Search Results

A patient examination glove is a disposable device intended for medical purposes that is worn on the examiner's hand to prevent contamination between patient and examiner. This glove has been tested for use with specific chemotherapy drugs listed below.

Powder Free Latex Patient Examination Glove, Blue, Tested for Use with Chemotherapy Drugs, with Protein Content Labeling Claim (Contains 50 Micrograms per dm2 of glove or Less of Water Extractable Protein) meets all the current specification for ASTM D3578-05 (2010). The gloves are non-sterile, ambidextrous and single-use disposable devices that come in five sizes (XS, S, M, L, XL).

This document describes the acceptance criteria and performance of the "Powder Free Latex Patient Examination Glove, Blue, Tested for Use with Chemotherapy Drugs, with Protein Content Labeling Claim".

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

The document does not specify a distinct "test set" in the context of image or algorithmic data. Instead, it details various laboratory tests performed on the physical glove product. The sample sizes for each specific test (e.g., dimensions, physical properties, pinholes, protein content, biocompatibility, chemotherapy permeation) are not explicitly stated in the provided summary. However, it is implied that testing was conducted in accordance with the relevant ASTM and ISO standards, which typically prescribe minimum sample sizes for statistical validity.

Data Provenance: The data provenance is from laboratory testing performed by Top Calibre Sdn Bhd (Malaysia) or a contracted lab under their supervision, to demonstrate compliance with international standards (ASTM, ISO). This is retrospective data collected as part of the device's development and regulatory submission process.

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

N/A. This device is a physical product (medical glove), and the evaluation is based on laboratory performance against defined physical and chemical standards, not on expert interpretation of observational data or images. Therefore, clinical ground truth established by experts is not applicable.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

N/A. As the evaluation is based on objective laboratory measurements against predefined standards, there is no need for an adjudication method as would be used in a clinical study with subjective interpretations.

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

N/A. This is a physical product (glove) and not an AI or imaging device, so MRMC studies are not relevant.

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

N/A. This is a physical product and does not involve an algorithm.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" for this device's performance evaluation is established by:

• International Standards: Primarily ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) standards (D3578-05, D5151-11, D6124-11, D5712-10, D6978-05) and ISO (International Organization for Standardization) standards (10993-10:2010) for physical, chemical, and biocompatibility properties. These standards define the acceptable range or threshold for each characteristic.
• Direct Measurement/Testing: Laboratory measurements and assays were conducted to determine the actual performance values of the gloves (e.g., tensile strength, breakthrough time for chemotherapy drugs). These measurements are then compared directly to the specified acceptance criteria within the standards.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

N/A. This is a physical product and does not involve AI or machine learning algorithms that would require a training set.

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

N/A. As there is no training set for an algorithm, this question is not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

A patient examination glove is a disposable device intended for medical purposes that is worn on the examiner's hand to prevent contamination between patient and examiner.

Powder Free Nitrile Patient Examination Gloves, Blue Colored and White (Non-Colored), Non-Sterile meet all the current specification for ASTM D6319.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and study for the Powder Free Nitrile Patient Examination Gloves:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

The provided document (K123760) does not specify the sample size used for the test set for any of the performance characteristics. It only states that the device "Meets" the standards or passes the biocompatibility tests.

The data provenance is not explicitly stated as "country of origin" for the specific test data, but the submitter is based in Malaysia. The testing refers to international and US-based standards (ASTM, ISO, CFR), implying these tests were conducted according to those guidelines, potentially by an accredited lab. The study is retrospective in the sense that the test data was collected prior to this submission, but it's not a clinical study involving patients over time.

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

This information is not applicable to this submission. The device is a patient examination glove, and its performance is evaluated against established physical, chemical, and biocompatibility standards, not through clinical expert review or diagnosis of medical images/conditions. The "ground truth" for this type of device is defined by the technical specifications outlined in the ASTM, ISO, and CFR standards.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not applicable. Adjudication methods (like 2+1, 3+1) are used in studies involving subjective assessments, often by human readers (e.g., radiologists interpreting images). The performance of these gloves is assessed objectively against quantifiable standards.

5. If a Multi Reader Multi Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done

No, a Multi Reader Multi Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is typically performed for diagnostic devices where human readers interpret results, often with and without AI assistance. This document describes a physical medical device (gloves) and its conformity to technical standards.

