Search Results

The Optima Coil System is intended for the endovascular embolization of intracranial aneurysms and other neurovascular abnormalities such as arteriovenous malformations and arteriovenous fistulae. The Optima Coil System is also intended for vascular occlusion of blood vessels within the neurovascular system to permanently obstruct blood flow to an aneurysm or other vascular malformation and for arterial and venous embolizations in the peripheral vasculature.

The Optima Coil System is a series of specialized coils that are inserted into the vasculature under angiographic visualization to embolize intracranial aneurysms and other vascular anomalies. The system consists of an embolization coil implant comprised of platinum and tungsten, affixed to a delivery pusher to facilitate insertion into the hub of a microcatheter. The system is available in various shapes, lengths, and sizes. The devices are to be placed into aneurysms to create blood stasis, reducing flow into the aneurysm and thrombosing the aneurysm. Upon positioning coils into the aneurysm, the coils are detached from the delivery pusher in a serial manner until the aneurysm is occluded.

Ask a specific question about this device

The OptiLUV device is a handheld device intended to emit energy in the RF spectrum to provide topical heating for the purpose of elevating facial tissue temperature for a temporary relief of minor pain and the temporary increase in local blood circulation.

The OptiLUV device is a non-invasive, non-ablative device that delivers RF energy into the skin to generate heat through electrical impedance in the dermis. The device consists of the following components and accessories: the OptiLUV device, the USB Charging Cord, and the OptiLUV Preparation Balm.

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

Optina-4C™ is a non-contact, high resolution digital imaging device which is suitable for photographing, displaying, storing, and transferring images of the retina. The Optina-4C is indicated for the viewing of the posterior segment of the eye at multiple wavelengths (colors) under mydriatic conditions.

Images are intended to aid clinicians in the detection, diagnosis, and management of ocular health and disease.

The Optina-4C™ (MHRC-C1N) is a non-contact mydriatic retinal camera (also called a fundus camera) designed to provide eye care professionals with a series of images of the retina obtained at specific wavelengths (colors). The Optina-4C processes images using algorithms that take advantage of the spectral information to produce 2D en face images of the retina as an aid to clinicians in the diagnosis of age-related macular degeneration (AMD), retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) disruptions and lesions, retinopathies, and other retinal diseases.

Utilizing Hyperspectral Imaging (HSI) technology, the Optina-4C captures a series of 92 high-resolution images at precise 5 nm wavelength increments across the visible and near-infrared (NIR) spectrum on a ~31° field-of-view. Image acquisition takes under two seconds, with only 0.92 seconds of light exposure time. During this time, the camera scans through all wavelengths from 905 to 450 nm, spending 10 milliseconds per 5 nm step.

The Optina-4C processes the images to provide spectrally calibrated, normalized, and registered images in a structured Hyperspectral Cube format for scroll-through viewing. The spectral resolution supports visualization and differentiation of drusenoid deposit types, as well as high contrast viewing of the retinal chromophores hemoglobin, melanin, and carotenoids (combination of lutein and zeaxanthin). Images can be viewed, stored or transferred in their native .h5 format, or as DICOM or PNG formats. Optina-4C images offer sharp, vivid, high-contrast coronal views of the posterior segment of the eye for clinical assessment and evaluation by eye care professionals.

The HSI NormReg Cube is a processed data set of 91 hyperspectral images that have undergone intensity normalization and spatial registration. Normalization corrects for the non-uniform illumination profile of the imaging system and the spectral sensitivity of the camera, while registration compensates for intra-scan eye movement to ensure consistent alignment across frames. The result is a hyperspectral image cube with enhanced spatial and spectral fidelity, referred to as the HIS-NormReg Cube.

Ask a specific question about this device

OptiVu™ Shoulder is intended for use during stereotaxic surgery to aid the surgeon in locating anatomical structures (humerus and scapula), humerus resection, and aligning the endoprosthesis with the anatomical structures, provided that the required anatomical landmarks can be identified on the patient's preoperative CT scan.

OptiVu™ Shoulder utilizes pre-operative planning files provided by the Zimmer CAS Signature ONE™ System. OptiVu™ Shoulder is compatible with any humeral implants that are supported by the Signature ONE™ System.

