Search Results

The OrthoGold 100 is intended for:

• Relief of minor muscle aches and pains
• · Temporary increase in local blood circulation
• · Activation of connective tissue

The OrthoGold 100™ is a pulsed acoustic wave device. It includes an electrically powered generator to generate transient compressed air that rapidly expands to create the acoustic waves, which in turn are propagated through a water-filled coupling membrane attached to the hand-held applicator. The hand-held applicator reflects the acoustic waves towards the treatment area through a silicone membrane and ultrasound transmission gel.

The provided FDA 510(k) summary for the OrthoGold 100 device does not describe a study involving an artificial intelligence (AI) component or its acceptance criteria.

Instead, this document is a premarket notification for a Class I therapeutic massager, which is a physical device (a pulsed acoustic wave device). The "acceptance criteria" and "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" in this context refer to the engineering and performance testing of the physical device to ensure it meets design specifications, safety standards, and is substantially equivalent to a predicate device.

Therefore, many of the specific questions you asked about AI-related acceptance criteria, test sets, ground truth establishment, expert adjudication, MRMC studies, and training sets are not applicable to the information provided in this document.

Here's an analysis based on the document, focusing on the engineering and performance testing described for a Class I medical device, and explaining why the AI-related questions are not relevant here:

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

The document does not present a formal table of acceptance criteria with corresponding performance results in the way one might see for an AI model's clinical endpoints. Instead, it describes various performance tests and compliance with standards as evidence of meeting design specifications and safety requirements.

Here's a summary of the performance claims:

• Max penetration depth: 25.4 mm at energy level 16
• Energy flow density: 0.00017 - 0.04403 mJ/mm2 at energy level 1-16
• Peak compressional acoustic pressure: 0.43 - 9.27 MPa at energy level 1-16. |
  | Probe Cover Testing & Transport Verification/Validation | "In addition, probe cover testing and transport verification and validation was also conducted." (Page 5) – No specific results detailed, but implied successful. |
  | Substantial Equivalence | "The performance testing demonstrated that the OrthoGold 100 is substantially equivalent to the predicate device." (Page 5) "The bench testing demonstrates that the performance characteristics of the OrthoGold 100 are equivalent to those of other legally marketed therapeutic massagers, and therefore supports a determination of Substantial Equivalence for the proposed indications for use." (Page 9) |
  | Clinical Data | "Clinical performance data is not relied upon to establish the substantial equivalence of the subject and predicate device." (Page 6) |

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

This document describes engineering and laboratory performance testing, not a clinical trial or AI model validation using patient data. Therefore, the concept of "sample size for the test set" (referring to patient data) and "data provenance" (country, retrospective/prospective) is not applicable. The "test set" would be the device itself and its components undergoing various mechanical, electrical, and physical tests.

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)

This is not applicable as the document describes physical device testing for safety and performance, not diagnostic AI. "Ground truth" here relates to physical measurements and engineering specifications, established by standard test methods and calibrated equipment, not by medical experts interpreting data for diagnostic purposes.

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

This is not applicable for the same reasons as above. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are used in clinical studies or AI model validation when multiple human readers assess data and their consensus forms the ground truth for comparison. This document describes physical device testing.

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

This is not applicable. An MRMC study is relevant for assessing the impact of a diagnostic AI tool on human clinician performance. The OrthoGold 100 is a therapeutic massager, not a diagnostic AI device, and the document explicitly states clinical data was not relied upon for substantial equivalence (Page 6).

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

This is not applicable. This question refers to the performance of a diagnostic algorithm without human interaction. The OrthoGold 100 is a physical therapeutic device.

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

The "ground truth" for the device's performance is based on engineering specifications, verified physical measurements (e.g., force, penetration depth, acoustic pressure), and compliance with recognized industry standards (e.g., IEC 60601-1, IEC 60601-1-2). These are objective measurements and adherence to established safety and performance benchmarks for therapeutic medical devices, not clinical outcomes or expert consensus for diagnostic interpretation.

8. The sample size for the training set

This is not applicable. The OrthoGold 100 is a physical device, not an AI model that requires a training set.

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

This is not applicable as there is no AI training set.

Ask a specific question about this device

The OrthoGold 100™ is indicated to provide acoustic pressure shockwaves in the treatment of superficial partial thickness second degree burns in adults (22 years and older). The OrthoGold 100 is indicated for use in conjunction with standard of care burn treatment(s).

The OrthoGold 100™ is a pulsed acoustic wave device. It includes an electrically powered generator to generate transient compressed air that rapidly expands to create the acoustic waves, which in turn are propagated through a water-filled coupling membrane attached to the hand-held applicator. The hand-held applicator reflects the acoustic waves towards the treatment area through a silicone membrane and ultrasound transmission gel.

The provided document describes the FDA 510(k) clearance for the OrthoGold 100 device, an extracorporeal shock wave device. The information details the device's indications for use, a comparison to a predicate device, and performance data including non-clinical, animal, and clinical studies.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them, based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are implicitly demonstrated through the clinical study's primary endpoint, which showed a statistically significant improvement in the time to epithelialization. The safety was also assessed by monitoring adverse events.

Ask a specific question about this device

The OrthoGold 100 is intended for the activation of connective tissue.

The OrthoGold 100™ is a pulsed acoustic wave device. It includes an electrically powered generator to generate transient compressed air that rapidly expands to create the acoustic waves, which in turn are propagated through a water-filled coupling membrane attached to the hand-held applicator. The hand-held applicator reflects the acoustic waves towards the treatment area through a silicone membrane and ultrasound transmission gel.

This document is a 510(k) summary for the OrthoGold 100™ therapeutic massager. It does not provide information specific to an AI/ML device, therefore, many of the typical acceptance criteria and study details for such devices are not applicable.

Here's the breakdown of the requested information based on the provided text:

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

The document does not specify quantitative acceptance criteria in the typical sense of a human-in-the-loop or standalone AI performance study (e.g., specific sensitivity, specificity, or AUC thresholds). Instead, the acceptance is based on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device through various performance tests.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance

Not applicable. This device is a therapeutic massager, not an AI/ML diagnostic tool that would typically use a "test set" of patient data for performance evaluation. The testing involved in-vitro performance measurements, electrical safety, and electromagnetic compatibility.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts

Not applicable. As this is not an AI/ML diagnostic device, there was no need for experts to establish ground truth on a test set of medical images or patient data.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

Not applicable. No test set requiring adjudication of ground truth was used.

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 is not an AI/ML assisted device for human readers.

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

Not applicable. This is a physical medical device (therapeutic massager), not a standalone algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used

For the in-vitro performance testing, the "ground truth" was established by objective measurements against known physical standards and comparison data from the predicate device. For example, measurements of applicator displacement, force, and penetration depth would have physical accuracy.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This product is a physical device, not an AI/ML model that requires a training set. The "training" for such a device would refer to its engineering, design, and manufacturing processes.

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

Not applicable. As above, this is not an AI/ML device.

Ask a specific question about this device