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

This information is not applicable. This device is a physical product, not an algorithm or AI system. Therefore, standalone algorithm performance is not relevant.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" for this device's performance relies on established industry standards and regulatory criteria. These involve:

• Physical Specifications: ASTM D6319-10 for dimensions and physical properties.
• Freedom from Defects: ASTM D5151-11 and D6319-10 for pin-holes.
• Chemical Properties: ASTM D6124-11 and D6319-10 for powder-free residue.
• Biocompatibility: ISO 10993-10:2010 for dermal sensitization and 16 CFR Part 1500 for primary skin irritation.

These standards define the acceptable range or limits for each characteristic.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not applicable. This submission concerns a physical medical device and its conformity to standards. There is no AI or machine learning "training set" involved in its evaluation.

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

This information is not applicable as there is no training set for this type of device. The "ground truth" for the performance evaluation, as described in point 7, is established by industry and regulatory bodies through the development and publication of the relevant standards.

Ask a specific question about this device

To be used by trained medical professionals for the stable support and positioning of patients undergoing external beam radiation therapy treatment in a clinic or hospital setting.

In particular, these items provide the stable positioning of patients in various positions, chosen to facilitate accurate treatment of tumors.

Patients are those that have been diagnosed and are undergoing treatment for cancerous tumors. Treatment is supervised and administered by licensed doctors and therapists trained in the application of radiation therapy treatments.

Not Found

The provided document is a 510(k) clearance letter from the FDA for several medical devices, primarily baseplates and support systems used in radiation therapy. It does not contain information about acceptance criteria, device performance studies, sample sizes, expert qualifications, or ground truth establishment.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request to describe the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them based on the provided text. The document is a regulatory approval notice, not a scientific study report.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Multiple Biopsy System is intended to be used with a suction source to collect biopsy samples from the upper and lower gastrointestinal tract for microscopic examination.

Not Found

This is a letter for a 510(k) premarket notification for a "Multiple Biopsy System". This document does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a study proving device performance, as it is a regulatory clearance letter rather than a scientific study or performance report.

Therefore, I cannot extract the requested information from the provided text.

Ask a specific question about this device

A patient examination glove is a disposable device intended for medical purposes that is worn on the examiner's hand to prevent contamination between patient and examiner.

Powder Free Nitrile Examination Gloves, White (non-colored) or Blue (colored), Non Sterile will meet all the current specification for ASTM D6319.

The provided document describes the acceptance criteria and a study that proves a medical device, specifically "Powder Free Nitrile Examination Gloves," meets those criteria. Here's a breakdown of the requested information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

The document does not specify the exact sample size used for each test. However, it indicates that the tests conform to ASTM standards (D6319, D5151, D6124, F720) and 16CFR Part 1500, which inherently define the sample sizes and methodologies for these tests.

• Data Provenance: The tests are conducted by the manufacturer, IDEAL QUALITY SDN. BHD., located in Malaysia. The type of study (retrospective or prospective) is not explicitly stated, but given the nature of product testing for regulatory clearance, it would be prospective testing conducted by the manufacturer.

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

This document describes the testing of a medical glove, which relies on objective, standardized physical, chemical, and biological tests rather than subjective human interpretation of images or symptoms. Therefore, the concept of "experts establishing ground truth" in the way it applies to diagnostic AI is not applicable here. The "ground truth" is established by the defined test methods themselves and the laboratories performing these tests.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. As noted above, the tests are objective and based on established industry standards and regulations. There is no mention of an adjudication process among human readers or experts for the results of these physical and biological tests.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was Done

No, a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is relevant for diagnostic devices (e.g., AI in radiology) where human readers interpret cases, and the AI's impact on their performance is measured. For a physical device like an examination glove, this is not applicable.

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

This question is not applicable to the device described. The device is a physical product (gloves), not an algorithm or AI system.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used is based on objective, standardized test methods and criteria defined by:

• ASTM International standards (e.g., D6319, D5151, D6124, F720)
• U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (e.g., 16CFR Part 1500 for skin irritation).

These standards dictate the acceptable limits for various physical properties, freedom from defects, and biocompatibility, which constitute the "ground truth" for the device's performance.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This question is not applicable. The device is a manufacturing product (gloves) and does not involve AI or machine learning models that require a "training set."

9. 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

A patient examination gloves is a disposable device intended for medical purpose that is worn on the examiner's for the expected contamination between patient and examiner. This device is for over-the counter use.
A patient examination gloves is a disposable device intended for medical purpose that is worn on the examiner's hand or fingers to prevent contamination between patient and examiner. This device is for over-the counter use.