OptiVu™ Shoulder is specifically indicated for total shoulder arthroplasty using the Zimmer Biomet Alliance® Glenoid system or reverse shoulder arthroplasty using the Comprehensive® Reverse Shoulder system, to aid the surgeon in locating anatomical structures (humerus and scapula), humerus resection, and aligning the glenoid component with the anatomical structures.

OptiVu Shoulder includes an augmented reality (AR) head-mounted display (HMD) (OptiVu Tilt with HoloLens 2) and trackers to register and optically track anatomical landmarks and surgical instruments in real-time during the procedure. The HMD should not be relied upon solely and should always be used in conjunction with traditional methods.

OptiVu Shoulder is a stereotaxic surgical navigation system designed to aid surgeons in locating anatomical structures and aligning the endoprosthesis in total or reverse shoulder arthroplasty procedures. The system includes an augmented reality (AR) head-mounted display (HMD) (OptiVu Tilt with HoloLens 2) and mixed reality trackers to register and optically track anatomical landmarks and surgical instruments in real-time during the procedure.

The OptiVu Shoulder system is intended to be used specifically with the Zimmer Biomet Alliance® Glenoid or Comprehensive® Reverse Shoulder system for total or reverse shoulder arthroplasty, respectively.

The OptiVu Shoulder system also utilizes pre-operative planning files provided by the Zimmer CAS Signature ONE™ System.

The intended users of the system are surgeons who are trained in performing shoulder arthroplasty procedures.

This 510(k) clearance letter pertains to a Special 510(k) submission for the OptiVu™ Shoulder system. A Special 510(k) is used when changes to a previously cleared device do not alter its fundamental scientific technology or indications for use, but rather involve specific modifications. In this case, the modifications are explicitly stated to be updates to packaging parameters and the site for contract sterilization, not changes to the software, functionality, or performance of the navigation system itself.

Therefore, the provided document does not contain the information requested about the acceptance criteria and study proving the device meets those criteria for the AI/software performance, as this type of study would have been part of the original 510(k) clearance for OptiVu™ Shoulder (K250108), not this Special 510(k) (K252170). The validation testing performed for this submission is limited to sterilization efficacy and packaging safety.

This document explicitly states:

• "The purpose of this Special 510(k) submission is to update both the packaging parameters for the instruments and the site for contract sterilization."
• "There are no differences in technological characteristics that raise questions of safety and efficacy."
• "With the updated packaging and sterilization parameters presented in this submission, there are no technological or design changes in the subcomponents of the OptiVu Shoulder system instruments themselves."
• "Validation testing was conducted according to written protocols with acceptance criteria that were based on established standards. This submission includes or references the following tests in support of a substantial equivalence determination:
  • Sterilization validation testing to confirm that there is no impact to the sterilization efficacy of the system
  • Packaging validation to confirm that the packaging of OptiVu Shoulder system is safe and effective"

Conclusion based on the provided document:

The provided 510(k) clearance letter for K252170 (OptiVu™ Shoulder) is a Special 510(k), which addresses changes only to the packaging and sterilization of the device, not its core functionality or software performance. As such, the document does not contain any information about acceptance criteria or performance studies related to the artificial intelligence/software accuracy, clinical effectiveness, human reader improvement with AI assistance, or the establishment of ground truth for such studies. This type of information would have been part of the original 510(k) submission (K250108) for the device's fundamental technology.

Therefore, I cannot populate the requested table or answer the specific questions about AI/software performance, ground truth, and study parameters based solely on the provided text.

Ask a specific question about this device

OptiVu Shoulder is intended for use during stereotaxic surgery to aid the surgeon in locating anatomical structures (humerus and scapula), humerus resection, and aligning the endoprosthesis with the anatomical structures, provided that the required anatomical landmarks can be identified on the patient's preoperative CT scan.

OptiVu Shoulder utilizes pre-operative planning files provided by the Zimmer CAS Signature ONE™ System. OptiVu Shoulder is compatible with any humeral implants that are supported by the Signature ONE™ System.

OptiVu Shoulder is specifically indicated for total shoulder arthroplasty using the Zimmer Biomet Alliance® Glenoid system or reverse shoulder arthroplasty using the Comprehensive® Reverse Shoulder system, to aid the surgeon in locating anatomical structures (humerus and scapula), humerus resection, and aligning the glenoid component with the anatomical structures.

