Search Results

The Navigator (stylet) is a stainless steel wire rod, inserted into the catheter to assist with insertion and placement of the catheter in the peritoneum.

Stainless steel wire rod intended to aid in the manipulation of or insertion of the catheter for placement in the peritoneum.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for a medical device called "Navigator (stylet)". This document describes the device, its intended use, and biocompatibility testing. It is a premarket notification for a medical device and therefore does not contain information related to software algorithm performance, such as acceptance criteria for diagnostic accuracy, sample sizes for test sets in an AI context, or ground truth establishment by experts.

This document describes a physical medical device (a stainless steel wire rod or stylet), not a software algorithm or an AI-powered diagnostic tool. The "acceptance criteria" discussed are related to the physical properties and biological compatibility of the device, not its performance in a diagnostic or analytical capacity. Therefore, the questions related to AI/algorithm performance, ground truth, expert consensus, and comparative effectiveness studies are not applicable to the content provided.

Here's an attempt to answer the relevant questions based on the provided text, and to explicitly state when information is not applicable or available:

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

Note: The acceptance criteria for "Pass" in the cytotoxicity study and "Non-Hemolytic" in the hemolysis study are directly stated or directly implied by the result.

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

• Sample Size: Not applicable. The document describes a physical device, not an algorithm tested with a data set of images or patient data. Biocompatibility studies are typically performed on samples of the device material, not a "test set" in the context of an algorithm.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable.

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)

• Not applicable. Ground truth as typically defined for algorithms (e.g., disease presence/absence based on expert consensus) is not relevant for the assessment of a physical stylet's biocompatibility or dimensional equivalence. The "ground truth" for biocompatibility is established by standardized laboratory tests.

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

• Not applicable. Adjudication methods are typically used to resolve discrepancies in expert interpretation of diagnostic data for algorithm training/testing, which is not relevant here.

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 physical stylet, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool. MRMC studies evaluate the impact of AI on human reader performance, which is not relevant for this device.

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

• Not applicable. This is a physical device, not a standalone software algorithm.

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

• Not applicable in the context of an algorithm's diagnostic performance. For biocompatibility, the "ground truth" is provided by the results of standardized biological assays (cytotoxicity and hemolysis tests) and physical/material comparisons against predicate devices.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. This device does not involve a training set for an algorithm.

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

• Not applicable. This device does not involve a training set or ground truth establishment in the context of an algorithm.

Ask a specific question about this device