Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K963060
    Manufacturer
    Date Cleared
    1996-11-04

    (89 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    880.6760
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    N/A
    Why did this record match?
    Device Name :

    HEELBO SECURITY BELT

    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    The Heelbo Security Belt is intended to help secure the patient while seated in a wheelchair or geriatric chair.

    Device Description

    The Heelbo Security Belt is a padded belt 4% inches wide by 22 inches long with cotton webbed straps sewn onto both ends. The webbed straps tie to the frame of the wheelchair or geriatric chair to help secure the patient while seated.

    AI/ML Overview

    This document is a 510(k) summary for a medical device (Heelbo Security Belt). It describes the device, its intended use, and argues for its substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

    Crucially, this document does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets acceptance criteria in the context of diagnostic or AI-driven performance.

    The information provided relates to the physical characteristics, materials, and intended use of a restraint belt, and its equivalence to an older version of the same product, primarily focusing on labeling changes.

    Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information. The document does not describe:

    • Acceptance criteria for a performance study (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy thresholds).
    • Reported device performance statistics against such criteria.
    • Sample sizes for test sets in a "study" of performance as typically understood for AI or diagnostic devices.
    • Data provenance for such studies.
    • Number/qualifications of experts for ground truth.
    • Adjudication method.
    • MRMC comparative effectiveness study.
    • Standalone algorithm performance study.
    • Type of ground truth (e.g., pathology, outcomes).
    • Sample size for the training set.
    • How ground truth for the training set was established.

    The "study" referenced in Section 8 is a conclusion based on substantial equivalence to a predicate device, primarily due to identical physical characteristics and materials, with the only change being a revision to product labeling to comply with FDA guidance. This is a regulatory pathway, not a performance study as would be conducted for a new diagnostic or AI-based device.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1