Search Results

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

The CLUNGENE Multi-Drug Test Easy Cup is a lateral flow immunoassay for the qualitative detection of Morphine, Methamphetamine, Cocaine, Marijuana, Methylenedioxymethamphetamine, Buprenorphine, Propoxyphene, Amphetamine, Phencyclidine, EDDP (Methadone metabolite), Oxycodone, Oxazepam, Nortriptyline, Secobarbital, Methadone, 6-Monoacetylmorphine and Fentanyl in human urine at the following cut off concentrations:

The single or multi-test cups can consist of any combination of the above listed drug analytes, but only one cut off concentration under same drug condition will be included per device.

This test provides only preliminary result. A more specific alternative chemical method must be used to obtain a confirmed analytical result. GC/MS or LC/MS is the preferred confirmatory method. Evaluate preliminary positive results carefully. Clinical consideration and professional judgment should be exercised with any drug of abuse test result, particularly when the preliminary result is positive.

The CLUNGENE Multi-Drug Home Test Easy Cup is a lateral flow immunoassay for the qualitative detection of Morphine, Methamphetamine, Cocaine, Marijuana, Methylenedioxymethamphetamine, Buprenorphine, Propoxyphene, Amphetamine, Phencyclidine, EDDP (Methadone metabolite), Oxycodone, Oxazepam, Nortriptyline, Secobarbital, Methadone, 6-Monoacetylmorphine and Fentanyl in human urine at the following cut off concentrations:

The test provides only preliminary test results. To obtain a confirmed analytical result, a more specific alternative chemical method must be used. GC/MS or LC-MS/MS is the preferred confirmatory method.

It is intended for over-the-counter (OTC) use. For in vitro diagnostic use only.

CLUNGENE Multi-Drug Test Easy Cup and CLUNGENE Multi-Drug Home Test Easy Cup are immunochromatographic assays that use a lateral flow system for the qualitative detection of single or multiple drugs in human urine.
The device is a cup format. Each test device is sealed with two sachets of desiccant in an aluminum pouch. The device is in a ready-to-use format and no longer requires assembly before use.

This document provides details on the performance characteristics of the CLUNGENE Multi-Drug Test Easy Cup and CLUNGENE Multi-Drug Home Test Easy Cup. Since this is an in vitro diagnostic device (specifically, a drug screening test), the acceptance criteria and study design are typically focused on analytical performance (accuracy, precision, analytical specificity) rather than a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study, which is more common for imaging AI. Similarly, "human readers improving with AI vs without AI" is not applicable here as the device is the test, not an aid to human interpretation of another modality.

Here's the breakdown based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The core acceptance criterion for qualitative drug screening tests like this is accurate detection around a specific cutoff concentration. The reported performance demonstrates the device's ability to correctly classify samples as positive or negative relative to these cutoffs.

Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (Analytical Precision/Reproducibility)

The "Acceptance Criteria" column represents the desired performance for a qualitative assay around its cutoff. For positive results, this means detecting drug concentrations above the cutoff, and for negative results, it means not detecting concentrations below the cutoff. The provided precision data shows the number of positive (+) and negative (-) results out of 50 tests for various concentrations relative to the cutoff. An ideal performance would show 100% positive for concentrations above cutoff and 100% negative for concentrations below, with roughly 50/50 split at the cutoff itself (due to inherent variability).

Ask a specific question about this device

The Multilayered Zirconia Disc is indicated for fabrication of anterior and posterior dental restorations using different CAD/CAM or manual machines. All discs are processed through dental laboratories or by dental professionals.

DenMat Multilayered Zirconia Discs are made of Zirconium Oxide (Y-TZP ZrO2). For dental applications in accordance with ISO 6872, (DIN EN ISO 6872), this material is specially made for manufacturing of permanent and removable dental prosthetics. After completion of the final sintering, all DenMat Multilayered Zirconia meets the requirements of ISO 6872, Type II, Class 5. It is necessary to mill the disc with an appropriate enlargement factor to account for the shrinkage that occurs during full sintering. DenMat Zirconia Multilayered (ML) discs can be used with any compatible CAD/CAM machine.

