Search Results

The MGB LAPBAG sterile retrieval bag for Endoscopic surgery is intended to be used for:

• -General surgery
• Abdominal surgery - .
• Gynecological surgery -
• Thoracic minimally invasive procedures. -

The Specimen Retrieval Bag is indicated for use in endoscopic procedures to allow tissues or debris to be removed from the abdominal cavity.

Not Found

I am sorry, but the provided document does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a study that proves a device meets such criteria. The document is a 510(k) premarket notification letter from the FDA to MGB Endoskopische Geräte GmbH Berlin regarding their MGB Disposable Retrieval Bag/LAPBAG. It confirms the device's substantial equivalence to a predicate device and outlines regulatory requirements.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information about acceptance criteria, device performance, sample sizes, expert qualifications, study methodologies, or ground truth details.

Ask a specific question about this device

Total knee replacement is indicated for patients suffering from severe knee pain and disability due to rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, primary and secondary traumatic arthritis, polyarthritis, collagen disorders, avascular necrosis of the femoral condyle, or pseudogout. These devices are intended for cemented use only.

Stemmed tibial baseplate components are part of the MG II Total Knee System. They incorporate a central stem with available modular stem extensions. There are three versions of stemmed tibial baseplate components: Porous, PMMA Precoat, and Option (non-coated). They are available in the same size range, and are compatible with the same articular surface components, as the predicate device.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for a medical device (MG II™ Total Knee System Stemmed Tibial Baseplate Components) and a clearance letter. This type of regulatory submission for orthopedic implants differs significantly from the type of information you'd find for AI/ML-based medical devices.

Therefore, the document does not contain any of the information requested in your prompt regarding acceptance criteria, study details, sample sizes, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, multi-reader multi-case studies, standalone performance, or ground truth establishment for an AI/ML algorithm.

Instead, it's a submission for a physical orthopedic implant and focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device based on design modifications and non-clinical performance (mechanical testing).

Here's why the requested information isn't present:

• No AI/ML Component: The device is a knee prosthesis, not an AI/ML diagnostic or predictive tool.
• Regulatory Pathway: The 510(k) pathway for this type of device typically relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, often through bench testing and comparison of materials, design, and intended use, rather than clinical efficacy studies involving human readers or AI performance metrics.
• "Performance Data (Nonclinical and/or Clinical)" Section: The document explicitly states:
  • "Non-Clinical Performance and Conclusions: Performance testing completed as part of the design assurance process demonstrated that this device is safe and effective and substantially equivalent to the predicate device." This refers to mechanical or material testing, not AI performance.
  • "Clinical Performance and Conclusions: Clinical data and conclusions were not needed for this device." This confirms no clinical studies were performed, which would be essential for AI/ML device validation.

In summary, this document does not describe the acceptance criteria and study proving an AI/ML device meets those criteria because the device in question is a physical orthopedic implant, not an AI/ML system.

Ask a specific question about this device

The MGP 15 Dicom Theater device is intended to be used in displaying and viewing digital images for review by trained medical practitioners.
The MGP 15 Dicom Theater is intended to be used as a tool in displaying and viewing digital images for review and analysis by trained medical practitioners.

The MGP 15 Dicom Theater device is a digital image display system
The MGP 15 Dicom Theater consists of components to provide high resolution visualization of digital images.

This 510(k) premarket notification (K042942) for the Barco MGP 15 Dicom Theater is for a digital image display system. As such, it is not an AI/ML device and the concept of "acceptance criteria" and a "study proving the device meets the acceptance criteria" in the context of diagnostic performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or reader agreement is not applicable here.

This submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device (Dicom Theater, K033153) for its function of displaying and viewing digital images for review by trained medical practitioners. The "acceptance criteria" for such a device would relate to technical specifications, image quality, and compliance with standards, rather than clinical performance metrics.

The provided documents do not contain information about:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance: This type of table is relevant for medical devices with diagnostic or AI/ML components where performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, etc., are measured against predefined targets. For a display system, performance would be characterized by technical specifications like resolution, brightness, contrast, color depth, viewing angles, and compliance with DICOM standards, none of which are detailed here.
2. Sample size, data provenance, number of experts, adjudication method, MRMC study, standalone study, type of ground truth, training set size, or how ground truth was established: These details are typically found in studies evaluating the diagnostic performance of a device, especially AI/ML systems. Since the MGP 15 Dicom Theater is a display system, these types of studies are not relevant to its regulatory clearance.

