Search Results

It is a motor driven, indoor and outdoor transportation vehicle with the intended use to provide mobility to a disabled or elderly person limited to a seated position.

RS100 is a Mobility Scooter which provides mobility to a disabled or elderly person limited to a seated position. The Mobility Scooter is classified in the Class B and the maximum loading weight is 125kg. The scooter is a battery powered three-wheeled vehicle.

It consists Lithium-ion battery with an off-board battery charger, frame, controllers, motor, seat, back support, arm supports, control panel (including speed knob, battery gauge, power key switch, horn button, throttle control lever, charger port) two rear wheels, one front wheel, foot support.

For convenience of transportation and reduction of possible damage, the battery and arm supports can be dismantled and separately packaged. Users can also easily assemble these parts without use of the tools.

The provided document is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter for a "Magnesium alloy scooter (RS100)". This type of device, a motorized three-wheeled vehicle, is a physical mobility aid, not an AI/Software as a Medical Device (SaMD). Therefore, the concepts of acceptance criteria in the context of AI performance metrics (like sensitivity, specificity, AUC), ground truth establishment by experts, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, or training/test sets for AI algorithms simply do not apply to this device.

The "acceptance criteria" for this device are based on its compliance with international performance and safety standards, primarily the ISO 7176 series and ISO 10993-1 for biocompatibility, and IEC 60601 for electrical safety and electromagnetic compatibility. The "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" refers to the non-clinical bench testing conducted to demonstrate compliance with these standards and substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

Given this, I cannot extract the information required by your prompt regarding AI/SaMD performance. I will explain why each point in your prompt is inapplicable to this document:

Inapplicability of Prompt Points:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: While the document does compare the subject device's specifications to the predicate, and states that test results meet design specifications and ISO standards, it does not present these as a "table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance" in the way one would for AI metrics. The acceptance criteria are "compliance with ISO standards" and "meets design specifications," and the performance is implicitly satisfactory if it achieves this compliance.

2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective): This would refer to a dataset used to evaluate an AI model. For a physical medical device like a scooter, the "test set" would be the physical prototypes tested. There's no "data provenance" in the sense of patient data. Testing is done on the device itself, likely within a lab setting.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience): Ground truth establishment by experts is relevant for diagnostic AI. For a scooter, the "ground truth" is whether it performs according to engineering specifications and safety standards, which is determined by objective physical measurements and adherence to specified test protocols (e.g., in the ISO standards), not expert interpretation of data.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Adjudication is for resolving disagreements among human experts labeling data for AI. Not applicable here.

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: MRMC studies evaluate the impact of AI on human reader performance, typically in imaging diagnostics. This is entirely irrelevant for a physical mobility scooter.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Standalone performance refers to an AI algorithm operating without human intervention. Not applicable to a physical device.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): As explained in point 3, the "ground truth" for a physical device's performance is adherence to defined engineering and safety standards, measured objectively.

8. The sample size for the training set: Training sets are for machine learning algorithms. This device is not an AI.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: As explained in point 8, not applicable.

In conclusion, this FDA 510(k) clearance document pertains to a physical mechanical device, a scooter, and not to an AI/SaMD. Therefore, addressing the specific points of your prompt as if it were an AI device is not possible with the provided information.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Magnesium assay is used for the quantitation of magnesium in human serum, plasma, or urine on the ARCHITECT c8000 System.

Magnesium measurements are used in the diagnosis and treatment of hypomagnesemia (abnormally low plasma levels of magnesium) and hypermagnesemia (abnormally high plasma levels of magnesium).

The Magnesium reagent kit contains Reagent 1 and Reagent 2. Magnesium present in the sample is a cofactor in an enzymatic reaction with isocitrate dehydrogenase. The rate of increase in absorbance at 340 nm, due to the formation of NADPH, is directly proportional to the magnesium concentration.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for a medical device called "Magnesium" from Abbott Laboratories. It details the performance testing conducted to demonstrate its substantial equivalence to a predicate device. This document describes an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) device for measuring magnesium levels, not an AI/ML-based device. Therefore, many of the requested elements related to AI (e.g., ground truth establishment by experts, adjudication, MRMC studies, training set details) are not applicable to this submission.

