Search Results

PureLift GLOW is intended for facial and neck stimulation, treatment of wrinkles, treatment of mild to moderate inflammatory acne, and indicated for over-the-counter cosmetic use.

PureLift GLOW is a hand-held device intended to apply electrical impulses to strategic locations on the face and Light Emitting Diode (LED) technology that is intended for the treatment of wrinkles and mild to moderate inflammatory acne. The PureLift GLOW probes are designed for optimal contact with the LED technology is not intended to come into contact with the user. The device continually alternates between the positive probes and allows the user to adjust the settings for personalized comfort level by pressing the intensity starts at (1) and continues to (10). The LED treatment area is approximately 36.3cm2 and available five levels of blue (465nm) and red (634nm) wavelengths. The device housing is injection molded of biocompatible thermoplastic resin and the probes consist of chrome-plated spheres. The device, powered by a 3.7-volt rechargeable battery, produces low-level current that is transmitted through the two fixed, smooth spherical probes. To turn the device on, the power button is pressed, and a green light illuminates to indicate that the unit is ready for use. Users then follow the instructions for use. The two probes gently glide over the skin to deliver low-level to strategic locations on the face and neck with the use of a conductive gel and the LED light is directed to the treatment area.

The document does not contain information regarding acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets acceptance criteria. The document is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the PureLift GLOW device, which primarily discusses its substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on technological characteristics and intended use.

While the document states that "Clinical testing was not required to support a substantial equivalence determination" (page 6), it does not describe any specific acceptance criteria for performance metrics (such as sensitivity, specificity, or accuracy for medical devices often associated with AI/ML solutions) nor does it provide details of a study demonstrating the device meets such criteria.

The information provided pertains to bench performance testing to ensure safety and electrical performance, and a comparison table highlighting technological aspects with predicate devices. None of these describe acceptance criteria or a study in the context you've requested.

Ask a specific question about this device

Intended for facial stimulation and indicated for over-the-counter cosmetic use.

The PureLift Pro Edition device is a hand-held device intended to apply electrical impulses to strategic locations on the face. The device probes are designed for optimal contact with the face. The device continually alternates between the positive and negative probes and allow the user to adjust the settings for personalized comfort level by pressing the up/down button. The intensity starts at (1) and continues to (10). The device measures 20.7cm (H) x 4.8cm (W) x 4.5cm (D). The outer case is injection molded of thermoplastic resin and the probes consist of chrome-plated spheres. The device is powered by a 3.7-volt battery which produce a low-level current that is transmitted through the two fixed, smooth spherical probes. To turn the device on, the power button is pushed. Then the green LED light will illuminate indicating the unit is ready for use. Users then follow the instructions for use. The two probes gently glide over the skin to deliver low-level electrical impulses to strategic locations on the face of conductive gel. The PureLift Pro Edition unit contains a power supply and rechargeable battery. The enclosure is made of medical grade biocompatible plastics and the output contacts (Probes) consist of chrome-plated spheres.

This document is a 510(k) premarket notification for the PureLift Pro Edition device. It states that no new performance data was required to establish substantial equivalence for the main device. However, performance data was generated for the PureLift Activator Serum, an accessory conductive gel, to demonstrate its equivalence to a predicate conductive gel.

Here's an analysis of the provided information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

For the PureLift Pro Edition device itself, the document explicitly states: "No new or repeat design verification or design validation was required to support the substantial equivalence of the PureLift Pro Edition stimulator." This implies that the acceptance criteria for the device itself were based on its identity to the predicate device in terms of intended use and primary technological characteristics, and no new performance data was thus generated in this submission.

For the PureLift Activator Serum (accessory conductive gel), the acceptance criteria and performance are indicated in the "Performance Testing" section.

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

The document does not provide details on sample sizes for the conductivity analysis or biocompatibility testing of the PureLift Activator Serum. It broadly states "An analysis of the conductivity testing... was performed" and "Biocompatibility evaluations... were conducted."

The data provenance is not specified (e.g., country of origin, retrospective or prospective).

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

This information is not provided in the document. The performance data for the PureLift Activator Serum (conductivity and biocompatibility) would typically be generated through laboratory testing, not through expert consensus on a test set in the way a diagnostic AI product might be evaluated.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. This type of adjudication (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) is typically relevant for studies involving human interpretation or expert scoring, which is not the case for the reported performance data for this device or its accessory.