In summary, based on the provided text, the MGP 15 Dicom Theater is a display system, not an AI/ML diagnostic tool. Therefore, the questions posed regarding acceptance criteria validated by clinical performance studies are not applicable to this device and no such information is present in the 510(k) summary.

Ask a specific question about this device

The MGC DAU Control Set consists of unassayed controls intended for use in the validation of drug of abuse assays performed using human urine.

Each configuration of the MGC DAU Control Sets is prepared in a human wine matrix, with stabilizers and preservatives added. As is shown in the table below, the MGC DAU Control Set is offered in three configurations differing only in the concentration and number of analytes offered.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for a medical device called "MGC DAU Control Sets: Primary, Clinical and Select," which are drug mixture control materials. It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than presenting a performance study with acceptance criteria in the way one might for an AI/ML diagnostic device.

Therefore, many of the requested elements regarding acceptance criteria, study design, expert involvement, and ground truth are not applicable (N/A) in this context, as this submission is for a quality control material and relies on demonstrating similar physical properties and intended use to a previously cleared device.

Here's a breakdown based on the provided text, indicating N/A where information is not present or relevant to this type of submission:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

This 510(k) summary does not present a formal table of quantitative acceptance criteria and corresponding reported performance data in the typical sense of a diagnostic or therapeutic device. Instead, it relies on a qualitative comparison of characteristics to a predicate device to establish substantial equivalence.

Note: The "acceptance criteria" here are implicitly met by demonstrating that the device characteristics are "substantially equivalent" to those of a legally marketed predicate device (Multi-Drug Control Set, K951135). The study in this context is the comparison itself, showing that "each configuration of the MGC DAU Control Set is substantially equivalent in form and function to the Multi-Drug Control Set (K951135) for its stated intended use."

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

This submission does not describe a traditional "test set" in the context of diagnostic accuracy or algorithm performance. The evaluation is a comparison of device characteristics and intended use to a predicate device. There are no "samples" of patient data or images. The "data provenance" is the manufacturer's internal characterization of their product and comparison to their previously cleared product.

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

N/A. This is a quality control material submission, not an AI/ML diagnostic. There's no ground truth established by experts for a test set in this context. The "truth" is related to the chemical composition and stability of the control materials, which are characterized through laboratory methods by the manufacturer.

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

N/A. No adjudication method is applicable as there's no diagnostic test set with human interpretations requiring consensus.

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 a quality control product, not an AI-assisted diagnostic device. No MRMC study was conducted or is relevant.

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

N/A. This is not an algorithm or an AI device.

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

For a device like this, the "ground truth" for the control materials themselves would be their assigned target concentrations (expected values) and their stability characteristics, which are determined through highly controlled analytical chemistry methods and manufacturing processes, rather than expert consensus on clinical cases, pathology, or outcomes data. The submission relies on the established safety and effectiveness of a predicate device with similar "ground truth" generation.

8. The sample size for the training set

N/A. This is not an AI/ML device that requires a training set.

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

The MGD 2621P Medical Grayscale Display is intended to be used as a tool in displaying and viewing digital images (excluding digital mammography) for review and analysis by trained medical practitioners.

The MGD 2621P is a diagnostic display

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the Barco MGD 2621P Medical Grayscale Display. This document does not contain the information requested in points 1-9 regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving the device meets these criteria.

The 510(k) summary focuses on general device information, intended use, and substantial equivalence to a predicate device (Barco MGD 221 2 Megapixel Diagnostic Display - K000293). It describes the device's technical characteristics as a high-resolution monitor with electronic capabilities for evaluating high-resolution medical images.

The letter from the FDA confirms market clearance based on substantial equivalence but does not delve into specific performance studies or acceptance criteria for the display itself. It mainly cites relevant regulations and guidelines for the manufacturer.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested table or answer questions 1-9 based on the input text. The document is essentially a regulatory clearance notice, not a detailed performance study report.

Ask a specific question about this device

The MGD 2621L device is intended to be used in displaying and viewing digital images for review by trained medical practitioners.
The MGD 2621L Medical Grayscale Display is intended to be used as a tool in displaying and viewing digital images (excluding digital mammography) for review and analysis by trained medical practitioners.

The MGD 2621L is a diagnostic display
The MGD 2621L device is a high resolution monitor with electronic capabilities for evaluation of high resolution medical images.

This document is a 510(k) summary for a medical grayscale display (MGD 2621L). It is for a display device, not an AI/ML algorithm or diagnostic device that makes clinical assessments. Therefore, the questions related to acceptance criteria for algorithm performance, sample size for test/training sets, expert adjudication, MRMC studies, standalone performance, and ground truth are not applicable.