However, I can extract information relevant to the acceptance criteria and performance of this IVD device.

Here's the breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study that proves the device meets them, based on the provided text:

Device: Abbott Laboratories Magnesium Assay (List No. 3P68)
Intended Use: Quantitation of magnesium in human serum, plasma, or urine on the ARCHITECT c8000 System for diagnosis and treatment of hypomagnesemia and hypermagnesemia.
Predicate Device: Roche Magnesium Gen.2 (K983416)

1. Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document describes various performance studies and their results. The implicit acceptance criteria are that the device's performance characteristics demonstrate substantial equivalence to the predicate device and are within acceptable ranges for clinical utility.

2. Sample Size and Data Provenance

• Test Set Sample Sizes:

  • LoB, LoD, LoQ: 4 saline samples (zero-analyte), 2 low-analyte level samples at each of 5 target concentrations (0.390, 0.780, 1.285, 1.560, 3.130 mg/dL). Zero-analyte samples tested in 10 replicates. Low-analyte samples tested in 10 replicates.
  • Within-Laboratory Precision: Control materials (Bio-Rad Level 1 & 2, LoQ Urine Pool -Low Mg, Human Urine Pool Normal Mg, Human Urine Pool Abnormal Mg) tested in 2 replicates, 2 times per day for 20 testing days.
  • Interference (Endogenous/Preservatives): Control and test level samples tested in a minimum of 7 replicates.
  • Interference (Cations - Copper/Zinc): Control sample (urine) and test level samples tested in 12 replicates.
  • Linearity: 3 sets of linearity standards, each with 12 levels. Each level tested in a minimum of 4 replicates.
  • Method Comparison: 118 patient urine specimens. 12 of these were normal urine specimens spiked with magnesium.
  • Automated Dilution: 1 sample (75 mg/dL target) evaluated in 10 replicates.
  • Manual Dilution: 3 urine pools (15, 25, 40 mg/dL target). Each pool evaluated after 1:2 manual dilution. Samples tested in a minimum of 12 replicates.

• Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin for the patient samples or if they were retrospective or prospective. Given the submitter is an American company (Abbott Laboratories, Irving, TX) and the regulatory submission is to the U.S. FDA, it is highly likely the studies were conducted in the U.S. and the samples were generally from a U.S. population. The studies described are performance studies for an IVD, which typically use banked or collected samples, so they would be considered retrospective in terms of sample collection for the specific study; however, the study itself is prospective in its design and execution.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth

• Not Applicable. This is an IVD device measuring analyte concentration using a chemical reaction. The "ground truth" for the test set is established by the analytical reference methods and gravimetric preparations, not by human expert interpretation (like radiologists for imaging).

4. Adjudication Method for Test Set

• Not Applicable. As this is an IVD device measuring a chemical analyte, there is no expert adjudication process for the test set results. The ground truth for performance studies is based on traceable standards, established reference methods, or gravimetric preparations.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

• Not Applicable. MRMC studies are relevant for devices that involve human interpretation, particularly in diagnostic imaging or pathology. This is an automated IVD device.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance

• The performance data presented (LoB, LoD, LoQ, Precision, Interference, Linearity, Analytical Measuring Interval, Method Comparison, Dilution studies) are all standalone performance metrics of the Magnesium assay on the ARCHITECT c8000 System. There is no human-in-the-loop component for the measurement itself; the device provides a direct quantitative result.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth for these studies relies on:

• Reference Standards/Materials: For LoB, LoD, LoQ, Linearity, and Interference studies, prepared samples with known concentrations (e.g., saline, diluted or spiked magnesium standards).
• Established Methods/Predicate Device: For Method Comparison, the results are compared to a legally marketed predicate device (Roche Magnesium Gen.2), which serves as the "truth" for demonstrating substantial equivalence.
• Control Materials: Commercially available quality control materials and in-house prepared human urine pools with expected magnesium levels are used for precision studies.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not Applicable/Not Explicitly Stated. For an IVD like this, there isn't a "training set" in the sense of machine learning algorithms. The device's operational parameters (reagent formulation, reaction kinetics, detection methods) are developed through R&D and optimization, not typically by training on a distinct data set in the way an AI model is trained. The studies described are validation and verification studies to demonstrate performance, not a training process.

