Search Results

INTENDED TO BE USED FOR GENERAL THE UNGINA PROCEDURES. IT is INSERTED INTO THE VAGINA TRUCTOURES THE INTERioR OF THE VAGINA.

Not Found

The provided text is related to a 510(k) premarket notification for a disposable vaginal speculum, not an AI/ML powered medical device. Therefore, the information requested about acceptance criteria, study design, expert involvement, and training/test set details, which are typical for AI/ML device evaluations, is largely not present in this document.

However, I can extract information relevant to the device and the regulatory process.

Device Information:

• Trade Name: KENTEX Disposable Vaginal Speculum
• Common Name: Disposable Vaginal Speculum
• Classification Name: Non Metal Vaginal Speculum
• Regulation Number: 21 CFR Part 884.4530
• Product Code: HIB
• Regulatory Class: II

Intended Use Statement (from the "Indications for Use" section):
"INTENDED TO BE USED FOR GENERAL VAGINA PROCEDURES. IT IS INSERTED INTO THE VAGINA TO ALLOW THE VISUALIZATION OF THE INTERIOR OF THE VAGINA."

Regarding your specific questions, based on the provided text, the following cannot be answered as they pertain to AI/ML device studies, which this is not:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance
2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts
4. Adjudication method for the test set
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
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
7. The type of ground truth used
8. The sample size for the training set
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established

Explanation for lack of AI/ML specific information:

The document describes a traditional medical device (a disposable vaginal speculum) undergoing the 510(k) clearance process. This process primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, often through performance testing, material characterization, and compliance with recognized standards, rather than complex clinical studies involving AI algorithm performance metrics, ground truth establishment, or multi-reader studies. The FDA's letter explicitly states: "We have reviewed your Section 510(k) premarket notification of intent to market the device referenced above and have determined the device is substantially equivalent... to legally marketed predicate devices." This substantial equivalence determination does not typically involve the types of studies you are asking about for AI/ML devices.

Ask a specific question about this device