The submission focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to a predicate device (Barco MGD 221) based on technical characteristics and intended use.

Here's the relevant information that can be extracted from the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document does not explicitly present a table of "acceptance criteria" in the sense of performance metrics (sensitivity, specificity, etc.) for a diagnostic algorithm. Instead, it refers to substantial equivalence to a predicate device, which implies the device meets similar performance and safety standards.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable. This is a display device, not an algorithm being tested on a clinical dataset.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. This is a display device.

4. Adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable.

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 is a display device, not an AI/ML system.

6. If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable. This is a display device.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): Not applicable. This is a display device.

8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. This is a display device.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable. This is a display device.

Ask a specific question about this device

MG ATC is indicated to improve the quality of emission SPECT images obtained on the Millennium MG dual head camera by attenuation correction.

The MG ATC attenuation correction system is an optional addition to the Millennium MG gamma camera (K962738). It comprises additional hardware and software to generate a correction map and corrected NM images for non-uniform attenuation.

The provided text describes the MG ATC: Attenuation Correction System for Dual-Head Variable-Angle Gamma Camera. Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study information:

1. Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Study Details:

The document provides a high-level summary of the studies but lacks specific quantitative details for many of the requested points.

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not specified. The document only mentions "Bench data and Clinical data."
• Data Provenance: Not specified (e.g., country of origin, retrospective or prospective).

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

• Not specified.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

• Not specified.

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

• Not explicitly mentioned. The statement "Comparison to V TransACT images shows no significant difference" suggests a comparison, but it doesn't specify if human readers were part of an MRMC study or if it was an assessment based on objective metrics. Therefore, the effect size of human readers improving with AI vs. without AI assistance is not provided.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance Study:

• The nature of the "Bench data" suggests some form of standalone evaluation of the algorithm's output (images). However, the document doesn't explicitly state a separate standalone performance study or provide specific metrics for it. The primary comparison is implied to be visual image quality and equivalence to the predicate.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used:

• The document mentions "better uniformed images" and "no significant difference" in comparison, suggesting that the ground truth was likely based on subjective image quality assessment or comparison to an established reference standard for image uniformity and accuracy in SPECT imaging. It does not mention pathology, outcomes data, or expert consensus in a structured way for ground truth creation.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set:

• Not specified. The document focuses on demonstrating equivalence to a predicate device rather than detailing model training.

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

• Not specified. As it's a device for attenuation correction, the "training" (if any, as this predates modern deep learning) would likely involve calibration data and possibly phantom studies to accurately model photon attenuation. However, no specifics are provided.

Overall Conclusion from the Provided Text:

The submission focuses heavily on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device (V TransACT) based on the stated intended use and general performance improvements (better uniformed images compared to uncorrected SPECT). While "Bench data and Clinical data" are cited, specific details regarding sample sizes, expert involvement, and ground truth methodologies are not included in this summary document. The information is high-level for a 510(k) summary, aiming to establish equivalence rather than a detailed performance report for a novel AI algorithm.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Magnesium assay is used for the quantitation of magnesium in human serum, plasma, or urine. Magnesium measurements are used in the diagnosis and treatment of hypomagnesemia (abnormally low serum levels of magnesium) and hypermagnesemia (abnormally high serum levels of magnesium).

Magnesium is an in vitro diagnostic assay for the quantitative determination of magnesium in human serum, plasma, or urine. The Magnesium assay is a clinical chemistry assay which utilizes an arsenazo dye which binds preferentially with magnesium. The absorbance of the arsenazo magnesium complex is measured at 550 nm and is proportional to the concentration of magnesium present in the sample. Calcium interference is prevented by incorporation of a calcium chelating agent.

Here's a summary of the acceptance criteria and the study details for the K981791 (Magnesium assay) device, based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

The provided document describes a "substantial equivalence" study, where the new device (Abbott Laboratories Magnesium assay) is compared to a legally marketed predicate device (Boehringer Mannheim® Magnesium assay) to demonstrate similar performance characteristics. The acceptance criteria are implicitly defined by achieving "acceptable correlation" and displaying similar performance to the predicate device.

Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Note on Acceptance Criteria: For a 510(k) submission, "substantial equivalence" is the primary acceptance criterion. This means the device performs as safely and effectively as a legally marketed predicate device. The specific numerical targets for correlation, slope, intercept, and CVs are not explicitly stated as "acceptance criteria" but are reported as the results that demonstrate this substantial equivalence. They are implicitly acceptable because the conclusion states the assay "yielded acceptable correlation" and the overall performance is "substantially equivalent."