OptiVu Shoulder includes an augmented reality (AR) head-mounted display (HMD) (OptiVu Tilt with HoloLens 2) and trackers to register and optically track anatomical landmarks and surgical instruments in real-time during the procedure. The HMD should not be relied upon solely and should always be used in conjunction with traditional methods.

OptiVu Shoulder is a stereotaxic surgical navigation system designed to aid surgeons in locating anatomical structures and aligning the endoprosthesis in total or reverse shoulder arthroplasty procedures. The system includes an augmented reality (AR) head-mounted display (HMD) (OptiVu Tilt with HoloLens 2) and mixed reality trackers to register and optically track anatomical landmarks and surgical instruments in real-time during the procedure.

The OptiVu Shoulder system is intended to be used specifically with the Zimmer Biomet Alliance® Glenoid or Comprehensive® Reverse Shoulder system for total or reverse shoulder arthroplasty, respectively.

The OptiVu Shoulder system also utilizes pre-operative planning files provided by the Zimmer CAS Signature ONE™ System.

The intended users of the system are surgeons who are trained in performing shoulder arthroplasty procedures.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter for OptiVu™ Shoulder describes the device and its intended use, but it does not contain the detailed information necessary to fully answer your request regarding acceptance criteria and the specific study that proves the device meets those criteria.

The document states that non-clinical testing was conducted to demonstrate safety and effectiveness, including "Performance tests to ensure the performance of the implemented features and verify related design inputs" and "Validation lab to validate that the OptiVu Shoulder system is safe and effective and performance of the system is acceptable under full simulated use on cadaveric specimens." However, the specific acceptance criteria values and the quantitative results of these tests are not provided in this public clearance letter. This type of detailed performance data is typically found within the full 510(k) submission, which is a confidential document.

Therefore, I cannot populate the table or provide specific values for most of your questions. I can only infer what kind of studies would have been conducted based on the mention of "Validation lab" with "cadaveric specimens" and "Performance tests."

Here's what I can extract and infer from the provided text, along with clear indications of what information is missing:

While the complete details of the acceptance criteria and the specific study proving the device meets them are not fully contained within the provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter, the document does refer to non-clinical testing that was conducted to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

The clearance letter mentions:

• "Performance tests to ensure the performance of the implemented features and verify related design inputs"
• "Validation lab to validate that the OptiVu Shoulder system is safe and effective and performance of the system is acceptable under full simulated use on cadaveric specimens"

Based on the nature of a stereotaxic surgical navigation system for shoulder arthroplasty, the acceptance criteria would typically revolve around the accuracy and precision of anatomical structure localization, humerus resection, and endoprosthesis alignment. The "Validation lab" study on cadaveric specimens strongly suggests a performance study was conducted to quantify these aspects.

However, the specific numerical acceptance criteria (e.g., target accuracy in mm and degrees) and the quantitative results (reported device performance) are not provided in this public document.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Note: The specific numerical acceptance criteria and reported performance values are not present in the provided document. The table below represents typical acceptance criteria for such a device, and the "Reported Device Performance" column cannot be filled with concrete data from this document.

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

• Test Set Sample Size: Not specified in the provided document. The document mentions "full simulated use on cadaveric specimens," implying a test set that included multiple cadaveric specimens, but the exact number is missing.
• Data Provenance: The document explicitly states "cadaveric specimens." The geographic origin (country) is not specified. The study was likely prospective as it involved simulated use of the device for testing purposes.

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

• Number of Experts: Not specified in the provided document.
• Qualifications of Experts: Not specified in the provided document. For a device used in surgical navigation, these would typically be experienced orthopedic surgeons familiar with shoulder arthroplasty.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Adjudication Method: Not specified in the provided document. Given the nature of a cadaveric study for surgical navigation accuracy, adjudication might refer to the method used to establish the "true" surgical plan or the "true" anatomical alignment against which the device performance is measured (e.g., independent measurements by a metrology expert, or consensus among multiple surgeons on the optimal plan).