9. How Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

• Not Applicable. As there's no "training set" in the typical AI sense, the establishment of ground truth for such a set is not relevant. The analytical parameters of the device are based on established chemical principles and optimized through research and development.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Magnesium assay is used for the quantitation of magnesium in human serum or plasma on the ARCHITECT e8000 System.

Magnesium measurements are used in the diagnosis and treatment of hypomagnesemia (abnormally low plasma levels of magnesium) and hypermagnesemia (abnormally high plasma levels of magnesium).

The Magnesium reagent kit contains Reagent 1 and Reagent 2. Reagent 1 contains Isocitrate dehydrogenase and D-Isocitrate potassium salt. Reagent 2 contains NADP. Both reagents contain sodium azide (0.1%) as a preservative. The assay principle is enzymatic, where magnesium acts as a cofactor in a reaction with isocitrate dehydrogenase, and the rate of increase in absorbance at 340 nm due to NADPH formation is directly proportional to magnesium concentration.

The Abbott Laboratories Magnesium assay (LN 3P68) is intended for the quantitative determination of magnesium in human serum or plasma on the ARCHITECT c8000 System. This device is a Class I, reserved product, with product code JGJ.

Study Type: Analytical Performance Study

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

Details of the Studies:

1. Sample Size used for the test set and the data provenance:

   • Limit of Blank, Limit of Detection, and Limit of Quantitation:
     • Test Set: LoB: 4 saline samples (zero-analyte), each tested in 10 replicates. LoD and LoQ: Minimum of 2 low-analyte level samples at each of 4 target concentrations (0.05, 0.15, 0.30, and 0.60 mg/dL), each tested in 10 replicates.
     • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but likely laboratory-prepared samples. Retrospective/Prospective not specified.
   • Within-Laboratory Precision (20-Day):
     • Test Set: 6 control materials (Bio-Rad Level 1, Bio-Rad Level 2, LoQ Serum Pool, Human Serum Pool – Normal Mg, Human Serum Pool – Elevated Mg, Human Serum Pool – Abnormal Mg). Each tested in 2 replicates, 2 times per day for 20 days.
     • Data Provenance: Laboratory-prepared and commercially available controls. Human serum pools and diluted normal human serum used. Retrospective/Prospective not specified.
   • Specimen Tube Type (Matrix Comparison):
     • Test Set: Minimum of 40 sample sets for each evaluated tube type. 36 unaltered, 3 spiked, 1 diluted. These samples spanned the measuring interval (0.60 to 9.50 mg/dL).
     • Data Provenance: Fresh or frozen patient samples. Country of origin not specified. Retrospective/Prospective not specified.
   • Interference:
     • Test Set: Control and test level samples for each potential interferent. Tested in a minimum of 6 valid replicates for general interferents, 3 replicates for sulfasalazine and sulfapyridine, and a minimum of 7 replicates for copper, iron, zinc, ibuprofen, acetaminophen, salicylic acid, and triglycerides.
     • Data Provenance: Likely laboratory-prepared samples (spiked serum) and control samples. Retrospective/Prospective not specified.
   • Linearity:
     • Test Set: 3 sets of linearity standards, each with 12 levels of magnesium target concentrations (0.30 to 12.50 mg/dL). Each level tested in a minimum of 4 replicates.
     • Data Provenance: Laboratory-prepared standards using magnesium standard and 4% HSA. Retrospective/Prospective not specified.
   • Method Comparison:
     • Test Set: 122 patient serum specimens. 11 of these were normal serum samples spiked with magnesium hexachloride.
     • Data Provenance: Patient serum specimens, some spiked. One replicate of the predicate device was run at UT Southwestern Medical Center (UTSW, Dallas). Country of origin not specified, but UTSW suggests USA. Retrospective/Prospective not specified.
   • Manual Dilution:
     • Test Set: Three serum pools (human serum and magnesium chloride) at magnesium concentrations of 8, 15, and 25 mg/dL (±10%). Each pool evaluated neat, 1:2 diluted, and 1:5 diluted. Samples tested in a minimum of 7 replicates.
     • Data Provenance: Laboratory-prepared human serum pools. Retrospective/Prospective not specified.