Study Details

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

   • Sample Size for Test Set: Not explicitly stated for either the serum or urine method comparison. The document mentions "comparative performance studies" and "precision studies... using two levels of control material." The number of patient samples used for the method comparison is not provided.
   • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated (e.g., country of origin). The study involved "human serum, plasma, or urine." It is retrospective since it involved collecting samples and testing them against a predicate.

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

   • This is an in vitro diagnostic assay for a quantitative measurement of magnesium. The ground truth for such devices is typically established through a reference method or comparison to an established, validated method (the predicate device in this case), rather than expert clinical consensus or interpretation of complex images. Therefore, the concept of "experts" establishing ground truth in the traditional sense (e.g., radiologists) does not apply here. The "ground truth" is essentially defined by the predicate device's performance.

3. Adjudication method for the test set:

   • Not applicable as this is a quantitative chemical assay, not an interpretive diagnostic device requiring adjudication of ambiguous results by experts.

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 a standalone in vitro diagnostic assay. It does not involve human readers interpreting results with or without AI assistance.

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

   • Yes, this is a standalone device. The performance characteristics (correlation, precision, linearity, sensitivity) are reported for the assay itself (algorithm/methodology) without human intervention in the result determination process. The results are quantitative values rather than human-interpreted outputs.

6. The type of ground truth used:

   • Predicate Device Comparison: The ground truth for establishing substantial equivalence was the performance of the Boehringer Mannheim® Magnesium assay (K811194) on the Hitachi® 717 Analyzer. This established, legally marketed device serves as the reference against which the new device's performance is compared for accuracy and similarity. The precision, linearity, and sensitivity are intrinsic performance characteristics of the assay itself, evaluated against defined analytical standards.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable. This is an in vitro diagnostic assay, not an AI or machine learning model that requires a distinct "training set." The methodology (utilizing an arsenazo dye) is based on established chemical principles.

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

   • Not applicable, as there is no "training set" in the context of this chemical assay.

Ask a specific question about this device

For use to allow access and observation of body cavities during endoscopic . and/or laproscopic procedures:

• General endoscopic and laparoscopic surgical procedures. .
• Plastic, reconstructive, and aesthetic surgical procedures. .
• Thoracic cavity diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. .
• Athroscopy of body joints during diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. .

The MGB LAPALUX telescope is a laparoscope designed for general, gynecological and plastic surgery. It is similar in design to other telescopes currently available for commercial distribution in the United States.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for the MGB LAPALUX® Telescope, based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Explanation: The documentation explicitly states, "Although there are no performance standards established by the FDA for these devices, the MGB LAPALUX telescope has been designed and manufactured to meet the following standards." The basis for clearance is that the device "has no significant differences in design, materials or other technological characteristics compared to the predicate device" and is therefore "substantially equivalent." This implies that by meeting these standards, the device performs equivalently to the predicate and thus meets its "acceptance criteria."

Regarding the study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria, the provided document does not describe a clinical study with a test set, experts, or ground truth in the way one might expect for a modern AI/ML device.

This submission is a 510(k) Premarket Notification from 1998 for a rigid medical telescope (laparoscope). The primary method of demonstrating safety and effectiveness for such devices at that time, and particularly for this type of device, was Substantial Equivalence (SE) to a legally marketed predicate device.

Let's address the specific points based on a Substantial Equivalence pathway, even if they don't perfectly align with AI/ML study methodologies:

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance

• Sample Size: Not applicable. There was no specific "test set" in the context of a clinical study for this 510(k) submission. Substantial equivalence is primarily demonstrated through comparison of design, materials, and intended use with a predicate device.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable for a clinical test set. The "data" here would be the technical specifications and design parameters of the MGB LAPALUX® Telescope and its predicate (Karl Storz Hopkins II rigid autoclavable telescope). The provenance of these specifications is likely the manufacturer's engineering and quality assurance processes in Germany (MGB Endokopische Geräte GmbH Berlin).

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications of Those Experts

• Not applicable. As no clinical "test set" was described, no external experts were used to establish ground truth in this manner. The "experts" involved would be the manufacturer's engineers and quality control personnel who ensured the device met the listed DIN and EN standards, and potentially internal medical advisors on device design.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not applicable. There was no clinical "test set" requiring an adjudication method.

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 passive optical instrument (a laparoscope), not an AI-based system. Therefore, no MRMC study, human reader improvement, or AI assistance is relevant.

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

• Not applicable. This device is a passive optical instrument, not an algorithm, and does not operate standalone in this context (it's observed by a human).