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 is not mentioned. This type of study is relevant for AI-powered diagnostic or assistive technologies, which the PureLift Pro Edition (a transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulator for cosmetic facial stimulation) is not. The submission is a 510(k) for a physical device, and the "AI" or "firmware" mentioned is likely internal control software, not an AI for interpretation.

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

No, a standalone algorithm performance study was not applicable or performed, as this device is a physical stimulator and not an AI algorithm for data interpretation. The software/firmware is for controlling the device's electrical impulses.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

For the PureLift Activator Serum:

• Conductivity: The ground truth would be the measured conductivity values themselves, compared against the predicate gel's measured conductivity.
• Biocompatibility: The ground truth is established through standardized biological evaluations (ISO 10993-5 for cytotoxicity, ISO 10993-10 for sensitization and irritation), producing objective results based on cellular or tissue responses.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. This device is not an AI algorithm that undergoes a training phase with a "training set" of data in the common machine learning sense. The device is a hardware product.

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

Not applicable, as there is no "training set" for this device.

Ask a specific question about this device

Intended for facial stimulation and indicated for over-the-counter cosmetic use.

The PureLift Pro Plus is a hand-held device intended to apply electrical impulses to strategic locations on the face. The PureLift Pro Plus probes are designed for optimal contact with the face. The device continually alternates between the positive and negative probes and allows the user to adjust the settings for personalized comfort level by pressing the up/down button. The intensity starts at (10).

The device measures 20.7cm (H) x 4.8cm (W) x 4.5cm (D). Its outer case is injection molded of thermoplastic resin and the probes consist of chrome-plated spheres. The device, powered by a 3.7-volt battery, produces low-level current that is transmitted through the two fixed, smooth spherical probes. To turn the device on, the power button is pushed. Then the green LED light will illuminate indicating the unit is ready for use. Users then follow the instructions for use. The two probes gently glide over the skin to deliver low-level electrical impulses to strategic locations on the face with the use of conductive gel.

The PureLift Pro Plus unit contains a power supply and rechargeable battery. The enclosure is made of medical grade biocompatible plastics and the output contacts (Probes) consist of chrome-plated spheres.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for the PureLift Pro Plus, based on the provided FDA 510(k) summary:

This device is an electrical stimulator for aesthetic purposes, not an AI/ML device, so many of the requested fields (like those pertaining to AI model performance, human reader studies, or training sets) are not applicable (N/A) in this context. The acceptance criteria and performance data described relate to the safety and electrical/mechanical integrity of the physical device.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Study Details:

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

   • Sample Size: Not explicitly stated regarding a "test set" in the context of an algorithm. The testing described (mechanical, biocompatibility, electrical, software) would typically apply to representative device units from production, not a dataset of patient cases. The document implies performance testing was done on the device itself.
   • Data Provenance: N/A for data provenance as it's not a data-driven device; the results are from laboratory testing of the physical hardware and software.

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

   • Number of Experts: Not applicable, as this is not an AI/ML diagnostic or predictive device requiring expert interpretation of results to establish ground truth. The "ground truth" here is compliance with engineering standards and safety limits, which is assessed through defined testing procedures performed by qualified engineers/technicians.
   • Qualifications of Experts: N/A.

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

   • Adjudication Method: Not applicable. The "test set" in this context refers to physical device units undergoing compliance and safety testing, not a dataset requiring human adjudication of labels or interpretations.

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:

   • MRMC Study: No. This device is a transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulator for aesthetic purposes, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.

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

   • Standalone Performance: Not applicable. While the device has software/firmware control, its function is direct electrical stimulation, and it's not an algorithm providing a diagnostic or predictive output.

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

   • Type of Ground Truth: The ground truth for this device's performance is adherence to established engineering standards (e.g., IEC 60601 series, ISO 10993 series), design specifications, and safety limits. This is determined through objective measurements and validated test methods, not clinical outcomes or expert consensus on a disease state.

8. The sample size for the training set:

   • Training Set Sample Size: Not applicable. This device does not use machine learning, so there is no "training set."

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

   • Ground Truth for Training Set: Not applicable. No training set is used.

Ask a specific question about this device

PureLift is intended for facial stimulation and indicated for over-the-counter cosmetic use.

