Search Results

The Med-Lok™ Safety Needle device is intended for aspirations and injections of fluids. The needle protection device covers the needle after use to help prevent needle sticks.

Med-Lok™ Safety Needles

The provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification letter from the FDA for a medical device called "Med-Lok Safety Needle." This document does not contain the kind of information needed to answer the questions about acceptance criteria, study details, sample sizes, expert qualifications, or ground truth establishment relevant to an AI/algorithm-based medical device.

The letter confirms substantial equivalence for a physical medical device (a safety needle) based on prior predicate devices, and refers to general controls and regulations. It does not describe any performance studies involving algorithms, AI, or comparative effectiveness with human readers.

Therefore, I cannot provide an answer based on the given input for the following reasons:

• No acceptance criteria for an AI/algorithm: The document does not discuss performance metrics or acceptance thresholds for an AI-powered device.
• No study details: There are no descriptions of a study (clinical or otherwise) that would assess the performance of an algorithm.
• No sample sizes, data provenance, or ground truth information: These details are specific to algorithm validation studies, which are not present in this document.
• No mention of experts or adjudication: These are relevant to establishing ground truth for AI studies, not for the substantial equivalence of a physical needle.
• No MRMC study or standalone performance: These are specific types of studies for AI/algorithm performance that are not mentioned.

The input document is about the regulatory clearance of a physical medical device, not about the validation of an AI/algorithm-based device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Med-Lok™ Safety Needle Device is intended for aspirations and injections of fluids. The needle protection device covers the needle after use to help prevent needle sticks.

The Med-Lok is a hypodermic needle with protection device that allows full use of the needle and covers the needle after use to help prevent needle sticks and touch contamination.

The provided text describes the 510(k) summary for the Med-Lok Safety Needle. However, it does not contain the detailed information necessary to complete a comprehensive table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance, nor does it describe specific studies with the requested level of detail. The document emphasizes substantial equivalence to a predicate device based on technological characteristics, indications for use, and general performance testing.

Here's an attempt to answer your questions based only on the provided text, highlighting what is missing:

1. Table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance

The document states: "Performance Testing: Testing was performed to demonstrate the product functions as intended and is shown to be substantially equivalent. These tests included extensive laboratory testing." and "Clinical Testing: Simulated clinical use studies were conducted which confirmed that the device could be used effectively with the needle shielded inside the protection device after use."

This indicates that acceptance criteria likely revolved around demonstrating functionality and effectiveness in preventing needle sticks, but the specific metrics or thresholds for these criteria are not provided in the text. Therefore, a table cannot be fully constructed.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance

The text mentions "extensive laboratory testing" and "Simulated clinical use studies."

• Sample size: Not specified.
• Data provenance: Not specified (e.g., country of origin, retrospective or prospective). The text implies prospective testing (laboratory and simulated clinical use).

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

Not applicable. The document describes performance and simulated clinical use studies, not a diagnostic or AI-driven system requiring expert ground truth for interpretation.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

Not applicable. The document describes performance and simulated clinical use studies, not an assessment requiring adjudication of interpretations.

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

Not applicable. This device is a mechanical safety needle, not an AI-driven diagnostic tool.

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

Not applicable. This device is a mechanical safety needle, not an AI-driven system. The "standalone" performance would refer to the device's mechanical function by itself, which is what the "extensive laboratory testing" likely evaluated.

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

For the performance testing, the ground truth would have been the successful mechanical function of the device (e.g., deployment of the safety mechanism, fluid aspiration/injection capabilities). For the simulated clinical use studies, the ground truth would have been the successful and effective operation of the device by users in a simulated environment, specifically that "the device could be used effectively with the needle shielded inside the protection device after use." This is based on observation of the device's function rather than a diagnostic 'truth'.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This is a mechanical device, not an AI system that requires a training set.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established

Not applicable. This is a mechanical device, not an AI system.

Ask a specific question about this device