2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. These are analytical performance studies for an in-vitro diagnostic device measuring a chemical analyte (Magnesium), not studies requiring expert interpretation of images or clinical outcomes. The "ground truth" for these tests refers to the known concentrations or characteristics of the prepared samples or reference methods.

3. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable. Adjudication methods are typically used in studies involving subjective expert review (e.g., image interpretation). These are objective analytical measurements.

4. 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: Not applicable. This is an analytical performance study for an in-vitro diagnostic device, not an AI-assisted diagnostic imaging study involving human readers.

5. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done: Yes, all studies described are standalone analytical performance evaluations of the device (Magnesium assay on the ARCHITECT c8000 System). There is no "human-in-the-loop" component in the measured performance of this chemical assay.

6. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc):

   • Limit of Blank, Limit of Detection, and Limit of Quantitation: Gravimetrically prepared low-analyte samples and saline.
   • Within-Laboratory Precision: Commercially available control materials and laboratory-prepared human serum pools with known target concentrations.
   • Specimen Tube Type (Matrix Comparison): Comparison against results from the control tube type (serum glass tube).
   • Interference: Comparison against control samples without the interferent, with target magnesium levels.
   • Linearity: Laboratory-prepared linearity standards with known magnesium target concentrations.
   • Method Comparison: Comparison against a legally marketed predicate device (Roche Magnesium Gen.2).
   • Manual Dilution: Laboratory-prepared serum pools with known magnesium concentrations and expected dilution values.

7. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. This device is an in-vitro diagnostic assay for measuring magnesium, not a machine learning or AI algorithm that requires a "training set" in the conventional sense. The development of such assays involves reagent formulation and optimization, calibration, and validation, but not a distinct "training set" like in AI.

8. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable, as there is no training set for this type of device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Sekisui Magnesium Assay is for the quantitative determination of magnesium in human serum and plasma (Lithium Heparin) on automated chemistry analyzers. Magnesium measurements are used in the diagnosis and treatment of hypomagnesemia (abnormally low levels of magnesium) and hypermagnesemia (abnormally high levels of magnesium). This device is intended for professional use and IN VITRO diagnostic use only.

The Sekisui Magnesium assay kit consists of the following: Magnesium Reagent: A solution containing buffer (pH 11.2 at 25°C), 0.14 mmol/L xylidy/ blue-1, 0.1 mmol/L EGTÅ, and a surfactant.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study information for the Sekisui Magnesium Assay, based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

Study Details

1. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:

   • Precision: Not explicitly stated as a test set size for a single study, but samples (serum pools and control materials) were tested twice per day in duplicate for 20 days.
   • Linearity: 11 concentrations of magnesium (dilutions of a high concentration serum pool).
   • Detection Limit: 60 replicates of a zero magnesium sample and 60 replicates of a low concentration serum control (total 120 replicates).
   • Analytical Specificity: Three samples of human serum at different magnesium concentrations were tested in quadruplicate for each interfering substance.
   • Method Comparison: 100 serum samples.
   • Matrix Comparison: Not explicitly stated as a number, but refers to "fresh samples from non-fasting donors."
   • Reference Range Validation: 20 serum samples from apparently healthy donors.
   • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated (e.g., country of origin). The studies appear to be retrospective as they use acquired samples.

