. Number of experts and their qualifications for establishing ground truth for an AI/algorithm.
4. Adjudication method for a test set for an AI/algorithm.
5. Multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study information.
6. Standalone (algorithm-only) performance.
7. Type of ground truth used for an AI/algorithm.
8. Sample size for the training set for an AI/algorithm.
9. How ground truth for the training set was established for an AI/algorithm.

The document states: "Performance testing consisting of non-clinical bench testing that demonstrates the subject devices met the performance requirements to fulfill their intended use. This testing provides reasonable assurance that the subject devices will function as intended. The subject devices do not raise new questions of safety or effectiveness as compared to the predicate devices." This highlights that the evaluation was primarily focused on bench testing for mechanical and material properties, not clinical performance metrics typical for AI-powered diagnostics.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Fusion® Cytology Brush and CytoMax II® Double Lumen Cytology Brush are used for collection of cells in the biliary system.

The Fusion® Cytology Brush and CytoMax II® Double Lumen Cytology Brush (subject devices) represent modifications made to the Wilson-Cook Double Lumen Biliary Cytology Brush (predicate device) currently cleared to market via 510K K040324 by Wilson-Cook Medical, Inc.

The Fusion® Cytology Brush and CytoMax II® Double Lumen Cytology Brushes consist of a double lumen catheter with ink markings, a cytology brush assembly with either a coil spring or bullet tip, a pin vise handle, wire guide hub, and a detachable connecting tube, which can be used for flushing of the wire guide hub. The endoscopic cytology brush is used by passing the device through an endoscope, over a prepositioned wire guide to the target location. The endoscopic cytology brush assembly is located at the distal (patient contacting) end with the pin vise handle located at the proximal (non-patient contacting) end. The handle is actuated by pushing the pin vise handle forward to extend the cytology brush and then pulling backward to retract the brush.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for two cytology brushes, the Fusion® Cytology Brush and CytoMax II® Double Lumen Cytology Brush. This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device through non-clinical testing rather than presenting a study to prove acceptance criteria for device performance in a clinical setting.

Therefore, many of the requested details regarding clinical study design, acceptance criteria, and performance metrics are not available in the provided text.

However, based on the information provided, here's what can be extracted:

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

The document mentions "performance requirements" were met through non-clinical bench testing. However, specific numerical acceptance criteria or reported performance values are not provided in the text. The non-clinical tests performed include:

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

• Sample Size: Not specified in the document. The testing mentioned is "non-clinical bench testing."
• Data Provenance: Not applicable as no clinical study or patient data is reported. The tests are benchtop tests.

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

• Not applicable. The document describes non-clinical bench testing, not a study involving human experts to establish ground truth.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

• Not applicable. This pertains to clinical studies involving expert review and is not relevant to the described non-clinical bench testing.

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. The document describes a 510(k) submission for cytology brushes, not an AI-powered device, and no MRMC study is mentioned.

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

• No. This is not an AI device.

7. The type of ground truth used:

• Not applicable. For the non-clinical tests mentioned (shelf life, packaging validation, biocompatibility, and other performance bench tests), the "ground truth" would be established by the defined test methods and specifications for the device's physical and material properties, not from clinical outcomes or expert consensus on diagnostic interpretations.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable. This is not an AI device and no "training set" is mentioned or implied.

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

• Not applicable. This is not an AI device.

Ask a specific question about this device