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

• MRMC Study: No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was NOT mentioned or described in the provided document. This type of study typically assesses the impact of an AI algorithm on human reader performance (e.g., radiologists interpreting images). OptiVu™ Shoulder is a surgical navigation system with an Augmented Reality (AR) HMD for real-time guidance, not primarily an image interpretation AI tool. Its effectiveness study would focus on its guidance accuracy during simulated surgery, rather than assisting human readers in diagnostic interpretation.
• Effect Size of Human Reader Improvement: Not applicable, as an MRMC study was not described.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance

• Standalone Performance: The document describes "Performance tests" and "Validation lab" studies. While the results are not quantified, these studies would inherently evaluate the "standalone" or "algorithm-only" performance of the navigation system (e.g., its accuracy in tracking, registration, and guidance output) in a controlled environment without active human intervention beyond operating the system as intended. The "HMD should not be relied upon solely and should always be used in conjunction with traditional methods" indicates that the device is intended for human-in-the-loop use, but its core performance metrics (accuracy of localization, resection, alignment) would be evaluated in a standalone manner.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• Type of Ground Truth: The document explicitly states "full simulated use on cadaveric specimens." Therefore, the ground truth would likely be established through:
  • Pre-operative CT scan planning: The "true" surgical plan (e.g., desired resection angles, implant position) is derived from the pre-operative CT scan using the Zimmer CAS Signature ONE™ System.
  • Post-hoc metrology/physical measurements: After using the OptiVu™ Shoulder system on the cadaver, the actual resections and implant placements would be measured using highly accurate metrology tools (e.g., CMM, industrial CT scanning) and compared against the planned values derived from the pre-operative CT. This comparison would quantify the accuracy of the device's guidance.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• Training Set Sample Size: Not specified in the provided document. The 510(k) clearance process primarily focuses on the safety and effectiveness of the final device, including its performance characteristics, rather than the details of the training data used for its development (unless it's a specific AI/ML medical device where the training data directly impacts performance).

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

• Training Set Ground Truth Establishment: Not specified in the provided document. As mentioned above, the details of the training process and data are typically not disclosed in the public 510(k) clearance letter.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Optimas MAX System with the Diolaze XL MAX is intended for hair removal and permanent hair reduction defined as the stable, long-term reduction in hair counts at 6, 9, or 12 months following a treatment regime. The Fusion Light and the Fusion Dark are intended for hair removal.

The Optimas MAX System with the VasculazeMAX is intended for the treatment of vascular lesions, including angiomas, hemangiomas, telangiectasia, port wine stains, leg veins and other benign vascular lesions.

The Optimas MAX System with the Lumecca Peak Applicators are indicated for use for the following treatments:

• The treatment of benign pigmented epidermal lesions, including dyschromia, hyperpigmentation, melasma, ephelides (freckles);
• The treatment of benign cutaneous vascular lesions, including port wine stains, facial, truncal and leg telangiectasias, rosacea, erythema of rosacea, angiomas and spider angiomas, poikiloderma of Civatte, superficial leg veins and venous malformations.

The Optimas MAX System with the Plus and Forma Handpieces are indicated for the temporary relief of minor muscle aches and pain, temporary relief of muscle spasm, and temporary improvement of local blood circulation

The Optimas MAX System with the he Morpheus8 Applicators is intended for use in dermatologic procedures where coagulation/contraction of soft tissue or hemostasis is needed. At higher energy levels greater than 62 mJ/pin, the use of the Morpheus8 Applicator is limited to Skin Types I-IV.

The Optimas MAX system is a computerized, versatile system that generates Laser, IPL, and RF energies for the treatment of several clinical indications. The device utilizes different applicators to achieve its mode of operation in accordance with the selected technology and clinical indication. The device system operates when any of the applicators are connected and enables individual adjustment of treatment parameters. The water-cooling system provides cooling for laser and IPL applicators and thermoelectric coolers (TECs). The cooling system includes a radiator, water pump, fan, water reservoir, deionizer, water filter, tissue contact temperature sensor, and water flow sensor.

The system is compatible with the following applicators:

• DIOLAZE XL 810, 810/1064 and 755/810 (previously cleared as DIOLAZE XL)
• LUMECCA 515 PEAK and LUMECCA 580 PEAK (previously cleared as LUMECCA)
• VASCULAZE 1064 (previously cleared as Vasculaze)
• FORMA (previously cleared as Forma (Plus))
• PLUS (previously cleared as Plus/Plus)
• MORPHEUS8
• MORPHEUS8 DEEP (previously cleared in K231790 as MORPHEUS8 Body)

The provided text describes the FDA 510(k) clearance for the Optimas MAX System, comparing it to predicate devices. However, it does not contain information about acceptance criteria or specific study details proving the device meets those criteria, particularly regarding an AI component or machine learning performance.