2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:

   • Not applicable. This is an in vitro diagnostic device for quantitative chemical measurement. The "ground truth" for analytical performance tests (precision, linearity, detection limits, specificity, method comparison) relies on established reference methods, spiked samples, or known concentrations, rather than expert consensus on diagnostic images or interpretations.

3. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:

   • Not applicable. This is an in vitro diagnostic device for quantitative chemical measurement. Adjudication methods are typically used for qualitative or interpretive assessments (e.g., in imaging studies) where human disagreement needs resolution.

4. 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:

   • No, a multi-reader, multi-case comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is relevant for devices involving human interpretation (e.g., radiology AI), not for a quantitative chemical assay.

5. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:

   • Yes, the performance characteristics described (precision, linearity, detection limit, analytical specificity) are standalone performance of the assay itself on an automated chemistry analyzer (Roche/Hitachi 717). The method comparison and matrix comparison also evaluate the device's performance against a predicate or different matrix, not human readers.

6. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc):

   • Precision: Internal controls and serum pools with target values.
   • Linearity: Serially diluted samples from a high concentration pool, where relative concentrations are known.
   • Detection Limit: Zero magnesium samples and low concentration serum control samples.
   • Analytical Specificity: Spiked samples with known concentrations of interfering substances, compared to unspiked controls.
   • Method Comparison: Comparison against the predicate device (Beckman Coulter Magnesium Reagent, K944407)
   • Matrix Comparison: Comparison between the candidate device run on serum vs. plasma samples.
   • Reference Range: Samples from "apparently healthy donors" (implying clinically normal magnesium levels).

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable. This device is a chemical reagent and does not involve machine learning or AI that requires a "training set" in the conventional sense. Its performance is based on chemical reactions and assay optimization.

8. How the ground truth for the training set was established:

   • Not applicable, as there is no "training set" for this type of device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Diagnostic Chemicals Limited Magnesium Assay (XB) is for the quantitative determination of magnesium in human serum. Magnesium measurements are used in the diagnosis and treatment of hypomagnesemia (abnormally low levels of magnesium) and hypermagnesemia (abnormally high levels of magnesium). This device is intended for professional use and IN VITRO diagnostic use only.

The Diagnostic Chemicals Limited Magnesium Assay (XB) Standard is used for the callbration of the Diagnostic Chemicals Limited Magnesium Assay (XB) when used for the quantitative determination of magnesium in human serum.

Not Found

The provided text is a 510(k) premarket notification acceptance letter from the FDA for a Magnesium Assay (XB) device. It confirms the device's substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices. However, this document does not contain the detailed acceptance criteria or the study data that proves the device meets those criteria.

The information requested in your prompt (e.g., acceptance criteria table, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, MRMC studies) is typically found in the technical documentation submitted by the manufacturer as part of the 510(k) application, not in the FDA's acceptance letter itself.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request with the provided input. The document mainly states that the device was reviewed and found substantially equivalent, but it doesn't elaborate on how that determination was made in terms of specific performance data and criteria.

Ask a specific question about this device

This Magnesium procedure is invitro Diagnostic use in the automated, quantitative determination of Magnesium in serum. Magnesium measurements are use in the diagnostics and treatment of hypomagnesemia (abnormally low levels of serum magnesium) and hypermagnesimia (abnormally high levels of serum magnesium).

Not Found

Unfortunately, the provided text does not contain the specific information needed to answer your request. The document is a 510(k) clearance letter from the FDA for a "Magnesium" diagnostic device, indicating its substantial equivalence to a predicate device for the in vitro quantitative determination of magnesium in serum.

However, it does not provide details about:

1. Acceptance criteria and reported device performance: This letter confirms clearance, but doesn't detail the performance metrics.
2. Sample size, data provenance, number of experts, adjudication method, MRMC study, standalone performance, or type of ground truth for the test set. These are typically found in the summary of safety and effectiveness, clinical study reports, or validation documents, which are not included here.
3. Sample size for the training set or how its ground truth was established. This information is also absent from the provided FDA clearance letter.

To answer your questions, you would need access to the actual 510(k) submission, specifically the sections dealing with device performance studies and validation.

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device