Search Results

To be used for temporary relief of pain associated with sore and aching muscles in the shoulder, waist, back, neck, upper extremities (arm), and lower extremities (leg) due to strain from exercise or normal household work activities.

Hand held, 1.5 volt AA battery powered, single mode, single function device with ten "settings" that are controlled by means of rotating a marked disk that increases the microcurrent when rotated clockwise and decreases the microcurrent when rotated counterclockwise, directly through the device integrated electrode into the indicated region of the body. The purpose of the Quick Relax Pro is to provide a temporary relief of minor muscle pain within the indicated region of the body.

The provided text describes a 510(k) summary for a medical device called "Quick Relax Pro," a transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulator (TENS) for pain relief.

However, the provided document does NOT contain information about acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets specific performance criteria through clinical or analytical testing, especially not in the context of an AI/algorithm-based device as implied by the prompts' structured questions (e.g., ground truth, MRMC study, training sets).

This document focuses on:

• Device Identification and Classification: Name, applicant, contact, classification, product code, CFR reference.
• Predicate Device Comparison: Detailed comparison of the Quick Relax Pro to a legally marketed predicate device (HealthmateForever® Pro-8AB) in terms of intended use, technical characteristics (battery, isolation, output modes, waveform, software, functions), and specific parameters (voltage, current, pulse duration, frequency).
• Non-Clinical Testing: Mentions biocompatibility testing (ISO 10993-5, -10, -12), product safety testing (IEC 60601-1), and electromagnetic compatibility testing (IEC 60601-1-2). It states that the "results... were satisfactory, and serve to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness."
• Substantial Equivalence Argument: The core of the 510(k) submission, arguing that the Quick Relax Pro is substantially equivalent to the predicate device, emphasizing safety due to fewer features (no software, single mode).
• FDA Communication: The letter from the FDA stating their "substantial equivalence" determination and regulatory responsibilities.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information about acceptance criteria and specific performance study details for an AI/algorithm-based device because the document describes a hardware medical device (TENS unit) and its regulatory submission, not an AI or software algorithm that would involve the kind of performance studies, ground truth establishment, or training/test sets typically associated with AI/ML medical devices.

The acceptance criteria mentioned in the document are implicitly met by:

• Substantial Equivalence: The device is deemed safe and effective because its technological characteristics are substantially equivalent to a legally marketed predicate device.
• Compliance with Standards: Satisfactory results from non-clinical testing (biocompatibility, product safety, EMC) against established international standards (ISO, IEC).

There is no mention of:

• A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance (in the context of AI/ML metrics like sensitivity, specificity, etc.)
• Sample sizes for test sets or data provenance (as no clinical performance study for an algorithm is described).
• Number of experts, their qualifications, or adjudication methods for ground truth.
• MRMC comparative effectiveness studies.
• Standalone algorithm performance.
• Type of ground truth (pathology, outcomes data, etc.).
• Training set size or ground truth establishment for a training set.

The document's structure is typical for a 510(k) premarket notification for a Class II medical device, focusing on comparison to a predicate and non-clinical safety testing, rather than an AI/ML clinical validation study.

Ask a specific question about this device

The product is intended to remove dental plaque, stain, and discoloration from tooth surface etc. by dental professionals during dental treatment.

Both the predicate and the new proposed devices are operated by connecting to a standard turbine connection of a dental unit, which supplies air and water. The device is activated when the dental unit is activated and compressed air and water are supplied to the device. Air enters into the powder chamber where it is mixed with the prophylaxis powder. The mixture of air and water leaves the powder chamber and exits the distal end of the device through the spraying nozzle where the mixture of air and water is enveloped by water spray and directed onto the tooth surface. The mixture of air, water and powder removes dental plaque, stain and discoloration from tooth surface.

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance for QUICK JET M (K133170)

This document describes the acceptance criteria and supporting study for the QUICK JET M dental handpiece, as detailed in the 510(k) summary K133170.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided 510(k) summary for QUICK JET M (K133170) does not explicitly define quantitative acceptance criteria or specific performance metrics for the device. Instead, the submission relies on a comparison to a predicate device, the AIR-FLOW handy 2 (K022119), through the demonstration of substantial equivalence.

The "Comparison result" table in the submission highlights similarities between the proposed device and the predicate device across various technological characteristics. This indicates that the "acceptance criteria" were implicitly met by demonstrating that the QUICK JET M performs equivalently to the legally marketed predicate device, especially for its intended use.

Here's an interpretation of the implied acceptance criteria and the device's reported performance based on the provided document:

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

The 510(k) summary explicitly states: "No clinical tests were performed for the proposed device." Therefore, there was no "test set" in the context of clinical data used to prove device performance. The assessment of substantial equivalence was based on non-clinical testing and comparison of technological characteristics to the predicate device.

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

As no clinical testing was performed and no test set was used, there were no experts involved in establishing ground truth for a clinical test set.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Since no clinical test set was used, there was no adjudication method employed.

5. If a Multi Reader Multi Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done

No, a Multi Reader Multi Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. The 510(k) summary clearly states that no clinical tests were performed, which would include MRMC studies.