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• The "ground truth" in this context is established by compliance with recognized international standards (DIN, EN, EU Directive) and the documented equivalence of specifications and performance to a legally marketed predicate device. This is a technical and regulatory ground truth rather than a clinical ground truth derived from pathology or outcomes data.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device and therefore does not have a "training set."

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set was Established

• Not applicable. As no training set exists, no ground truth was established for it.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Magnesium assay is used for the quantitation of magnesium in human serum, plasma, or urine. Magnesium measurements are used in the diagnosis and treatment of hypomagnesemia (abnormally low serum levels of magnesium) and hypermagnesemia (abnormally high serum levels of magnesium).

Magnesium is an in vitro diagnostic assay for the quantitative determination of magnesium in human serum, plasma, or urine. The Magnesium assay is a clinical chemistry assay which utilizes an arsenazo dye which binds preferentially with magnesium. The absorbance of the arsenazo magnesium complex is measured at 550 nm and is proportional to the concentration of magnesium present in the sample.

Here's an analysis of the provided 510(k) summary, aiming to extract the requested information about acceptance criteria and the supporting study:

The provided document describes a 510(k) submission for a diagnostic assay, not a device that involves image analysis or human interpretation. Therefore, many of the requested fields related to human readers, experts, ground truth adjudication, and image data provenance are not applicable. I will fill in what is relevant to an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) assay.

Device: Abbott Laboratories Magnesium Assay

This is an in vitro diagnostic assay for the quantitative determination of magnesium in human serum, plasma, or urine, utilizing an arsenazo dye.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria for this diagnostic assay are based on demonstrating "substantial equivalence" to predicate devices. For IVD assays, this typically means that the new device's performance characteristics (e.g., correlation, precision, linearity, sensitivity) are comparable to or within acceptable limits of the legally marketed predicate device(s). The specific numerical acceptance criteria themselves are not explicitly stated in the summary (e.g., "correlation coefficient must be ≥ 0.95"). Instead, the results are presented and deemed "acceptable" or demonstrating "substantial equivalence."

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance

The document does not explicitly state the numerical sample size (number of patient samples) for the "comparative performance studies" (test set). It mentions "two levels of control material" for precision studies.

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not explicitly stated (number of patient samples for method comparison). It mentions "two levels of control material" for precision.
• Data Provenance: Not specified (e.g., country of origin). The studies appear to be retrospective in the sense that they are comparing the new assay's results on samples to those run on established predicate devices, which often involves using existing or collected samples in a laboratory setting. Details on patient demographics or collection methods are not provided.

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

• Not applicable. This is an in vitro diagnostic assay that produces a quantitative numerical result. "Ground truth" is established by the performance of the predicate devices or by reference methods, not by expert interpretation.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not applicable. The "ground truth" for method comparison and precision in IVD assays is based on the results from the predicate device and the inherent variability of the assay itself, respectively. There's no human adjudication process involved for this type of test.

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

• No. This is an in vitro diagnostic assay. Such studies are designed for devices where human interpretation of images or other subjective data is involved. The device produces a quantitative measurement.

6. Standalone Performance Study

Yes, a standalone performance study was conducted in the sense that the performance characteristics of the new Magnesium assay (precision, linearity, limit of quantitation) were evaluated independently. However, the primary evidence for substantial equivalence relies on comparative performance with predicate devices for accuracy.

• Standalone Performance Evaluated: Precision (within-run, between-run, between-day), linearity, and limit of quantitation (sensitivity).
• Results:
  • Precision (Serum): Total %CV Level 1 = 5.9%, Level 2 = 3.7%
  • Precision (Urine): Total %CV Level 1 = 5.9%, Level 2 = 4.4%
  • Linearity: Up to 6 mEq/L
  • Limit of Quantitation: 0.4 mEq/L

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

For the method comparison (accuracy) component, the results obtained from the predicate devices were used as the reference ("ground truth") for comparison.

• Predicate Devices:
  • Roche® Cobas Mira® Plus Automated Chemistry Magnesium assay (K901758) for serum.
  • Boehringer Mannheim® Magnesium assay (K811194) on the Hitachi® 717 Analyzer for urine.

For other performance characteristics like precision, the "ground truth" is typically an expected value of the control material or simply the direct measurement of statistical variability.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not refer to a "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI. This assay is a chemical measurement method, not an algorithm that learns from data.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set was Established

• Not applicable. As above, there is no "training set" for this type of in vitro diagnostic assay.

Ask a specific question about this device