Search Results

GT5 conductive & abrasive gel is intended for use in clinical and research EEG/EP recordings from humans. It can be not only used as skin-prep gel to abrade the skin surface lightly in order to reduce impedance to alternating current) efficiently, but also used as the conductor between the scalp and the external electrodes to reduce impedance between the electrode surface and the skin. GT5 conductive & abrasive gel is not intended for use with stimulating electrodes.

GT5 conductive & abrasive gel is intended for use in clinical and research EEG/EP recordings from humans. It can be not only used as skin-prep gel to abrade the skin surface lightly in order to reduce impedance (resistance to alternating current) efficiently, but also used as the conductor between the scalp and the external electrodes to reduce impedance between the electrode surface and the skin. The electrical activity of the brain is transferred to the electrode and then to EEG instruments and computer equipment. GT5 conductive & abrasive gel is for use with external electrodes only.

GT5 conductive & abrasive gel is an off-white color, opaque, no adverse smell gel with sodium chloride as the conductive material combined with thickening agents, emulsifiers, humectants, preservatives and abrasive particles. With the abrasive particles in the gel, the gel can be also used as skin preparation by being applied to the skin surface to rub the skin lightly in order to reduce skin impedance efficiently and increase signal quality recorded with EEG electrodes.

The composition of GT5 conductive & abrasive gel is as follows:

Glycerin, Sodium chloride, Water, Methylparaben, Sodium Carboxymethyl cellulose, Alkyl indican, Aluminum Oxide.

The pH range is 6.5-7.5, and the impedance at 10Hz is 0.2K Ohm or less. The conductivity is 18±0.5 mS/cm. GT5 conductive & abrasive gel is available in the following sizes: a pre-filled syringe of 20g, a tube of 100g, a bottle container of 473g, a bottle container of 946g. Shelf life is 3 years if stored properly, i.e. kept with containers tightly closed and at room temperature.

The provided text describes the regulatory submission for the GT5 conductive & abrasive gel. It is a Class II medical device (electroconductive media) and the submission (A 510(K) premarket notification) attests to its substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices.

The document does not contain information about a study proving the device meets acceptance criteria in the context of an AI/ML algorithm's performance. Instead, it details the acceptance criteria for the physical and chemical properties of the gel and internal performance testing to demonstrate these criteria are met. Therefore, many of the requested elements for an AI/ML algorithm study cannot be populated from the provided text.

Here's an attempt to answer the questions based on the provided text, with clear indications where information is not available or not applicable.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria here refer to the physical and chemical properties of the conductive gel, not the performance of an AI/ML diagnostic algorithm.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:
This information is not applicable and not provided. The testing relates to the physical and chemical properties of the gel, not a data-driven AI/ML test set. The shelf-life testing involved "accelerated aging," but the sample size of tested units is not specified. All testing appears to be internal ("tested internally").

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 applicable and not provided. "Ground truth" in this context would refer to established chemical and physical standards or measurements, not expert radiographic reads.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:
This information is not applicable and not provided. Adjudication methods are typically employed in clinical studies involving human interpretation or consensus for ground truth, not for physical property testing of a gel.

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:
This information is not applicable. The device is a conductive and abrasive gel, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool, so no MRMC study would be performed.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:
This information is not applicable. The device is a conductive and abrasive gel, not a standalone algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.):
The "ground truth" for the physical and chemical properties of the gel would be established by standard analytical chemistry and materials science methodologies, such as:

• pH measurement: Using a calibrated pH meter.
• Impedance/Conductivity measurement: Using appropriate electrical testing equipment validated against known standards.
• Appearance/Color/Odor: Visual and olfactory inspection against a defined standard or reference.
• Shelf-life: Stability testing over time (accelerated aging).

8. The sample size for the training set:
This information is not applicable and not provided. There is no AI/ML model involved requiring a training set.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established:
This information is not applicable. There is no AI/ML model involved.

Ask a specific question about this device