Non Sterile Powder Free Nitrile Examination Gloves meets all the current specifications listed under the ASTM Specification D6319-05, Standard Specification for Nitrile Examination Gloves for Medical Application.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and study for the "Non-Sterile, Blue Color Powder Free Nitrile Examination Glove":

This document describes a 510(k) summary for a medical device, which is a premarket notification demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device. For such devices, the "acceptance criteria" are generally compliance with recognized standards and performance specifications, and the "study" is the testing conducted to show this compliance.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

The document does not explicitly state the specific sample sizes for each test within the "Summary of Performance Data." However, for gloves, industry standards like ASTM D6319-05 typically specify sampling plans (e.g., AQL levels for attributes like watertightness). The "Multiple Normal G1" indicated for the Watertight test likely refers to a sampling plan for inspection level G1.

The data provenance is from Malaysia (BIOGREEN YIELDS SDN. BHD. is located in Sitiawan, Perak, Malaysia). The nature of the tests (physical and chemical properties, bio-compatibility) indicates this data is prospective in the sense that the manufacturer conducted these tests specifically to demonstrate compliance for this submission.

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

This type of device (patient examination gloves) does not typically involve human expert interpretation for establishing "ground truth" in the way an AI diagnostic algorithm would. The "ground truth" is established by direct measurement of physical and chemical properties and biological reactions according to standardized protocols (ASTM D6319-05, FDA watertight test, bio-compatibility tests). Therefore, there were no human experts establishing ground truth in the context of interpretation; rather, qualified laboratory personnel would have conducted the tests according to established scientific methods.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

Not applicable for this type of device testing. Adjudication is relevant for subjective interpretations, often in diagnostic imaging, where multiple experts may disagree. Here, the tests are objective measurements.

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, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is specifically designed for AI-assisted diagnostic tools where human readers (e.g., radiologists) interpret cases with and without AI assistance. This device is a physical product (gloves) and does not involve AI or human "readers" in its performance evaluation.

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

No, a standalone study (in the context of AI algorithms) was not done. This device is a physical product and its performance is measured directly against established physical and chemical standards, not through an AI algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used

The ground truth used is based on:

• Performance Standards/Specifications: Established by recognized standards organizations (ASTM D6319-05) and regulatory bodies (FDA 1000ml watertight test).
• Objective Measurements: Direct quantitative and qualitative measurements of physical properties (length, width, thickness, tensile strength, elongation), chemical properties (powder content, moisture content), and biological reactions (bio-compatibility tests).

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This device is a physical product, not an AI algorithm, and therefore does not have a "training set" in the machine learning sense. The manufacturing process itself (which is subject to Good Manufacturing Practices) ensures consistency, but there's no data set used to "train" the product's performance.

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

Not applicable. As there is no training set for this physical device, there is no ground truth established for a training set.

Ask a specific question about this device

This glove is a disposable device intended for medical purposes that is worn on the examiner's hand to prevent contamination between patient and examiner.

Powder Free Nitrile Examination Gloves, Bubble Gum Scented, Blue

The provided text is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter for Powder Free Nitrile Examination Gloves. It does not contain any information about acceptance criteria, device performance studies, sample sizes, expert qualifications, or ground truth for a medical device or AI system.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request for a table of acceptance criteria and device performance, or details about a study that proves the device meets acceptance criteria, as this information is not present in the provided document. The letter only states that the device is "substantially equivalent" to legally marketed predicate devices, which is a regulatory determination, not a description of a performance study.

Ask a specific question about this device

RCM-7 is a dental device, Apex Locator. It can be used to detect the apex of root canal.

The RCM-7 is a dental device, Apex Locator. It can be used to detect the apex of root canal.

The provided 510(k) summary for the J. MORITA USA Inc.'s RCM-7 Apex Locator does not contain the detailed information requested regarding acceptance criteria and the specific study that proves the device meets those criteria.

The document focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices (Root ZX and DP-ZX-VL) by comparing general intended uses, principles of operation, and technological characteristics. It lists various characteristics and whether they are identical or similar to the predicate devices. However, it does not provide:

• Specific numerical acceptance criteria for performance metrics (e.g., accuracy, precision).
• Details of a study designed to demonstrate that the RCM-7 explicitly meets such acceptance criteria.
• Information on sample sizes, data provenance, ground truth establishment, or expert involvement for any performance testing.

