Search Results

The HydroSpots are intended as direct substitutes for existing reusable EEG electrodes.

The HydroSpots are single-use, pre-gelled, disposable, silver/silver chloride EEG electrodes. They are designed to satisfy the customers who prefer the traditional electrode placement system that involves measuring the head, marking the electrode locations, and adhering electrodes to the head.

The HydroSpots have a similar form factor to the industry standard leadwire attached electrodes. The product design mimics the traditional electrode placement system while maintaining the other benefits provided by the heapiece electrodes that are listed below.

a. Ease of patient clean up. Both electrodes use a conductive adhesive gel to transmit the signal from the body's surface to the silver/silver chloride substrate. The hydrogel minimizes patient clean up as the hydrogel removes cleanly from the hair.

b. Ease of electrode clean up. The traditional electrodes have to be washed between patients while the HydroSpots and HydroDot electrodes are disposable.

The design features a pre-galled cup electrode with an optional adhesive ring that may be exposed and used to secure the electrode to the skin. The electrode is designed to mate with a wire such that the wire is reusable and the electrode which makes direct patient contact is disposable.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the HydroSpot System, framed around acceptance criteria and study details.

The provided text details a 510(k) premarket notification for the HydroSpot System, Model 1500 & 1501, which are EEG electrodes and leadwires. This document describes the device and its intended use, but it does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets those criteria, as typically understood for AI/algorithm performance.

The HydroSpot System is a medical device (EEG electrodes and leadwires), and the 510(k) submission process for such devices primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, rather than proving performance against specific acceptance criteria in the way an AI algorithm's diagnostic accuracy would be evaluated.

Therefore, many of your requested points cannot be answered from the provided text. I will fill in the table and explain for each point why the information is or is not present.

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

Study Details (Based on the Absence of Information for an AI/Algorithm Study)

1. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance:

   • Information in Text: None.
   • Explanation: The document describes a physical medical device (electrodes), not an algorithm or AI. Therefore, there is no "test set" in the context of evaluating an algorithm's performance on data. The 510(k) process would typically involve testing related to biocompatibility, electrical performance, and physical properties, but the details of such tests (including sample sizes) are not in this summary.

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

   • Information in Text: None.
   • Explanation: There is no "ground truth" to be established by experts in the context of device performance for EEG electrodes. Ground truth is relevant for diagnostic algorithms where human expert consensus often defines the correct diagnosis.

3. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

   • Information in Text: None.
   • Explanation: Not applicable for a physical medical device without an algorithmic component and a "test set" requiring adjudication.

4. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done:

   • Information in Text: No.
   • Explanation: MRMC studies are typically performed to compare the diagnostic performance of human readers (with and without AI assistance) on a set of cases. This is not relevant for the HydroSpot EEG electrodes, which are a direct substitute for existing electrodes. The 510(k) process focuses on demonstrating equivalence, not comparative diagnostic effectiveness of human readers aided by the device itself.

5. If a Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Was Done:

   • Information in Text: No.
   • Explanation: Not applicable, as the HydroSpot System is a physical electrode, not a standalone algorithm.

6. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

   • Information in Text: Not applicable.
   • Explanation: As explained above, the concept of "ground truth" (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data) as it applies to AI/diagnostic algorithms is not relevant for a physical device like EEG electrodes.

7. Sample Size for the Training Set:

   • Information in Text: None.
   • Explanation: This concept applies to the development of AI algorithms, not physical medical devices.

8. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established:

   • Information in Text: None.
   • Explanation: This concept applies to the development of AI algorithms, not physical medical devices.

Summary of the Provided Document:

The provided 510(k) summary for the Physiometrix HydroSpot System describes EEG electrodes and leadwires intended as direct substitutes for existing reusable EEG electrodes. The document focuses on:

• Description: Single-use, pre-gelled, disposable, silver/silver chloride EEG electrodes with a traditional form factor.
• Intended Use: Direct substitute for existing reusable EEG electrodes.
• Design/Materials: Widely used materials (silver/silver chloride, conductive hydrogel, skin contact adhesive).
• Benefits: Ease of patient and electrode cleanup due to disposable nature and hydrogel.
• Predicate Device: K930080, HydroDot NeuroMonitoring System, establishing the basis for substantial equivalence.

The document is a regulatory submission for a physical medical device and therefore does not contain the types of performance metrics or study designs typically associated with AI/algorithm validation against specific acceptance criteria.

Ask a specific question about this device