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

The device is a dental handpiece, a mechanical tool, not an algorithm or AI system. Therefore, the concept of a "standalone" or "algorithm only" performance study is not applicable to this device.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

As no clinical tests were performed, no clinical ground truth (e.g., expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data) was established or used for the QUICK JET M in this 510(k) submission. The "ground truth" for demonstrating substantial equivalence was effectively the established performance and safety profile of the predicate device, AIR-FLOW handy 2 (K022119), as assessed through non-clinical comparisons of technological characteristics.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The device is a mechanical dental handpiece, not a machine learning or AI algorithm. Therefore, the concept of a "training set" is not applicable.

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

As the concept of a training set is not applicable to this device, there was no ground truth established for a training set.

Ask a specific question about this device

The QuickVue Influenza Test allows for the rapid, qualitative detection of influenza type A and type B antigens directly from nasal swab, nasal aspirate, and nasal wash specimens. The test is intended for use as an aid in the rapid diagnosis of acute influenza virus infection. The test is not intended to detect influenza C antigens. Negative test results should be confirmed by cell culture; they do not preclude influenza virus infection and should not be used as the sole basis for treatment or other management decisions. The test is intended for professional and laboratory use.

The QuickVue Influenza Test involves the extraction of influenza A and B viral antigens. The patient specimen is placed in the Extraction Reagent Tube, during which time the virus particles in the specimen are disrupted, exposing internal viral nucleoproteins. After extraction, the Test Strip is placed in the Extraction Reagent Tube where nucleoproteins in the specimen will react with the reagents in the Test Strip. If the extracted specimen contains influenza antigens, a pink-to-red Test Line along with a blue procedural Control Line will appear on the Test Strip indicating a positive result. If influenza type A or type B antigens are not present, or are present at very low levels, only a blue procedural Control Line will appear.

The provided text contains information about a 510(k) submission for the QuickVue® Influenza test. However, it does not contain acceptance criteria or detailed study results that would allow for a complete description as requested. The document primarily focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to a predicate device and includes a brief analytical study for H7N9 detection.

Here's an analysis based on the available information, noting what is missing:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

This information is not provided in the given text. A typical 510(k) summary for a diagnostic test would include sensitivity, specificity, and potentially positive and negative predictive values, along with their acceptance criteria. The document only mentions a "minimum detectable level" for H7N9.

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

The document describes an "analytical study" to assess the ability to detect H7N9 and establish the Limit of Detection (LoD). It does not specify a sample size for this analytical study.

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not explicitly stated for the analytical study mentioned.
• Data Provenance: Not specified, but given it's an "analytical study" focused on LoD, it typically involves prepared samples (e.g., spiked samples or known concentrations of virus) rather than patient specimens. The document doesn't mention a clinical study with patient samples.

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

This information is not provided in the document. For an analytical study establishing Limit of Detection, ground truth is typically established by the known concentration of the analyte in the prepared samples, not by expert review of test results. If a clinical study were performed (which is not described in detail here), expert-adjudicated ground truth might be relevant.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not provided. Given that the described study is analytical to determine LoD, an adjudication method for test interpretation by multiple readers is not relevant. The result (presence/absence of a test line) is read directly from the test strip.

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 and not mentioned. The QuickVue® Influenza test is a visual, qualitative immunoassay designed for direct interpretation, not an AI-assisted diagnostic device where human readers interact with AI.

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

This is not applicable. The QuickVue® Influenza test is a lateral flow immunoassay that requires human interpretation of visual lines for a positive or negative result. It does not involve an algorithm working independently.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

For the analytical study mentioned (LoD for H7N9), the ground truth would be based on the known concentration of the H7N9 virus in the prepared samples used to determine the detection limit.

• Type of Ground Truth: Known viral concentration (for the LoD study).

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not provided. For a rapid immunoassay like the QuickVue® Influenza test, there isn't typically a "training set" in the machine learning sense. Assay parameters are optimized through biochemical development and analytical testing.

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

This information is not applicable as there is no mention of a "training set" in the context of an AI/machine learning algorithm for this device. For the development and optimization of such an immunoassay, the "ground truth" during development would be established through careful analytical studies using known positive and negative samples, and samples with known concentrations of the target analyte.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Quick Sampler Holder is intended to be used as a part of vacuum blood collection equipment for the collection of blood samples for various types of blood tests

The Quick Sampler Holder is a non-contacting patient device. It is intended to be used in conjunction with a vacuum blood collecting vessel and bloodlines with y-ports, for blood banking. The Quick Sampler Holder consists of a double ended 18 gauge needle attached to a blood tube holder. The proximal needle tip, which is inserted into the yport, is blunt to prevent accidental needlesticks; the distal end, inside the holder, is sharp and is covered by a rubber sleeve to prevent blood loss during vial replacement/sample collection.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the Nipro Quick Sampler Holder, which is a medical device for blood specimen collection. This document does not describe a study using a device that meets specific acceptance criteria in the way a clinical trial or algorithm performance study would.

