Search Results

Histofreezer is indicated for use in the treatment of the following: Genital Warts Molluscum Contagiosum Seborrhoeic Keratosis Skin Tags Verruca Plantaris Verruca Vulgaris Verruca Plana

Not Found

This document is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the Histofreezer® Verruca Plana, a cryosurgical device. As such, it does not contain the detailed information about acceptance criteria, study design, and performance metrics typically found in a clinical study report or a premarket approval (PMA) application.

The letter confirms that the device is "substantially equivalent" to legally marketed predicate devices. This substantial equivalence determination means that the FDA has agreed, based on the sponsor's submission (which would have included comparative performance data), that the new device is as safe and effective as a device already on the market. However, the letter itself does not provide the specifics of those studies.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information from the given text. The document is a regulatory approval, not a scientific study report.

To answer your request, if this were a hypothetical scenario where this document provided performance data relevant to AI/ML device approval, here's how I would approach it, highlighting why the current document is insufficient:

Based on the provided text, I cannot extract the specific acceptance criteria, study design, or performance metrics in the format requested. The document is a 510(k) clearance letter, which states that the device, Histofreezer® Verruca Plana, has been found "substantially equivalent" to a predicate device. It does not contain the detailed study results, acceptance criteria, or experimental setup typically required to answer the questions about device performance and validation.

Here's a breakdown of why each point cannot be addressed from the given text:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: This information is not present. A 510(k) submission would include performance data demonstrating equivalence to a predicate, but the clearance letter itself doesn't report these details.
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not mentioned in the clearance letter.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not mentioned.
4. Adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not mentioned.
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 device (Histofreezer) is a cryosurgical tool, not an AI/ML diagnostic or assistive device for human readers. Therefore, an MRMC study for AI assistance is not applicable.
6. If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable, as this is not an AI/ML device.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): Not mentioned.
8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable, as this is not an AI/ML device.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable, as this is not an AI/ML device.

In summary, the provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter serves as a regulatory approval document and does not contain the detailed technical and clinical study information required to answer your specific questions regarding acceptance criteria and performance data. Such information would typically be found in the 510(k) submission itself, which is not provided here.

Ask a specific question about this device