Material Used:
DenMat Multilayered Zirconia Discs are composed of zirconia ceramics (ZrO2) based on yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia (Y-TZP). The material is biocompatible according to ISO 10993-1: 2018 "Biological Evaluation of medical devices – Part 1: Evaluation and testing within a risk management process"

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter and summary for the DenMat Multilayered Zirconia Disc do not describe a study involving an AI/Machine Learning device or a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study comparing AI assistance to human readers.

Instead, the document describes the physical and chemical properties of a dental material (zirconia discs) and compares them to a predicate device. The performance data presented are results from laboratory tests conducted on the material itself, not clinical studies involving human readers or AI algorithms for disease detection/diagnosis.

Therefore, many of the requested items (e.g., sample size for test set, data provenance, number of experts for ground truth, adjudication method, MRMC study, standalone performance, training set details) are not applicable to this type of device clearance.

However, I can extract the acceptance criteria and performance data for the material's physical properties as presented in the document.

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (for Material Properties)

The acceptance criteria and reported performance relate to the physical and chemical properties of the DenMat Multilayered Zirconia Disc, as evaluated against ISO standards for dental ceramics.

Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

3.5 MPa√m (for Single Crown Units & 3 Unit Bridges)
Minimum for Class 5: 4.0 MPa√m (overall) | 4.14 ± 0.43 MPa√m | 4.21 ± 0.48 MPa√m | ISO 6872: 2024 (ISO 18756/ASTM C1421) | Pass |
| Sintered Density | ≥ 6.0 g/cm³ | 6.11 ± 0.05 g/cm³ | 6.05 ± 0.03 g/cm³ | ISO 13356: 2015 | Pass |
| Radioactivity | Not more than 1.0 Bq g⁻¹ of Uranium238 | 800 MPa | 1085.51 ± 265.06 MPa | N/A (Tested once for material composition) | ISO 6872: 2024 | Pass |

Non-Applicable or Unknown Information (Due to the Nature of the Device)

The following information pertains to AI/ML device studies and is not applicable to this 510(k) for a dental material:

1. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable. These are laboratory tests on material samples, not patient data. The quantity of material samples tested is not explicitly stated in the summary, but typical for these types of tests (e.g., multiple specimens for each property). Data provenance is "lab testing."
2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. Ground truth for material properties is established by adherence to certified test methods and instrumentation, not expert consensus on medical images/data.
3. Adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable.
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 not an AI/imaging device.
5. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable. This is a dental material, not an algorithm.
6. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): Ground truth for material properties is defined by the physical/chemical standards and measurements themselves as per ISO and ASTM guidelines (e.g., measured force for flexural strength, measured mass change for solubility).
7. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. This is not an AI device that requires a training set.
8. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

In summary, the DenMat Multilayered Zirconia Disc is a dental material, and its acceptance criteria and proving study focus on demonstrating that its physical and chemical properties meet established international standards (ISO, ASTM) for dental restorative materials, ensuring its safety and effectiveness for its intended use. It is not an AI software device, and therefore the assessment methodologies typically associated with AI/ML-based medical devices do not apply here.

Ask a specific question about this device

The AssureTech Quick Cup Tests are competitive binding, lateral flow immunochromatographic assays for qualitative and simultaneous detection of Amphetamine, Secobarbital, Buprenorphine, Oxazepam, Cocaine, EDDP, Fentanyl, Ecstasy, Propoxyphene, Morphine, Methadone, Phencyclidine, Oxycodone, Norfentanyl, Methamphetamine, Nortriptyline, 6-Monoacetylmorphine, Tramadol and Marijuana in human urine at the cutoff concentrations of:

Configuration of the AssureTech Quick Cup Tests can consist of any combination of the above listed drug analytes. The test may yield positive results for the prescription drugs above when taken at or above prescribed doses. It is not intended to distinguish between prescription use or abuse of these drugs. Clinical consideration and professional judgment should be exercised with any drug of abuse test result, particularly when the preliminary result is positive. The test provides only preliminary test results. A more specific alternative chemical method must be used in order to obtain a confirmed analytical result. GC/MS or LC/MS is the preferred confirmatory method.