Therefore, most of the requested fields cannot be filled based on the provided text.

Here's an analysis of what can be inferred or what is explicitly missing:

Acceptance Criteria and Study for J. MORITA USA Inc.'s RCM-7

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• Sample Size (Test Set): Not provided. The document does not describe a specific test set or study conducted for the RCM-7.
• Data Provenance: Not provided.

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

• Not provided. The document does not mention any expert involvement for establishing ground truth for performance testing of the RCM-7.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• Not provided. No test set is described.

5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, and the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance

• Not applicable. The RCM-7 is an Apex Locator, a standalone dental device for root canal length measurement, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool that would involve human readers in an MRMC study.

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

• This is an Apex Locator, which by its nature operates "standalone" in performing its measurement function. However, the document does not describe a specific "standalone performance study" with metrics and results for the RCM-7 itself. Instead, it relies on demonstrating equivalence in performance to predicate devices.

7. The type of ground truth used

• Not explicitly defined for the RCM-7. For an apex locator, ground truth for canal length would typically be established by direct measurement (e.g., manual file measurement to the apex) or highly accurate imaging, but this is not detailed for the RCM-7's submission. The document relies on the established performance of the predicate devices.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable/Not provided. The RCM-7 is an Apex Locator, likely based on electrical impedance principles, rather than a machine learning or AI-based device that would require a "training set."

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

• Not applicable/Not provided, as there is no mention of a training set for this type of device.

Summary of Missing Information:

The 510(k) summary for the RCM-7 primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to its predicate devices by comparing their specifications and intended uses. It does not include specific clinical or performance study data, acceptance criteria, or details about ground truth establishment that would typically be found in submissions requiring such evidence. For devices demonstrating substantial equivalence through comparison, the detailed performance data for the predicate devices often serves as the benchmark, and new studies are usually not required unless there are significant technological differences that raise new questions of safety or effectiveness.

Ask a specific question about this device

This [MULTIPLE BRAND] latex condom has the same intended use as the predicate condom. The condom is used for contraception and for prophylactic purposes (to help prevent pregnancy and the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases).

Not Found

I am sorry, but the provided text does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a study proving a device meets those criteria. The document is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter for male natural rubber latex condoms. It indicates that the device has been found substantially equivalent to a legally marketed predicate device for contraception and prophylactic purposes.

The document discusses:

• The trade name of the device and its classification.
• The regulatory framework for medical devices.
• The intended use of the condom.

It does not include:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance.
2. Sample sizes or data provenance for any study.
3. Details about experts or ground truth establishment.
4. Adjudication methods.
5. MRMC comparative effectiveness studies.
6. Standalone algorithm performance.
7. The type of ground truth used.
8. Training set sample sizes or ground truth establishment for a training set.

Therefore, I cannot answer your request based on the provided input.

Ask a specific question about this device

The ORG-9700A Multiple Patient Receiver is intended for use by medical professionals with Nihon Kohden telemetry transmitters and central stations to provide cardiac and vital signs monitoring for multiple patients within a medical facility. The device detects patient vital sign alarm conditions and includes an algorithm to detect cardiac arrhythmias. The intended use of the modified device has not changed as a result of the modifications. The device is available for use on all patient populations.

New ORG-9700A has the same intended use as the previously marketed telemetry system, which is for use by medical professionals with Nihon Kohden telemetry transmitters and central stations to provide cardiac and vital signs monitoring for multiple patients. The device can receive the patient's ECG, respiration, SpO2, and non-invasive blood pressure data (NIBP value is only displayed on the central monitor) from a transmitter and send it to Nihon Kohden Central monitor within the medical facility. The device is designed as a component of a central monitor network to be used in the ICU, CCU, HCU, recovery room, operating room and general ward. The device will receive and transmit physiological data from telemetry transmitters/receivers and generate an alarm when a measured parameter falls outside a preset limit or when an arrhythmia is detected.

The device is not sterile. The device is not directly connected to patients. It is used as a central monitoring system for obtaining a series of patient vital information.

The provided documentation for the NIHON KOHDEN AMERICA, INC. ORG-9700A Multiple Patient Receiver (K071058) does not contain detailed information regarding acceptance criteria or a specific study proving the device meets these criteria in the way typically required for AI or algorithmic performance evaluation.

