Search Results

The Harmony INR Monitoring System is indicated for the quantitative determination of prothrombin time (PT) in capillary whole blood by properly selected and trained patients or their caregivers, or in capillary or venous whole blood by health care professionals, as an aid in monitoring oral anti-coagulation therapy.

The Harmony System consists of a meter and test strip. When a drop of blood is placed on the test strip, the blood is drawn into the reaction cells and mixed with reagents that cause blood clotting to begin. The meter monitors the blood clotting process by passing a light beam through the blood sample being tested. The meter detects blood clot formation and, at the conclusion of the test, the prothrombin time is displayed in International Normalized Ratio (INR) units.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the Harmony™ INR Monitoring System, focusing on acceptance criteria and the supporting study:

The provided text contains very limited information regarding detailed acceptance criteria and the specifics of the performance study. It states that "The study conducted to compare equivalency of the Rubicon 510(k) cleared device to the modified Harmony System met the performance requirements for accuracy and precision relative to the reference laboratory system." However, it does not explicitly list those performance requirements (acceptance criteria) or provide the detailed results that would allow for a table comparing them to the device's reported performance.

Therefore, many sections of your request cannot be fully answered based only on the provided text.

Here's what can be extracted and what remains unknown:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Note: The specific numerical or qualitative acceptance criteria for accuracy and precision are not detailed in the provided document.

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance

• Sample Size: Not specified. The document only mentions "The study conducted to compare equivalency..." without detailing the number of participants or samples.
• Data Provenance: Not specified (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective).

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications

• Not specified. The document refers to a "reference laboratory system" for comparison, implying expert-derived ground truth, but gives no details about the number or qualifications of experts.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not specified.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done, and Effect Size

• No, this was not an MRMC comparative effectiveness study in the context of human readers improving with AI. This is a point-of-care device for measuring INR, not an AI or imaging diagnostic tool that would typically involve human reader improvement. The study was a comparison of the Harmony system to a predicate device and a reference laboratory system.

6. If a Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance Study Was Done

• Yes, implicitly. The "Performance Testing" section states, "The study conducted to compare equivalency... met the performance requirements for accuracy and precision relative to the reference laboratory system." This refers to the device (meter and test strip) performing the measurement and generating the INR result, which is a standalone performance by the device's inherent mechanisms. There isn't a separate "algorithm" in the sense of a machine learning model, but rather the device's electrochemical and optical detection system.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• Reference Laboratory System: The performance of the Harmony device was compared to a "reference laboratory system." This typically implies a highly accurate and precise laboratory method for measuring INR, often considered the gold standard for clinical ground truth in this context.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not applicable/Not specified. This device is not an AI/machine learning system that requires a separate "training set" in the conventional sense. Its "training" would be its design, calibration during manufacturing, and internal parameters, which are not learned from data in the same way an AI model is.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

• Not applicable/Not specified as there is no "training set" in the context of an AI model for this device. Its inherent performance is based on its physical/chemical design and calibration.

Summary of Limitations Based on Provided Text:

The provided document, a 510(k) summary, focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device and broadly states that performance requirements for accuracy and precision were met. It does not delve into the detailed methodology, specific acceptance criteria values, sample sizes, or expert involvement in the way a scientific publication or a more detailed technical report would. This level of detail is often contained within the full 510(k) submission, which is not fully provided here.

Ask a specific question about this device