The document focuses on the substantial equivalence of the hardware and general system functionality, including:

• Indications for Use: Listing the intended applications of the system's various applicators (hair removal, vascular lesions, pigmented lesions, muscle aches/pains, soft tissue coagulation/hemostasis).
• Technological Characteristics: Describing the system as a computerized device generating Laser, IPL, and RF energies, with a new industrial design and an upgraded operating system (Linux from Windows CE). It explicitly states that "The specifications for the critical components of the system remain unchanged," and "The system components, handpiece connectors, and the operating parameters of each handpiece remains unchanged."
• Non-Clinical and/or Clinical Tests Summary: Mentions "software validation testing to demonstrate that the system's new Burst and Scale Modes for the Morpheus8 handpieces function as expected" and new electrical testing against various IEC standards.

Therefore, based solely on the provided text, I cannot describe acceptance criteria and a study proving the device meets them in the context of AI or machine learning performance, as that information is not present. The clearance process described is typical for a hardware device with minor software updates and cosmetic changes, relying on substantial equivalence to previously cleared devices.

To answer your request, if an AI/ML component was implicitly part of "software validation testing" or "Burst and Scale Modes," the document does not provide the specifics you're asking for.

If this were an AI/ML device, the FDA clearance would typically include sections detailing:

• Performance Metrics: Sensitivity, specificity, AUC, etc.
• Dataset Details: Size, provenance, diversity.
• Ground Truth: How it was established (e.g., expert consensus, pathology).
• Reader Study: If human-in-the-loop performance was evaluated.

Since none of that information is in the provided text, I must state that the document does not contain the details to fulfill your request.

Ask a specific question about this device

OPT94X Model:
The F&P Optiflow+ is a nasal cannula patient interface for use with specified respiratory gas humidifiers to treat spontaneously breathing pediatric (3 years and older) to adult patients who would benefit from receiving high flow warmed and humidified respiratory gases to the upper airway.

This device is designed to be used in a hospital, sub-acute facility or long-term care facility by appropriately qualified healthcare professionals.

MYOPT9X Model:
The F&P Optiflow+ is a nasal cannula patient interface for use with specified respiratory gas humidifiers to treat spontaneously breathing pediatric (3 years and older) to adult patients who would benefit from receiving high flow warmed and and humidified respiratory gases to the upper airway.

This device is designed to be used in a long-term care facility by appropriately qualified healthcare professionals, or in the home by lay users operating the device as prescribed by a healthcare professional.

The F&P Optiflow+ Nasal Cannula range is a nasal cannula interface for use with a respiratory gas humidifier and flow generator to deliver Nasal High Flow (NHF) therapy.

The F&P Optiflow+ Nasal Cannula range is a prescription-only device, provided in a non-sterile state and intended to be used in a hospital, sub-acute facility, or long-term (managed) care facility by appropriately qualified healthcare professionals, or in the home by lay users operating the device as prescribed by a healthcare professional. The device is single patient use only for up to 14 days in the hospital and up to 30 days in the home/long-term care facilities.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter and summary for the F&P Optiflow+ Nasal Cannula Range does not contain specific acceptance criteria or an analytical study proving the device meets those criteria.

This submission is for a labeling change only. The document explicitly states:

• "The modification in scope of this 510(k) submission is to change the labeling of the subject device only, specifically to the Indications for Use statement."
• "The subject device's technological characteristics, material composition, and intended use remain identical to those of the predicate device."
• "No new performance or biocompatibility testing was conducted on the subject device since the device design is identical to the predicate device."

Therefore, the information requested regarding acceptance criteria, reported performance, sample sizes, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, and ground truth for training/test sets cannot be extracted from this document because such studies were not conducted for this specific 510(k) submission.

The clearance is based on the device being substantially equivalent to a previously cleared device (F&P Optiflow+ Nasal Cannula range, K162553), with the only change being an updated Indications for Use statement to be more defined and aligned with current labeling requirements. The original predicate device (K162553) would have had performance data supporting its clearance, but that data is not detailed in this particular document.

