Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K962485
    Date Cleared
    1996-08-20

    (55 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    874.4680
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Why did this record match?
    Device Name :

    OLYMPUS FG SERIES OF RAT TOOTH GRASPING FORCEPS (ENT)

    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    The Olympus FG-6/7/8/9/42/47-1 grasping forceps are intended to be used to grasp tissue and/or retrieve foreign body, and excised tissue endoscopically.

    Device Description

    The Olympus FG-6/7/8/9/42/47-1 grasping forceps are designed for grasping tissue and/or retrieving foreign body, and excised tissue under endoscopic visualization. These forceps consist of a flexible shaft and a proximal control handle. Operation of the proximal control handle actuates the distal tip grasping jaws.

    AI/ML Overview

    This document is a 510(k) summary for the Olympus FG Grasping Forceps, submitted in 1996. It describes a medical device (grasping forceps) and its intended use.

    Based on the provided text, there is no information about acceptance criteria or a study proving device performance against such criteria in the context of AI/algorithm performance.

    Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information regarding:

    • A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance.
    • Sample size used for the test set and data provenance.
    • Number of experts used to establish ground truth and their qualifications.
    • Adjudication method for the test set.
    • Multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study and effect size.
    • Standalone (algorithm-only) performance.
    • Type of ground truth used.
    • Sample size for the training set.
    • How ground truth for the training set was established.

    The document describes a traditional medical device, not an AI or algorithm-based system. The approval process for such a device in 1996 would involve demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, focusing on material safety, design, and functional performance, rather than algorithm accuracy metrics.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1