Search Results

The NxStage Therapy System is indicated for treatment of renal failure or fluid overload using hemofiltration and/or ultrafiltration. All treatments must be administered by a health care provider, under physician prescription.

The NxStage Therapy System, consisting of hardware, software and a sterile disposable cartridge, is indicated for treatment of renal failure or fluid overload using hemofiltration and/or ultrafiltration. All treatments must be administered by a health care provider, under physician prescription.

This document is a 510(k) summary for the NxStage™ Therapy System, a hemofiltration system, submitted to the FDA. It declares the device's substantial equivalence to a previously cleared device (K012510) and does not provide specific acceptance criteria or an explicit study detailing performance metrics in the way a clinical trial report would.

Therefore, many of the requested elements about acceptance criteria, device performance, sample sizes, and ground truth cannot be directly extracted from this document as it focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence through design control and comparison to a predicate device, rather than presenting a performance study with detailed metrics.

Here's an attempt to answer the questions based solely on the provided text, indicating when information is not available:

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

   This document does not contain a table of acceptance criteria or specific performance metrics. It states: "Design validation testing has been performed to ensure that the modified device meets design specifications." and "Based on the device indications for use, comparison of descriptive and technological characteristics, and design control certification, the modified NxStage Therapy System has been shown to meet the minimum requirements that are considered acceptable for its intended use." However, the specific "design specifications" or "minimum requirements" are not detailed, nor are the quantitative results of the "design validation testing."

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

   Not provided. The document mentions "Design validation testing" but does not detail sample sizes, data provenance, or whether the study was retrospective or prospective.

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/Not provided. This submission is for a medical device (hemofiltration system), not an AI/diagnostic imaging device where expert ground truth is typically established in this manner. The validation described is related to engineering design specifications.

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

   Not applicable/Not provided. This concept is not relevant to the type of device validation presented in this 510(k) summary.

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. The device is a "Hemofiltration System" and does not involve human readers or AI assistance in the context of diagnostic interpretation.

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

   Not applicable. The device is a hemofiltration system, not an algorithm, and its performance evaluation would focus on its mechanical, fluid dynamics, and safety aspects, not "algorithm only" performance. The device is explicitly stated to require administration "by a health care provider, under physician prescription."

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

   Not provided, but likely related to established engineering and medical device performance standards for hemofiltration. The "ground truth" for this type of device would typically be defined by its ability to perform hemofiltration and ultrafiltration effectively and safely according to pre-defined engineering and clinical specifications (e.g., fluid removal rates, clearance rates, structural integrity, biocompatibility, safety features).

8. The sample size for the training set

   Not applicable/Not provided. This device is not an AI/machine learning model that requires a training set in the conventional sense.

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

   Not applicable. As described above, this device does not involve a "training set" for an AI model.

In summary, this 510(k) submission is a special 510(k) for a device modification, relying on design control certification and comparison to a predicate device to demonstrate substantial equivalence, rather than a de novo performance study with detailed acceptance criteria, sample sizes, and ground truth definitions typically found for diagnostic or AI-driven medical devices.

Ask a specific question about this device