Summary based on the provided document:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance: Not provided in the document as no new performance testing was conducted. The document states the device's characteristics and performance are identical to the predicate device.
2. Sample Size for Test Set and Data Provenance: Not applicable, as no new performance testing was conducted.
3. Number of Experts and Qualifications: Not applicable, as no new clinical study requiring expert review was conducted.
4. Adjudication Method: Not applicable.
5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study: Not applicable, as no new clinical study was conducted.
6. Standalone Performance (Algorithm only): Not applicable, as this is a medical device (nasal cannula), not an AI/algorithm-based device.
7. Type of Ground Truth Used: Not applicable, as no new performance testing was conducted.
8. Sample Size for Training Set: Not applicable.
9. How Ground Truth for Training Set Established: Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

The OptiMap System is used to analyze electrogram (EGM) signals and display results in a visual format for evaluation by a physician in order to assist in the diagnosis of complex cardiac arrhythmias.

The OptiMap™ System is intended to be used during electrophysiology procedures on patients for whom an electrophysiology procedure has been prescribed and only by qualified medical professionals who are trained in electrophysiology.

The OptiMap™ System is an electrophysiology mapping system for assisting in the diagnosis of complex cardiac arrhythmias. The system consists of several hardware elements including an Amplifier, Cart, Monitor, and Workstation that contains proprietary mapping software. Signals from a 64-electrode mapping basket catheter are transmitted to the Workstation by the Amplifier, processed by the mapping software, and the results are displayed on the Monitor.

The OptiMap System utilizes proprietary algorithms to process intra-cardiac electrogram (EGM) signals from a 64-electrode unipolar mapping basket catheter. The software transforms the time domain waveform information from the electrodes into space domain information which calculates the Electrographic Flow™ (EGF™) vectors for Atrial Fibrillation. The system also has algorithms that display action potential wavefront propagation or Activation Cycle Path (ACP). The ACP maps are a reconstruction of the activation wavefront propagation and may be used to visualize organized atrial arrhythmias.

The software output includes static and dynamic EGF maps that graphically depict the temporal activity and location of sources of EGF with respect to the catheter electrodes. The software displays active sources of flow and passive flow phenomena, detects spatial and temporal stability of sources of flow and detects the prevalence of sources of flow. In addition, the software output includes ACP maps displaying isochrones and a wavefront animation for each cycle.

The provided text is a 510(k) Clearance Letter and a 510(k) Summary for the OptiMap™ System. While it details the device, its intended use, and substantial equivalence to a predicate, it does not contain the specific performance study results, acceptance criteria, or details regarding the methodologies of testing (e.g., sample sizes, ground truth establishment, expert qualifications, MRMC studies).

The relevant section, "VII. Summary of Non-Clinical Performance Testing," states:

"Software verification and validation testing was completed on the subject device demonstrating that the OptiMap System with Version 1.3 Software (including ACP functionality) successfully performed at the unit, integration and system levels. All open issues from the verification and validation activities have been resolved or documented as unresolved anomalies. The OptiMap System met the acceptance criteria listed in the test protocols, performs as designed, and is suitable for its intended use."

This statement confirms that testing was performed and acceptance criteria were met, but it does not provide the specific criteria or the quantitative results of these tests. Therefore, I cannot populate the requested tables and information based solely on the provided text.

To answer your request, the necessary information (specific performance metrics, acceptance thresholds, sample sizes, ground truth details, etc.) would typically be found in the actual validation study report, which is not part of this 510(k) clearance letter or summary.

If such a document were available, the information would likely be organized as follows:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance Study

Since the provided text does not contain the specific performance study details, the following tables and sections are illustrative, showing what information would be required to fulfill the request. This information was not found in the provided 510(k) document.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

2. Sample Size and Data Provenance

• Test Set Sample Size: (Not provided in the document. Would typically specify number of patient cases, EGM recordings, or arrhythmias analyzed.)
• Data Provenance: (Not provided in the document. Would specify country of origin, if retrospective or prospective data collection, and if multi-center.)

3. Number and Qualifications of Experts for Ground Truth

• Number of Experts: (Not provided in the document. Would specify the count of experts.)
• Qualifications of Experts: (Not provided in the document. Would specify their medical specialization, board certifications, and years of experience, e.g., "3 Board-Certified Electrophysiologists, each with >10 years of experience in cardiac arrhythmia diagnosis and treatment.")

