Search Results
Found 1 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(428 days)
"Medi-Cult M3 Medium" is intended for the culture of embryos from day 3 and up to day 7.
"Medi-Cult M3 Medium" is based on MCDB 302; a modification of HAM's F10 and F12 composed of amino acids, vitamins, inorganic salts and glucose supplemented with: Assisted Reproduction Technique Supplement (ARTS) Sodium Bicarbonate Human Serum Albumin (HSA) (obtained from a licensed source, U.S. license No. 140) Penicillin (Except product 1032) Streptomycin (Except product 1032) Phenol Red (Except product 1037)
The provided text describes the 510(k) submission for the "Medi-Cult M3 Medium," a culture medium for human embryos. This document focuses on demonstrating the substantial equivalence of this device to previously marketed predicate devices, rather than presenting a study to prove the device meets specific acceptance criteria in the way an AI/ML device would.
Therefore, many of the requested categories for AI/ML device studies (like expert consensus, standalone performance, MLMC studies, specific sample sizes for training/test sets for an algorithm, etc.) are not applicable to this document as it pertains to a biological culture medium product and not a software algorithm.
However, I can extract information related to the device's performance and the studies mentioned to support its substantial equivalence.
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
Acceptance Criteria (Implied) | Reported Device Performance |
---|---|
Embryo Viability/Development (Blastocyst Formation Rate) (Implied: Not inferior to predicate devices for extended culture) | Study 1 (Sahlgrenska hospital): Similar rate of blastocyst formation compared to Scandinavian Science S2 medium. |
Study 2 (Jones Institute): Similar rate of blastocyst formation (26% vs 27% respectively) when compared to a system using S1 and S2 from Scandinavian IVF Science. | |
Safety (Absence of adverse events/complaints) (Implied: No evidence of serious adverse events or registered complaints) | No registered complaints on the product. No evidence in the last 1.5 year that the product caused serious adverse events in connection with its intended use. |
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance
- Study 1 (Sahlgrenska hospital in Gothenburg, Sweden): Specific sample size not provided. Data provenance: Prospective, randomized study from Sweden.
- Study 2 (Jones Institute for Reproductive Medicine, Norfolk, USA): Specific sample size not provided. Data provenance: Prospective, randomized study from the USA.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts
- Not applicable (N/A). This is a biological culture medium, not an AI/ML device. The "ground truth" here is the biological outcome (blastocyst formation), observed and recorded by clinicians/embryologists, not an interpretation by experts for algorithm validation. Dr. Anita Sjogren (Dept of Ob. & Gyn.) is referenced for data from one study, implying clinical oversight.
4. Adjudication method for the test set
- N/A. As above, this is about biological outcomes, not expert interpretation requiring adjudication. Clinical and embryological protocols would be followed for assessing outcomes.
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
- N/A. This is not an AI/ML device.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
- N/A. This is not an AI/ML device.
7. The type of ground truth used
- Biological Outcomes: The primary "ground truth" or outcome measure for the effectiveness of the culture medium was the rate of blastocyst formation in human embryos. This is a direct biological measure. Safety was assessed by the absence of complaints or serious adverse events.
8. The sample size for the training set
- N/A. This is not an AI/ML device. The term "training set" doesn't apply. The product was used in IVF units in Europe since the late 1980s, providing extensive historical use data, but not a formally defined "training set" for an algorithm.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established
- N/A. This is not an AI/ML device.
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1