The PureLift is a hand-held device intended to apply electrical impulses to strategic locations on the face. The PureLift probes are designed for optimal contact with the face. The device continually alternates between the positive and negative probes and allows the user to adjust the settings for personalized comfort level by pressing the up/down button. The intensity starts at (1) and continues to (10). The device measures 13.4″ L x 4.8″ W x 4.3″ D. Its outer case is injection molded of thermoplastic resin and the probes consist of chrome-plated spheres. The device, powered by a 3.7-volt battery, produces low-level current that is transmitted through the two fixed, smooth spherical probes. To turn the device on, the power button is pushed. Then LCD screen will be displayed, indicating the unit is ready for use. Users then follow the instructions for use. The two probes gently glide over the skin to deliver low-level electrical impulses to strategic locations on the face. PureLift is intended to be used with a legally marketed electroconductive media. The PureLift unit contains a power supply and rechargeable battery. The enclosure is made of medical grade biocompatible plastics and the output contacts (Probes) consist of chrome-plated spheres.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for the PureLift device, a transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulator for aesthetic purposes. However, it does not contain a study that directly proves the device meets specific acceptance criteria for its intended cosmetic use (facial stimulation for over-the-counter cosmetic use).

Instead, the document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device (NuFace K072260 and reference device Rejuvenique K011935) by comparing technological characteristics and presenting results of various safety and performance tests. These tests are primarily designed to ensure the device is safe and functions as intended from an engineering and biocompatibility standpoint, rather than proving its cosmetic efficacy against specific clinical acceptance criteria.

Therefore, many of the requested details, such as sample size for test sets directly assessing cosmetic efficacy, expert-established ground truth for cosmetic outcomes, MRMC studies, or standalone performance for cosmetic claims, are not present in this regulatory submission.

Here's an attempt to answer the questions based only on the provided text, highlighting what is available and what is not:

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

The document does not explicitly state "acceptance criteria" for cosmetic efficacy experiments or performance directly related to its "facial stimulation" claim. Instead, it details various engineering and safety tests and states that the device "passed or met the requirements of all testing." The table below will reflect the tests conducted and their outcomes as reported.

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

The document mentions various tests (biocompatibility, electrical safety, EMC, software V&V, and other physical/mechanical tests) but does not specify the sample size for these tests. For biocompatibility, it states "The subject device is considered tissue contacting for a duration of less than 24 hours," which refers to the classification of contact, not a sample size.

The data provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective) is not provided. These are typically laboratory tests performed on device units.

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 provided as the regulatory submission focuses on engineering, safety, and performance standards rather than clinical efficacy studies requiring expert evaluation of "ground truth" for cosmetic outcomes. The "ground truth" for the tests mentioned (e.g., biocompatibility or electrical safety) would be established by the testing standards themselves and laboratory measurements.

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

This information is not provided. Adjudication methods are typically relevant for clinical studies with subjective endpoints, which are not detailed in this 510(k) summary for engineering and safety tests.

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 MRMC comparative effectiveness study was done and therefore no effect size for human improvement with AI assistance is reported. This device is a direct-to-consumer electrical stimulator, not an AI-powered diagnostic or interpretive tool that would involve human readers.

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

This question is not applicable as the PureLift device is a physical electromedical device for facial stimulation, not an AI algorithm. Software verification and validation were performed for the device's control software, but this is distinct from AI algorithm performance.

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

For the reported performance data:

• Biocompatibility: The ground truth is established by adherence to ISO 10993 standards and the results of laboratory tests (cytotoxicity, sensitization, irritation) which provide objective measures against established biological criteria.
• Electrical safety and EMC: The ground truth is established by compliance with IEC 60601 series standards, using objective measurements against specified electrical and electromagnetic limits.
• Software Verification and Validation: The ground truth is established by adherence to FDA guidance for software in medical devices, typically involving testing against software requirements and design specifications.
• Other physical/mechanical tests: The ground truth is established by meeting engineering specifications and performance limits for durability, function, etc.

For the cosmetic use indication, the document does not describe any studies that would establish a specific "ground truth" for cosmetic outcomes like facial toning or appearance improvement. The 510(k) process focuses on substantial equivalence based on technical characteristics and safety, assuming the predicate's indications are well-established.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not applicable/not provided. The device is a physical electrical stimulator, not a machine learning model that requires a training set for an algorithm.

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

This question is not applicable for the reasons stated in point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device