Search Results

The PARI Vios is a tabletop, AC-powered air compressor intended to provide a source of compressed air for use with jet nebulizers. The PARI Vios is intended for adult and pediatric patients for use in hospital, clinic, or home environments.

The PARI Vios nebulizer compressor is a small, lightweight AC-powered air compressor intended to provide a source of compressed air for use with jet nebulizers. The device is non-sterile and prescriptionuse only.

The provided documentation describes the PARI Vios nebulizer compressor, but it does not contain information related to acceptance criteria for an AI/ML powered device or a study involving such a device.

Instead, it's a 510(k) summary for a medical device (a nebulizer compressor) that compares its performance to predicate devices. The "performance" mentioned refers to physical characteristics of the nebulizer compressor itself, not the performance of an algorithm or AI.

Therefore, I cannot provide answers to the requested categories (acceptance criteria, sample sizes, expert qualifications, adjudication, MRMC, standalone, ground truth, training set) as they are relevant to AI/ML device studies, which are not detailed in this submission.

Here's a breakdown of what is provided, as it relates to the general concept of device performance:

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

The document doesn't explicitly state "acceptance criteria" with numerical targets. Instead, it states that the PARI Vios's performance is "comparable to the predicate devices" for the following metrics:

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

This information is not provided. The document mentions "tested with various nebulizers" but does not specify sample sizes for these tests, or any details about the provenance of data.

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 information is not applicable/not provided. The device in question is a hardware compressor. "Ground truth" in the context of expert assessment for AI/ML is not relevant here. The performance metrics (TOR, MMD, etc.) are objective physical measurements.

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

This information is not applicable/not provided. Adjudication is typically used to resolve discrepancies in expert-derived ground truth, which is not the case for objective physical measurements.

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 information is not applicable/not provided. An MRMC study is relevant for AI-assisted diagnostic devices. This submission concerns a nebulizer compressor. The document explicitly states: "Clinical testing was not completed/is not required to show substantial equivalence."

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

This information is not applicable/not provided. This is not an algorithm-only device.

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

The "ground truth" for the performance metrics (TOR, MMD, Volume % <5 µm, Operating Pressure) are objective physical measurements derived from testing the device itself, likely using standardized laboratory procedures.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not applicable/not provided. There is no mention of a training set as this is not an AI/ML device.

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

This information is not applicable/not provided. There is no mention of a training set or ground truth establishment for such a set.

Ask a specific question about this device