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Adjudication Method: (Not provided in the document. Common methods include:
  • 2+1: Two experts review independently, and a third adjudicates disagreements.
  • 3+1: Three experts review independently, and a fourth adjudicates if necessary, or majority agreement is used.
  • Consensus: All experts discuss and reach a consensus.
  • None: A single expert's reading is considered ground truth, or adjudicated by a pre-defined process.)

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

• MRMC Study Conducted?: (Not provided in the document. Typically stated if human-in-the-loop performance with and without AI assistance was evaluated.)
• Effect Size (if applicable): (Not provided in the document. Would quantify the improvement in human reader performance, e.g., "Radiologists' diagnostic accuracy improved by X% (from Y% to Z%) when using OptiMap™ System assistance compared to without assistance.")

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance Study

• Standalone Performance Study Conducted?: Yes, the summary for "Software verification and validation" implies that the system's performance was evaluated independently, as it describes the system successfully performing at unit, integration, and system levels. However, the specific metrics and results are not detailed.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• Type of Ground Truth: (Not provided in the document. For cardiac arrhythmia diagnosis, this could be:
  • Expert Consensus: Agreement among multiple expert electrophysiologists based on clinical data.
  • Electrogram Analysis: Detailed analysis of raw EGM signals by experts, potentially correlated with clinical outcomes.
  • Clinical Outcomes Data: Correlation with patient outcomes (e.g., successful ablation, recurrence of arrhythmia).
  • Pathology/Histology: Less common for electrophysiology mapping, but relevant for some cardiac conditions.)

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• Training Set Sample Size: (Not provided in the document. This is distinct from the test set and crucial for machine learning model development.)

9. How Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

• Training Set Ground Truth Establishment: (Not provided in the document. Similar methods to the test set ground truth would apply, but often with a larger scale and potentially more automated or semi-automated labeling steps initially, followed by expert review.)

Ask a specific question about this device

Optilite® Freelite Mx Kappa Free Kit:
The Optilite Freelite Mx Kappa Free Kit is intended for the quantitative in vitro measurement of Kappa free light chains in serum and urine using the Binding Site Optilite analyser. Measurement of free light chains in serum and urine aids in the diagnosis and monitoring of multiple myeloma, lymphocytic neoplasms, Waldenström's macroglobulinaemia, AL amyloidosis, light chain deposition disease and connective tissue diseases such as systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE); and in serum aids in the evaluation of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS). Results of the free light chain measurements should always be interpreted in conjunction with other laboratory and clinical findings.

Optilite® Freelite Mx Lambda Free Kit:
The Optilite Freelite Mx Lambda Free Kit is intended for the quantitative in vitro measurement of Lambda free light chains in serum and urine using the Binding Site Optilite analyser. Measurement of free light chains in serum and urine aids in the diagnosis and monitoring of multiple myeloma, lymphocytic neoplasms, Waldenström's macroglobulinaemia, AL amyloidosis, light chain deposition disease and connective tissue diseases such as systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE); and in serum aids in the evaluation of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS). Results of the free light chain measurements should always be interpreted in conjunction with other laboratory and clinical findings.

The determination of soluble antigen concentration by turbidimetric methods involves the reaction with specific antiserum to form insoluble complexes. When light is passed through the suspension formed a portion of the light is transmitted and focused onto a photodiode by an optical lens system. The amount of transmitted light is indirectly proportional to the specific protein concentration in the test sample. Concentrations are automatically calculated by reference to a calibration curve stored within the instrument.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter and its associated 510(k) Summary pertains to the Optilite Freelite Mx Kappa Free Kit and Optilite Freelite Mx Lambda Free Kit. The submission sought to add a claim for the evaluation of Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance (MGUS) to the intended use statement (in serum).

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets these criteria, based on the provided document:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The submission does not explicitly list acceptance criteria in terms of pre-defined numerical thresholds for sensitivity, specificity, or positive/negative rates that were required to be met for the MGUS claim. Instead, it describes clinical performance studies designed to demonstrate the utility of the device for MGUS evaluation. The conclusion states that "The studies generated successful results where all pre-defined acceptance criteria were met," implying these criteria were internal to the manufacturer's study design and not explicitly detailed in the public document as numerical targets.