For in vitro diagnostic use only.

The AssureTech Multi-drug Urine Test Cup are competitive binding, lateral flow immunochromatographic assays for qualitative and simultaneous detection of Amphetamine, Secobarbital, Buprenorphine, Oxazepam, Cocaine, EDDP, Fentanyl, Ecstasy, Propoxyphene, Morphine, Methadone, Phencyclidine, Oxycodone, Norfentanyl, Methamphetamine, Nortriptyline, 6-Monoacetylmorphine, Tramadol and Marijuana in human urine at the cutoff concentrations of:

Configuration of the AssureTech Multi-drug Urine Test Cup can consist of any combination of the above listed drug analytes. It is for in vitro diagnostic use only.

The test provides only preliminary test results. A more specific alternative chemical method must be used in order to obtain a confirmed analytical result. GC/MS or LC/MS is the preferred confirmatory method. Clinical consideration and professional judgment should be exercised with any drug of abuse test result, particularly when the preliminary result is positive.

The AssureTech Quick Cup Tests are immunochromatographic assays that use a lateral flow system for the qualitative detection of Amphetamine, Secobarbital, Buprenorphine, Oxazepam, Cocaine, EDDP, Fentanyl, Ecstasy, Propoxyphene, Morphine, Methadone, Phencyclidine, Oxycodone, Norfentanyl, Methamphetamine, Nortriptyline, 6-Monoacetylmorphine, Tramadol and Marijuana (target analytes) in human urine. The products are single-use in vitro diagnostic devices. Each test kit contains a Test Device and a package insert. Each test device is sealed with a desiccant in an aluminum pouch.

The provided FDA 510(k) Clearance Letter details the performance of the AssureTech Quick Cup Tests and AssureTech Multi-drug Urine Test Cup for qualitative and simultaneous detection of various drugs in human urine.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets those criteria:

1. Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

For in vitro diagnostic devices like these, acceptance criteria are typically related to the accuracy of the qualitative detection (positive vs. negative) compared to a gold standard, particularly around the established cutoff concentrations. The performance is assessed through analytical studies (precision, specificity, interference) and comparison studies with a confirmatory method.

Here's a table summarizing the implicit acceptance criteria based on the precision and lay-user studies, and the reported device performance. The acceptance criterion is inferred as the ideal performance for these types of tests, where results near or above the cutoff should be positive, and results significantly below should be negative. The performance data below is extracted from the "Precision" and "Lay-user study" sections.

Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Note: The precision study for AMP300, MET300, and TML100 used 3 lots, with "50-/0+" meaning 50 negative results and 0 positive results, and "50+/0-" meaning 50 positive results and 0 negative results. For the 'Cutoff' concentration, it shows a mix of positive and negative results, which is expected due to the nature of qualitative assays around the threshold.

2. Sample Sizes and Data Provenance

• Precision Study:

  • For AMP300, MET300, and TML100: Each drug had 8 concentrations (spanning -100% to +100% of cutoff, plus the cutoff). For each concentration, tests were performed two runs per day for 25 days, for 3 different lots.
    • This means 50 observations per concentration per lot (2 runs/day * 25 days/run).
    • Total observations per drug for all 3 lots: 8 concentrations * 50 observations/concentration * 3 lots = 1200 observations per drug.
  • Data for other drugs refer to previous 510(k) clearances (K243996, K201630, K181768, K180349, K170049, K161044, K153465, K152025, K151211).
  • Data Provenance: Retrospective, as samples were "prepared by spiking drug in negative samples" and confirmed by LC/MS. No specific country of origin is mentioned, but typically for FDA submissions, studies are conducted under GLP (Good Laboratory Practice) guidelines, often in the US or by international labs adhering to comparable standards.

