Search Results

The ProLite / Plasmalite MPX Pulsed Light System is indicated to permanently reduce unwanted hair.
The ProLite / Plasmalite MPX is intended to be used for the permanent reduction of unwanted hair.

The ProLite / PlasmaliteMPX Pulsed Light System delivers pulsed light at a wavelength beginning at a wavelength of 600 nm. The device consists of three interconnected sections: The cabinet which houses the internal cooling system, power supply and microcontroller, the umbilical to the handpiece, and the handpiece, which houses the waveguide

Below is an analysis of the provided text regarding the ProLite / Plasmalite MPX Pulsed Light System:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided document (510(K) Summary for ProLite / Plasmalite MPX Pulsed Light System) focuses on demonstrating "substantial equivalence" to a predicate device rather than setting explicit, quantifiable "acceptance criteria" in the typical sense of a clinical trial's primary endpoint. The primary outcome discussed relates to the intended use of the device, which is "to permanently reduce unwanted hair."

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

• Sample Size: The document does not specify the exact number of subjects in the clinical study. It generically states "Clinical studies were conducted" and "Observation in the clinical study were recorded prior to treatment and at 3-6 months after treatment."
• Data Provenance: Not specified in the provided text (e.g., country of origin, retrospective or prospective).

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

The document does not provide information on the number or qualifications of experts used to establish a ground truth for the test set. The efficacy is described as being observed (e.g., reduction of hair, absence of scarring), but the method of assessment for this observation (e.g., expert clinical assessment, objective measurement) is not detailed.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not describe any specific adjudication method 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

This section is not applicable. The device is a pulsed light system for hair removal, not an AI-powered diagnostic or assistive technology for human readers. Therefore, an MRMC study related to human reader improvement with AI is irrelevant to this submission.

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

This section is not applicable. The device is a physical medical device (pulsed light system) and does not involve an algorithm working in a "standalone" capacity in the sense of AI performance. Its performance is directly tied to its physical application by a human operator.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" for the efficacy of the hair removal system appears to be clinical observation/outcomes data. The document states:

• "Observation in the clinical study were recorded prior to treatment and at 3-6 months after treatment."
• "The study demonstrated that selective photothermolysis targeting melanin in the human hair follicle is an effective tool for hair removal."
• "There was no scarring in any subject."

This indicates that the effectiveness and safety were assessed directly from the patients' responses to the treatment.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This section is not applicable. The device is a physical pulsed light system and does not involve a "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI algorithms. The "clinical studies" mentioned are for validation/testing, not for training.

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

This section is not applicable for the same reasons as point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device