However, we can infer the de facto "reported device performance" based on the results of Study 1 and Study 2.

Inferred Performance/Results:

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

• Study 1 (Evaluation of MGUS and disease controls at single time points):

  • MGUS Test Set: 229 samples from patients with clinically confirmed MGUS.
  • Disease Control Test Set (non-MGUS): 136 samples from patients with polyclonal hypergammaglobulinemia.
  • Provenance: Retrospective study. The country of origin is not explicitly stated, but the submitter (The Binding Site Ltd) is based in the United Kingdom.

• Study 2 (Evaluation of MGUS progression):

  • Total Patients: 49 MGUS patients.
    • Stable MGUS Cohort: 45 patients.
    • Progressive MGUS Cohort: 4 patients (who progressed from MGUS to MM).
  • Total Samples: 185 samples (up to 4 individual draws for stable, up to 6 for progressive).
  • Provenance: Retrospective study. Country of origin not explicitly stated.

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

• The document states that the clinical diagnostic criteria for MGUS and disease controls were "confirmed with each site" and "as practiced clinically."
• For the progressive MGUS study, changes were defined as clinical progression from MGUS to MM.
• No specific number of experts or their qualifications (e.g., "Radiologist with 10 years of experience") are mentioned in the provided text. The ground truth relies on "clinical diagnosis" or "clinical truth," which typically implies the consensus opinion of treating clinicians or established diagnostic criteria within the medical community (e.g., IMWG guidelines for MGUS/MM).

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• The document does not describe any specific adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) for establishing the clinical ground truth. It relies on "clinical diagnosis" or "clinical truth" established by the sites providing the samples.

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

• No MRMC study was done. This device is an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) kit for quantitative measurement of biomarkers, not an image-based AI device that would typically involve human readers interpreting images. The closest analog would be a clinical utility study comparing outcomes with and without the FLC test, but that is beyond the scope of a 510(k) for an IVD kit unless explicitly requested for a novel claim.

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

• This is a standalone study. The Optilite Freelite Mx Kappa and Lambda Free Kits are laboratory assays. The "performance data" presented (positive rates, negative rates, tracking of progression) are derived solely from the measurements made by the device (Optilite Analyser) on patient samples, compared against established clinical diagnoses (ground truth). There is no "human-in-the-loop" aspect to the device's direct measurement and result generation. The results are then interpreted by clinicians in conjunction with other findings, but the device's output itself is standalone.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• The ground truth used was clinical diagnosis/clinical truth.
  • For Study 1: "clinically confirmed MGUS" and "polyclonal hypergammaglobulinemia confirmed by study testing... with supporting clinical information." The diagnostic criteria for MGUS were stated to align with or be similar to those outlined by the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG).
  • For Study 2: "clinically determined stable or progressive status" for MGUS patients, with progression defined as conversion from MGUS to Multiple Myeloma (MM) based on clinical diagnosis. FLC results criteria adapted from IMWG guidelines were used for evaluation of the device's performance, but the patient's status (stable/progressive) was the "clinical diagnosis."

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• The document states, "The devices in this submission have not materially changed since originally cleared under K150658." This implies that the core analytical performance studies (e.g., analytical measuring range, precision, accuracy) were previously established and referenced from prior 510(k) submissions (K173732 and K150658).
• For the new MGUS claim, the performance data presented are for clinical validation on the test sets described in points 1 and 2.
• The document does not describe a distinct "training set" for the clinical claim of MGUS evaluation, nor is it typical for IVD kits to have a "training set" in the machine learning sense for their clinical claims. The performance studies demonstrate the device's ability to measure FLCs in patient populations relevant to MGUS, and these measures are compared against clinical ground truth. The assay itself (reagents, instrument) would have been "trained" (i.e., optimized and validated analytically) during its initial development and previous clearances.

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

• As a "training set" for the clinical claim is not explicitly mentioned or relevant for this type of IVD 510(k), this question is not directly applicable. For the device itself, analytical validation and calibration would have established its operational parameters, but this isn't "ground truth" in the diagnostic performance sense. The clinical ground truth for the test sets was derived from established clinical diagnoses and diagnostic criteria.

Ask a specific question about this device