• Comparison Studies (Clinical Samples):

  • For AMP300, MET300, and TML100: The tables show data broken down by "Negative" (presumably drug-free), "Low Negative" ( +50%). The sum of the positive and negative results across these categories for each operator represents the number of clinical samples tested for that drug.
    • AMP300: 5 (Negative) + 15 (LN) + 19 (NCN) + 24 (NCP) + 16 (HP) = 79 samples per operator. (Operator 1)
    • MET300: 4 (Negative) + 13 (LN) + 23 (NCN) + 20 (NCP) + 20 (HP) = 80 samples per operator. (Operator 1)
    • TML100: 2 (Negative) + 18 (LN) + 18 (NCN) + 19 (NCP) + 20 (HP) = 77 samples per operator. (Operator 1)
    • Total (approximate, as numbers vary slightly between operators): ~79+80+77 = ~236 clinical samples for AMP300, MET300, TML100 combined.
  • Data for other drugs refer to previous 510(k) clearances.
  • Data Provenance: Retrospective, using "unaltered clinical samples." No specific country of origin is mentioned.

• Lay-User Study:

  • Sample Size: 280 lay persons tested the device.
    • Configuration 1: 66 male + 74 female = 140 lay persons.
    • Configuration 2: 87 male + 53 female = 140 lay persons.
  • Data Provenance: Retrospective, samples were "prepared at the following concentrations; negative, +/-75%, +/-50%, +/-25% of the cutoff by spiking drugs into drug free-pooled urine specimens." Confirmed by LC/MS. Conducted "at three intended user sites." No specific country of origin is mentioned.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth (Clinical Samples)

• Ground Truth Establishment for Clinical Samples: LC/MS (Liquid Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry) is stated as the preferred confirmatory method and was used to confirm the concentrations of the samples. This is an objective chemical method, considered the gold standard for drug detection and quantification in urine.
• Experts: The comparison studies were performed "in-house with three laboratory assistants." While these individuals are performing the rapid tests, the ultimate ground truth is established by the LC/MS results. The "laboratory assistants" are not explicitly designated as "experts" in establishing ground truth, but rather as trained users of the device whose results are compared to the LC/MS gold standard.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set (Clinical Samples)

• The document states that "Operators ran unaltered clinical samples for each drug. The samples were blind labeled and compared to LC/MS results."
• There were three operators. The "Discordant Results" tables show discrepancies between the rapid test results and the LC/MS results, sometimes across multiple operators for the same sample.
• No explicit adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) for the rapid test results themselves is described. The comparison seems to be a direct comparison of each operator's rapid test result against the LC/MS ground truth, and then discrepancies are noted. The LC/MS data serves as the final, objective ground truth.

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

• This document describes performance characteristics of an in-vitro diagnostic device (a qualitative urine drug test cup).
• No MRMC comparative effectiveness study was performed in the context of comparing human readers (e.g., radiologists interpreting images) with and without AI assistance. This type of study design is specific to AI/CADe (Computer-Assisted Detection) or CADx (Computer-Assisted Diagnosis) devices in imaging, which is not applicable to a lateral flow immunoassay like the AssureTech Quick Cup Tests.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Study

• Given this is a physical immunoassay test cup, the concept of a "standalone (algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance)" study does not directly apply in the same way it would for a software-based AI device.
• The "Comparison Studies" with laboratory assistants and the "Lay-user study" assess the device's performance when interpreted by human users. The device itself, by producing a visual result (line/no line), is the "algorithm." Its performance is inherently tied to human interpretation of that visual output. The precision and specificity studies represent the analytical performance of the device itself.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• Analytical Performance Studies (Precision, Specificity, pH/SG Effect): The ground truth was established by spiking known concentrations of drugs into negative urine samples, with concentrations confirmed by LC/MS.
• Comparison Studies (Clinical Samples): The ground truth was established by LC/MS results on unaltered clinical urine samples. LC/MS is a highly accurate chemical analytical method.
• Lay-User Study: Ground truth was established by spiking known concentrations of drugs into drug-free pooled urine specimens, confirmed by LC/MS.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• This document describes a 510(k) submission for a traditional in-vitro diagnostic device (immunoassay). It does not mention any artificial intelligence (AI) or machine learning (ML) components that would typically require a "training set" in the computational sense.
• The terms "training set" and "test set" are common in AI/ML validation. For a traditional medical device, the studies described (precision, interference, specificity, comparison, lay-user) serve as the "validation set" against pre-defined performance criteria.
• Therefore, N/A for "training set" in the context of AI/ML.

