Search Results

The PAS Alcovisor® Satellite™ Breath Alcohol Analyzer is intended to measure alcohol in human breath. Measurements obtained by this device are used in the diagnosis of alcohol intoxication.

The PAS Alcovisor® Mars™ Breath Alcohol Analyzer is intended to measure alcohol in human breath. Measurements obtained by this device are used in the diagnosis of alcohol intoxication.

The PAS Alcovisor® Satellite™ Breath Alcohol Analyzer and the PAS Alcovisor® Mars™ Breath Alcohol Analyzer are breath alcohol test systems designed to sample a user's deep lung breath in order to test for the presence of alcohol. The sensor is an electrochemical fuel cell which will only respond to alcohol. After the user blows into the device using a disposable mouthpiece, for 3-4 seconds, a small sample of breath is drawn into the fuel cell by an automatic pump and a chemical reaction between the alcohol and fuel cell occurs. This reaction generates an electrical current which is directly related to the amount of alcohol in the sample. The current is then converted to a Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) level and displayed for the user. The relationship between alcohol in a person's deep lung breath and in their blood is well established using Henry's law, which gives a ratio of 2100:1.

The Satellite™ and Mars™ are handheld devices made from durable plastic with an internal circuit board. The Satellite™ uses an internal rechargeable battery and the Mars™ uses three AAA batteries.

The provided text describes the PAS Alcovisor® Satellite™ and Mars™ Breath Alcohol Analyzers. Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study information based on the provided document:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Note: The document explicitly states the "Accuracy" and "NHTSA (DOT)-Approval" as comparable features between the predicate and the new devices. While other features like sensor type, mouthpiece, power source, dimensions, construction, weight, warm-up time, measurement site, battery life, and intended user are listed for comparison, they are described as direct equivalences or minor technological differences, rather than distinct "acceptance criteria" with specific thresholds reported for the new device. The "Accuracy" is the most direct performance metric given an acceptance range and the device's reported performance within that range.

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

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated. The document mentions "consumer field evaluations" for verification and "tests conducted by the US Department of Transportation (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)) for approval as an Alcohol Screening Device." However, the exact number of participants or tests for these evaluations is not provided.
• Data Provenance: The tests were conducted by the US Department of Transportation (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)). The nature of the "consumer field evaluations" is not further detailed, so specific countries of origin beyond the US (for NHTSA) are unknown. The evaluations appear to be prospective as they were conducted to obtain approval for the devices.

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

• Number of Experts: Not specified.
• Qualifications of Experts: The ground truth was established by the US Department of Transportation (NHTSA). While the document doesn't detail the qualifications of specific individuals, NHTSA's role implies that the tests and their interpretation were conducted by qualified personnel experienced in alcohol breath testing device evaluation and regulatory standards.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Adjudication Method: Not explicitly described. The testing for NHTSA approval implies a standardized method for determining alcohol content, likely using a known standard or reference method (e.g., blood alcohol tests or calibrated alcohol solutions) that serves as the ground truth. There is no mention of a human expert consensus or multiple reader adjudication process for the test set results.

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

• No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This device is a standalone breath alcohol analyzer, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool that requires human interpretation. Therefore, the concept of human readers improving with or without AI assistance is not applicable.

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

• Yes, a standalone performance study was done. The device's performance was evaluated by the NHTSA for approval as an Alcohol Screening Device. This implies testing of the device itself (algorithm + hardware) to accurately measure alcohol content in human breath, without a human-in-the-loop interpretation process beyond operating the device.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• Ground Truth Type: The ground truth for evaluating the device's accuracy would have been based on known alcohol concentrations. This could involve:
  • Calibrated alcohol standards: Using solutions or simulators with precisely known alcohol concentrations.
  • Reference methods: Comparing breath readings to a validated, accurate blood alcohol concentration (BAC) measurement, which is considered the gold standard for alcohol intoxication.
  • The document implies the tests were conducted for "approval as an Alcohol Screening Device" by NHTSA, which follows strict protocols for establishing accurate alcohol levels.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not applicable. This device is a physical instrument with an electrochemical fuel cell sensor and embedded logic, not a machine learning or AI model that requires a "training set" in the conventional sense of AI development.

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

• Not applicable. As the device does not rely on a machine learning "training set," there is no ground truth established for such a set. The device's underlying principles are based on the chemistry of its sensor and established physiological relationships (Henry's law) rather than data-driven learning.

Ask a specific question about this device