Search Results

The Mucosal Integrity Conductivity Test System is indicated for use by gastroenterologists, surgeons, and medically trained personnel during an endoscopy to obtain a real time measurement of esophageal epithelial impedance. The device is not for use as a sole diagnostic screening tool.

The Mucosal Integrity Conductivity (MI) Test System provides real-time measurements of alterations in esophageal evithelial integrity. The device is intended to aid in the evaluation of esophageal epithelial integrity by means of a balloon probe with direct electrical contact with the mucosal epithelium of the esophagus along with associated signal conditioning, hardware, and software for measuring and displaying information.

The provided text describes the "Mucosal Integrity Conductivity (MI) Test System," an esophageal tissue characterization system. However, the document does not contain information about a study that assesses the device's performance against specific acceptance criteria using a test set of patient data or
human readers in a comparative effectiveness study. The "Performance Testing - Bench" section details benchtop tests of the device's physical properties and electrical measurement capabilities, but this is distinct from a clinical performance study using patient data.

The "Summary of Clinical Information" section briefly mentions two prospective clinical studies where the device was used in patients, noting its ability to measure esophageal mucosal impedance and the occurrence of few adverse events. However, these descriptions do not provide specific acceptance criteria, performance metrics (like sensitivity, specificity, accuracy), or details on how ground truth was established for diagnosis or classification of esophageal conditions based on the impedance measurements, which would typically be part of a study proving the device meets clinical acceptance criteria for its intended use as an aid in evaluation.

Therefore,Based on the provided text, I cannot answer all parts of your request as it does not detail a study that proves the clinical performance of the device against specific acceptance criteria for diagnostic accuracy or human-in-the-loop improvement for clinical decision making. The information focuses on bench testing, safety, and general functionality.

However, I can extract the acceptance criteria and performance for the benchtop performance tests.

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (Benchtop Testing)

Here's a table summarizing the acceptance criteria and reported "Pass" results for the benchtop performance testing:

Since the document primarily describes benchtop performance and safety testing, and general clinical use observations rather than a clinical performance study with diagnostic accuracy outcomes, the following information is not available or not applicable based on the provided text:

• Sample size used for the test set: Not specified for a clinical performance test set. The bench tests specify n=10 for balloon functionality, n=33 for some dimensional tests, n=1 for impedance accuracy tests, and n=4 or n(g) for tensile strength.
• Data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective): The clinical studies mentioned are stated to be "prospective," but no country of origin is specified for the data.
• Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not specified for any clinically relevant ground truth.
• Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not specified.
• 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 such study is mentioned or implied, as the device gives a direct measurement and is not described as an AI assistance tool for human readers.
• If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: The device directly measures impedance, it's not described as an algorithm making a diagnostic decision in a standalone fashion. Its purpose is to obtain a real time measurement to aid in the evaluation.
• The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc): While one clinical study mentions patients with "active eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE, confirmed with pathology)," the document doesn't explicitly state that pathology was used as the ground truth for evaluating the device's performance against specific clinical endpoints derived from impedance measurements. The device simply measured impedance in these patients.
• The sample size for the training set: Not applicable as there's no mention of a machine learning model requiring a training set for diagnostic classification in the provided text.
• How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device