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

• N/A (as above, no "training set" in the AI/ML context).
• However, if we consider how the device itself was developed, the ground truth for optimizing its performance (e.g., antibody binding, membrane characteristics) would have relied on highly controlled experiments with known concentrations of analytes, likely confirmed by advanced analytical chemistry methods like LC/MS. This process is part of the extensive R&D and quality control that precedes a 510(k) submission.

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

The Codonics Safe Label System SLS 700i and related 610i, 620i, 630i series enabled to receive RFID features and safe and effective released SLS Software provides a simple computer-based bar code scanning/RFID & printing system to automatically verify drug identity from NDC and other drug vial UDI Barcodes and (when configured and available) RFID parenteral vial information and formulary information, and to print labels embedded with RFID tags for prepared drugs and other items in use on patients during surgical procedures. Drug information is human readable on labels, 2D & Linear barcoded on labels, and RFID encoded as part of secondary container medication labels.

Codonics Safe Label System SLS 700i and related 610i, 620i, 630i series enabled to receive RFID features is generally placed in, however not limited to, the peri-operative environment to identify syringes prepared for anesthesiology use during surgery. Additional uses include producing labels for IVs and other artifacts used during a surgical procedure. SLS can also be used to print "non-surgical environment" color & text labels as required. Typical users of this system are trained professionals, including but not limited to physicians, nurses, and technicians

Drug preparation and administration in the perioperative environment are integral aspects of pharmacy, patient care clinicians, and anesthesiologist's patient care responsibilities.

Drug selection, preparation, and administration errors occur at the point of care in association with parenteral vial identification, secondary CSP container labeling, and pre-administration selection. Machine readable drug IDs & information in the form of machine-readable barcode and RFID tags serve as additional means to confirm medications (beyond human readable labeling).

Best practices for safe medication preparation and labeling in support of reducing error includes font characteristics & readability, drug class/type color coding, machine readable bar and RFID codes & formulary confirmed information being part of creation & application of secondary container CSP labeling to assist pre-administration selection and dose delivery recording.

Codonics Safe Labeling System (SLS-1) 700i and related 610i, 620i, 630i, SLS-XXX RFID series is a simple, integrated system utilizing a bar code scanner and RFID reader & encoder to confirm drug identity from NDC and other drug ID Barcoded vials and safely & automatically print labels for prepared drugs and other items in use on patients during clinical and surgical procedures. In addition to K101439 series machine readable barcodes, the 700i and related 610i, 620i, 630i, SLS-XXX series configurations when equipped with suitable near field HF, UHF, or HF/UHF RFID modules & software, allows RFID information to be read and formulary information including 3rd party MDD ID content to be written ("encoded") to SLS label RFID tags (Passive) for use by third party applications. The labels are fully compliant with national standards and best practices focused on improving medication safety in the perioperative environment. As a MDD (Master Drug Database) intra-hospital networked device, emission & immunity safety as well as protections in the realm of cyber security is part of the safety and efficacy. The system is small enough to fit on the anesthesia supply cart and integrate seamlessly into the anesthesia workflow allowing use in the OR during patient care. Like the predicate SLS, barcode read NDC/UDI codes indexed to the approved formulary is retained as the "source of truth" for all drugs processed for labeling by SLS RFID series*.