The submission is a 510(k) for a telemetry receiver, which is a hardware device for signal exchange and monitoring, not an AI or diagnostic algorithm. The type of acceptance criteria and study design you're asking for (e.g., sample size for test sets, data provenance, expert adjudication, MRMC studies, standalone performance of an algorithm, ground truth methods for training sets) are specific to evaluating the clinical performance of diagnostic algorithms or decision support systems, especially those using AI.

For this device, the "performance" described pertains to its functionality as a signal receiver and transmitter within a medical facility, and its ability to detect patient vital sign alarm conditions and include an algorithm to detect cardiac arrhythmias.

Here's an analysis based on the information provided, highlighting why many of your requested details are not present in this type of submission:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

The document states:

• "The device was subject to electromagnetic, environmental, safety and performance testing procedures."
• "Software validation was satisfactory completed as part of product's design validation."
• "The results confirmed that the device performed within specifications."

Acceptance Criteria & Device Performance (as inferred from the document):

Note: The actual specifications and detailed performance metrics (e.g., signal-to-noise ratio, alarm accuracy rates, arrhythmia detection sensitivity/specificity) are not provided in this summary document. These would typically be found in the more detailed sections of the 510(k) submission, not in the public summary.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

This information is not provided in the given 510(k) summary. For a hardware device performing signal transmission and basic alarm/arrhythmia detection, performance testing would typically involve engineering verification and validation, rather than clinical studies with large patient test sets in the context of diagnostic accuracy. The testing would focus on the hardware's reliability, signal integrity, and the correct functioning of the embedded software/firmware for its stated purposes.

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)

This information is not provided and is unlikely to be relevant for the type of device being submitted. Ground truth (e.g., expert consensus on diagnoses) is crucial for evaluating human-in-the-loop diagnostic studies or standalone AI diagnostic algorithms. For a telemetry receiver, ground truth would relate to the accuracy of physiological signal representation and the correct triggering of alarms based on predefined thresholds, which are verified through technical testing, not necessarily by expert clinical review of specific patient cases in a study.

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

This information is not provided and is not applicable to a hardware device submission of this nature. Adjudication methods are used in clinical studies to resolve discrepancies among expert readers when establishing ground truth for diagnostic accuracy.

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

An MRMC study was not conducted (or at least not reported in this summary). This type of study is relevant for evaluating the impact of an AI-powered diagnostic tool on human reader performance, which is not the primary function or claim of this telemetry receiver. The device "includes an algorithm to detect cardiac arrhythmias," but its primary role is signal reception and transmission, with this algorithm as a feature, not necessarily a standalone diagnostic AI system being evaluated for comparative effectiveness with human readers.

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

While the device includes an "algorithm to detect cardiac arrhythmias," the summary does not report specific standalone performance metrics for this algorithm (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy against a gold standard dataset of arrhythmia events). The statement "Software validation was satisfactory completed as part of product's design validation" implies that the algorithm's performance was tested as part of the overall system, but no details of that testing are provided in this summary.

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

This information is not provided and for this device, a "ground truth" in the clinical sense (e.g., pathology for a cancer diagnosis) is less applicable. For the arrhythmia detection algorithm, the ground truth would likely be established through:

• Simulated physiological signals: Testing the algorithm with known-arrhythmic and non-arrhythmic signal patterns.
• Reference ECG recordings: Comparing the algorithm's output against interpretations by expert cardiologists or established annotated databases.
• However, specific details are not mentioned in the summary.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not provided. As this is primarily a hardware device with an embedded algorithm (likely rule-based or a simpler classifier, rather than a deep learning model requiring a large training set), the concept of a "training set" might not be applicable in the same way it is for modern AI. If it were a sophisticated AI algorithm, details about the training data would be crucial.

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

This information is not provided, as the details about a training set are absent.

In summary:

The provided 510(k) summary focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device for a telemetry receiver. The performance data discussed relates to engineering and software validation (electromagnetic, environmental, safety, general performance specifications). It does not provide the kind of detailed clinical study data, ground truth establishment methods, or AI-specific performance metrics that would be expected for a diagnostic AI algorithm or a device requiring extensive clinical validation for diagnostic accuracy claims. The "algorithm to detect cardiac arrhythmias" is mentioned as a feature, but its specific performance evaluation details are not part of this high-level summary.

Ask a specific question about this device