Search Results

The Fresenius Optiflux® F250NR dialyzers are intended for patients with acute or chronic renal failure when conservative therapy is judged to be inadequate.

The Fresenius Optiflux® F250NR dialyzer is substantially equivalent in construction, design, materials, and intended use to the commercially available Baxter Xenium 210 and Asahi Rexeed 25S dialyzer.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for a medical device called the Fresenius Optiflux® F250NR Dialyzer. This type of regulatory submission is for demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than proving performance against specific acceptance criteria through a clinical study involving AI or human readers.

Therefore, many of the requested elements pertaining to AI studies, reader performance, ground truth, and training sets are not applicable to this document. The information focuses on device characteristics, intended use, and comparison to predicate devices, not on the performance of a diagnostic algorithm.

Here's an analysis based on the available information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document does not explicitly present a table of "acceptance criteria" in the sense of predefined performance metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, AUC) for an AI device. Instead, the "acceptance criteria" for the 510(k) submission are based on demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices in terms of construction, design, materials, and intended use. Performance is implicitly assessed through bench testing to ensure safety and effectiveness for its intended use, rather than clinical efficacy studies often found with novel diagnostic tools.

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

• This document describes a medical device (dialyzer), not an AI algorithm. Therefore, there is no "test set" in the context of an AI study.
• The safety and effectiveness assessment is based on device testing (bench testing usually for dialyzers) and comparison to predicate devices. Details of specific testing parameters and sample sizes for this testing are not provided in this 510(k) summary.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable in the context of clinical data for AI algorithm validation. The "data" involves engineering and performance characteristics of the physical dialyzer.

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

• Not Applicable. This is not an AI-assisted diagnostic device, so there is no ground truth established by experts for a test set in that sense. The "ground truth" for a dialyzer's performance would be established through engineering specifications, validated test methods (e.g., in vitro clearance and ultrafiltration tests), and regulatory standards.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

• Not Applicable. No expert adjudication process for image interpretation or diagnosis.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done:

• No. This is not an AI device. MRMC studies are used to evaluate human reader performance, often with and without AI assistance, for diagnostic tasks.

6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Was Done:

• No. This is not an AI algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

• For a dialyzer, the "ground truth" for its performance characteristics (e.g., solute clearance, ultrafiltration rate, blood compatibility) is established through in vitro performance testing against validated standards and specifications, typically under laboratory conditions. There is no pathology, outcomes data, or expert consensus used as ground truth in the context of diagnostic accuracy for this type of device.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

• Not Applicable. This is not an AI device, so there is no "training set."

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

• Not Applicable. There is no training set.

Ask a specific question about this device