The software components provide functions for scanning/reading vials, indexing against a "source of truth" hospital/healthcare environment managed/commissioned & verified formulary database, displaying on screen and audibly confirming drug type, printing color JCOAHO and ISO and ASTM compliant labels with 2-D barcodes and, when equipped with suitable HF, UHF, or HF/UHF RFID modules & software, RFID tagged information encoding on secondary container CSP labels. The system reads drug vial barcodes and produces waterproof, color labels compliant to FDA/ISMP, ASA, USP, ISO, ASTM, TJC, JCACHO.

*SLS RFID Series products maintain reliance on barcode scanned and formulary verified information to print secondary container labels and encode 2D and RFID tagged information to embedded SLS label RFID tags. The system label output can be integrated to function with 3rd party applications such as an AIMS system workflow to provide real-time documentation of drug administration when the syringe "2D Barcode" or RFID tag is read.

The Codonics Safe Labeling System (SLS) is designed to improve medication safety in perioperative and other clinical environments by verifying drug identity and printing compliant labels. The acceptance criteria and study proving its performance are detailed below, particularly focusing on the advancements in RFID technology.

1. Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: The non-clinical lab tests verifying NDC/UDI coded vials and RFID performance were conducted with a "Preliminary Verification Test SLS Configurations Safe Label System Confirmation of Functionality reporting greater than 10,000 RFID labels of 25 drugs in the various drug class colors and RFID payload."
• Data Provenance: The document states that both laboratory (non-clinical environment) and surgical (clinical) tests were performed. There is no specific mention of the country of origin for the data, but the regulatory compliance refers to US (FCC, ANSI, ASTM, Joint Commission, ASA) and international (ISO, IEC, TUV, CISPR) standards, suggesting a general applicability or data collected within these regulatory frameworks. The description implies prospective testing as part of product development and verification before market release.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth

• The document does not specify the number of experts used to establish ground truth for the test set.
• Qualifications of experts: While not explicitly stated for the test set ground truth, the "Typical users of this system are trained professionals, including but not limited to physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and technicians" who ultimately control and review the device's output. The system's output is based on "site managed formulary lookup database" which is managed by "DOP pharmacy, anesthesiology, Dir Medical Staff, etc." These clinicians and department heads would collectively define the "source of truth" for the formulary.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• The document does not explicitly describe an adjudication method for the test set in the conventional sense (e.g., 2+1, 3+1 for image interpretation).
• The system uses a "source of truth" which is the "site managed formulary lookup database." The device's performance is verified against this established database for drug identification, concentration, and associated labeling information. "Input codes and output read content was confirmed," indicating a direct comparison against expected outputs derived from this ground truth.

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

• A MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not explicitly mentioned or described in the provided text. The device is described as a "scanning/RFID & printing system" and not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool that humans interpret. Its function is to automate and verify drug labeling, not to assist human readers in making diagnostic decisions where an "effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance" would be relevant.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Study

• The device's core function is an automated process of scanning, verifying against a formulary, and printing/encoding. The non-clinical lab tests verifying "error free NDC/UDI vial reading and labeling of prepared drugs to ASA/ISO standards" and "error free accuracy and precision" for RFID processing are effectively standalone performance evaluations of the algorithm and hardware.
• The document states, "No automated decision processes tied to patient care are involved with SLS operation. ... Medical personnel review the results and inputs processed by the Codonics SLS and offers ample opportunity for competent human intervention in the case of a malfunction or other failure." This confirms that while the device performs its functions autonomously, it operates within a workflow that includes human oversight.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• The primary ground truth used is the site-managed formulary lookup database. This database contains verified drug names, concentrations, expiration data, and site-specific rules.
• For barcode and RFID performance, the ground truth is the known, correctly coded/tagged information on the original drug vials and the intended output for the generated labels. This is based on established national and international standards (NDC, UDI, ASA, ISO, ASTM, TJC).

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• The document does not specify a sample size for a training set. This is generally a concept applicable to machine learning algorithms. The SLS system appears to operate based on established rules, databases, and barcode/RFID standards rather than learning from a training dataset in the typical AI/ML sense. It is a deterministic system that performs verification and printing based on pre-defined information.

9. How Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

• As the system does not appear to use a training set for machine learning, the concept of establishing ground truth for a training set is not applicable in this context. The core "knowledge" for the device, the drug formulary, is established and managed by "DOP pharmacy, anesthesiology, Dir Medical Staff, etc.," and is a human-curated and verified database that the system utilizes.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Multi4 System is intended for use by trained urologists for endoscopically controlled tissue resection and coagulation, and removal of bladder tumors (TURBT) via suction channel under controlled flow conditions following resection using a monopolar resectoscope. The Multi4 System is also intended to deliver injectable materials into the urinary bladder wall during transurethral endoscopic procedures.

The Multi4 System is an electrosurgical system used during urethral resection procedures of adult patients. The system, intended to remove and collect tissue from the bladder, includes a single-use electrosurgical instrument, known as the Multi4 B, as well as the reuseable Multi4 Pump. The Multi4 Pump administers energy from an external electrosurgical unit to the handheld Multi4 B instrument, which has electrosurgical functions and allows for fluid transport and tissue sample collection. The Multi4 B instrument accesses the bladder through the working channel of a commercially available cystoscope. The Multi4 System is a prescription device intended for use in professional healthcare facilities by healthcare professionals (HCPs).

The Multi4 System consists of the following components:
• Multi4 Pump (with Integrated Fluid Control)
o Footswitch
• Multi4 B
o Resectoscope & Needle
o Simple4tainer (For collection of gross resected tissue pieces for pathology)

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter and summary for the Multi4 System primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices through design similarity, material composition, intended use, and technological characteristics. The document details extensive non-clinical testing performed to ensure safety and effectiveness.

However, the provided text does not contain details about acceptance criteria, the study design, or performance metrics in a way that allows for the construction of a table comparing acceptance criteria with reported data, nor does it provide information on sample sizes for test sets, data provenance, expert involvement for ground truth, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, or standalone algorithm performance.

The document does mention:

• Non-Clinical Testing: Software Verification and Validation Testing, Sterility Testing, Packaging Testing, Shelf-life Testing, Biocompatibility Testing (Cytotoxicity, Irritation, Sensitization, Acute Systemic Toxicity, Pyrogenicity), Electrical Safety & EMC (IEC 60601-1, IEC 60601-1-2, IEC 60601-1-6, and IEC 60601-2-2), Integrity Testing, Functional Testing (Cut and coagulation, aspiration, irrigation, injection), Dimensional Inspection and Testing, Simulated Use Testing.
• Lack of Clinical Study: The "SUMMARY OF NON-CLINICAL TESTING" section and the overall context strongly suggest that the clearance was based on non-clinical data demonstrating equivalence to predicate devices, rather than a clinical study evaluating specific performance metrics against acceptance criteria for a new AI/algorithm. There is no mention of "ground truth" as it would apply to an AI study (e.g., expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data).

Therefore, I must state that the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, study data for AI performance, sample sizes for AI test/training sets, expert roles, adjudication, and MRMC studies is not present in the provided text. The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence via engineering and bench testing, not clinical performance or AI/algorithm validation with a test set and ground truth in the manner typically required for AI-driven devices.

Without this specific information from the provided text, I cannot fulfill the request to describe the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria in the context of an AI-driven device with performance metrics.

If this were an AI device, the missing information would be crucial for understanding its validation. For this specific device and the information provided, the "acceptance criteria" were met by demonstrating that the Multi4 System performs as safely and effectively as its predicate devices through rigorous non-clinical testing.

Ask a specific question about this device

The device is intended for radiation treatment planning for use in stereotactic, conformal, computer planned, Linac based radiation treatment and indicated for cranial, head and neck and extracranial lesions.

RT Elements are computed-based software applications for radiation therapy treatment planning and dose optimization for linac-based conformal radiation treatments, i.e. stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) or stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR), also known as stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for use in stereotactic, conformal, computer planned, Linac based radiation treatment of cranial, head and neck, and extracranial lesions.

The device consists of the following software modules: Multiple Brain Mets SRS 4.5, Cranial SRS 4.5, Spine SRS 4.5, Cranial SRS w/ Cones 4.5, RT Contouring 4.5, RT QA 4.5, Dose Review 4.5, Brain Mets Retreatment Review 4.5, and Physics Administration 7.5.

Here's the breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets them, based on the provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter for RT Elements 4.5, specifically focusing on the AI Tumor Segmentation feature:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Note: For "Gliomas and glio-/neuronal tumors," the reported lower bound 95% CI for Recall (0.74) is slightly below the stated acceptance criteria of 0.8. Additional clarification from the submission would be needed to understand how this was reconciled for clearance. However, for all other categories and overall, the reported performance meets or exceeds the acceptance criteria.

Study Details for AI Tumor Segmentation

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

• Sample Size: 412 patients (595 scans, 1878 annotations)
• Data Provenance: De-identified 3D CE-T1 MR images from multiple clinical sites in the US and Europe. Data was acquired from adult patients with one or multiple contrast-enhancing tumors. ¼ of the test pool corresponded to data from three independent sites in the USA.

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

• Number of Experts: Not explicitly stated as a number, but referred to as an "external/independent annotator team."
• Qualifications of Experts: US radiologists and non-US radiologists. No further details on years of experience or specialization are provided in this document.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

• The document mentions "a well-defined data curation process" followed by the annotator team, but it does not explicitly describe a specific adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) for resolving disagreements among annotators.

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:

• No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study comparing human readers with and without AI assistance was not reported for the AI tumor segmentation. The study focused on standalone algorithm performance against ground truth.

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

• Yes, a standalone performance study was done. The validation was conducted quantitatively by comparing the algorithm's automatically-created segmentations with the manual ground-truth segmentations.

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

• Expert Consensus Segmentations: The ground truth was established through "manual ground-truth segmentations, the so-called annotations," performed by the external/independent annotator team of radiologists.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• The sample size for the training set is not explicitly stated in this document. The document mentions that "The algorithm was trained on MRI image data with contrast-enhancing tumors from multiple clinical sites, including a wide variety of scanner models and patient characteristics."

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

• How the ground truth for the training set was established is not explicitly stated in this document. It can be inferred that it followed a similar process to the test set, involving expert annotations, but the details are not provided.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Multi M Series is used in the manufacture of dental prosthesis.

Multi M Series is zirconia-based ceramic provided in various shapes such as round and it is used to manufacture cores of all ceramic crowns and is classified into ISO 6872 Type 2 Class 5. It is used to manufacture ceramic restorations through cutting process by dental MAD/MAM, computer-assisted design system, or CAD/CAM system. The subject device offers 278 different shades to meet the needs of different patients' tooth colors. It also offers various shape types to be used with various jigs for CAD/CAM milling machine. Multi M Series offers various types as follows: W-type, Z-type. These different types are to accommodate the different types of the jig that is built-in CAD/CAM machine. Users can choose a type which fits the jig they have.

This document is a 510(k) clearance letter for a medical device called "Multi M Series", which is a dental material. The standard 510(k) clearance process by the FDA does not typically include the kind of clinical study details usually associated with AI/ML-based diagnostic devices (e.g., sample size for test sets, expert consensus, MRMC studies, effect size of AI assistance). This device is a material, not a diagnostic algorithm.

Therefore, many of the requested points regarding acceptance criteria and study details (like sample size for test set, number of experts, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance) are not applicable to this type of device and submission. The "study" here refers to non-clinical performance and biocompatibility testing against international standards.

However, I can extract the relevant information where it exists:

The device in question, "Multi M Series," is a dental material (zirconia-based ceramic) used to manufacture dental prosthetics, not an AI-powered diagnostic device. Therefore, the "acceptance criteria" and "study" described are based on non-clinical performance and biocompatibility testing against established international standards for dental materials, rather than clinical efficacy studies with human subjects or AI algorithm performance benchmarks.

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are derived from ISO 6872 (for ceramic materials) and ISO 10993 (for biocompatibility).

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Ask a specific question about this device