Instead, it's a regulatory submission demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device (ITL Samplok Luer Kit, K021941) based on non-clinical performance testing. Therefore, most of the requested information regarding ground truth, expert consensus, MRMC studies, and sample sizes for test/training sets is not applicable to this type of submission.

Here's a breakdown of the available information based on your request, with an explanation of why certain categories are not applicable:

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

The document lists "Performance characteristics" that were tested, but it does not provide specific numerical acceptance criteria or detailed reported performance values for each characteristic. It only states that the device was found to be "substantially equivalent" based on these tests.

2. Sample size 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 in the document. The document refers to "non-clinical tests" but does not detail the methodology, sample sizes, or provenance of materials used for these tests. The tests would likely be performed in a lab setting, not involving human subjects or data from a country of origin in the way a clinical study would.

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

This is not applicable. Ground truth, expert consensus, and expert qualifications are relevant to studies involving diagnostic accuracy or classification tasks, typically for AI/ML devices or clinical trials. This submission focuses on the mechanical and functional performance of a blood collection device through non-clinical testing.

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

This is not applicable. Adjudication methods are used in studies where human readers interpret data (e.g., medical images) and their agreement or disagreement needs to be resolved to establish ground truth. This is a non-clinical device performance submission.

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 such study was done. This is a medical device for blood collection, not an AI/ML-powered diagnostic tool, and the submission explicitly states "No clinical testing required or submitted with this application."

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

This is not applicable. This describes a physical medical device, not an algorithm.

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

This is not applicable. The "truth" for these non-clinical tests would be defined by engineering specifications, material standards, and performance metrics (e.g., seal integrity, dimensions, functionality checks) rather than expert consensus on a clinical outcome or pathology.

8. The sample size for the training set

This is not applicable. There is no "training set" as this is not an AI/ML device.

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

This is not applicable. There is no "training set" as this is not an AI/ML device.

Summary of Device and Acceptance:

The Nipro Quick Sampler Holder's acceptance by the FDA (as indicated by the 510(k) clearance) is based on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device (ITL Samplok Luer Kit, K021941) through non-clinical performance characteristics testing. The key difference between the Quick Sampler Holder and its predicate is a blunt proximal tip versus a luer tip. The submission asserts that "The Quick Sampler Holder is identical to the predicate in terms of indications for use and mode of operation" and "substantially equivalent ... in terms of functional, mechanical and material specifications." No clinical studies were required or submitted.

Ask a specific question about this device

Quick Up is intended for the following applications:

• The gingival-coloured self-curing SC material is used for cementing attachments, such as ball, locator and telescopic anchors as well as other anchors in compositebased dentures.
• The gingival-coloured light-curing LC material can be used for subsequent corrections.

Not Found

The provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification letter from the FDA for a dental device called "Quick Up." This kind of document typically focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than presenting detailed study results with acceptance criteria.

Therefore, the information required to answer your questions regarding acceptance criteria, study details, sample sizes, expert qualifications, and ground truth establishment is not available within this document.

This document confirms that the device is a "Denture Relining, Repairing, or Rebasing Resin" and is intended for cementing attachments in composite-based dentures and for subsequent corrections. It also states the device is "Prescription Use."

To obtain the information requested, one would need to refer to the actual 510(k) submission document (K110440) itself, which would contain the technical data and study reports.

Ask a specific question about this device

The QuickVue RSV test is a dipstick immunoassay which allows for the rapid, qualitative detection of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) antigen (viral fusion protein) directly from nasopharyngeal swab, nasopharyngeal aspirate, or nasal/nasopharyngeal wash specimens for symptomatic pediatric patients (eighteen years of age and younger). The test is intended for use as an aid in the diagnosis of acute respiratory syncytial viral infections. It is recommended that negative test results be confirmed by cell culture. Negative results do not preclude RSV infection and it is recommended that they not be used as the sole basis for treatment or other management decisions. The test is intended for professional and laboratory use.

Nasopharyngeal swabs. nasopharyngeal aspirate, and nasal/nasopharyngeal wash serve as specimens for this test. The patient specimen is placed in a tube containing Extraction Reagent, during which time the virus particles in the specimen are disrupted, exposing internal viral After extraction, the Test Strip is antigens. placed in the Extraction Tube for 15 minutes. During this time, the extracted specimen will react with the reagents in the Test Strip. If the extracted specimen contains RSV antigens, a pink-to-red Test Line along with a blue procedural Control Line will appear on the Test Strip. If RSV viral antigens are not present, or present at very low levels, only a blue procedural Control Line will appear. If no blue procedural Control Line develops, the result is considered invalid.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for the QuickVue® RSV test, based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

Note: While sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy were calculated as part of the study, the specific numerical acceptance criteria (e.g., "Sensitivity must be >90%") and the actual calculated values are not presented in this summary document. The document only states that "A multi-center field clinical study was undertaken to document the performance characteristics of the test. Sensitivity, specificity and overall accuracy were calculated using nasal/nasopharyngeal wash specimens compared to viral culture."

Study Information

1. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not explicitly stated. The document mentions "A multi-center field clinical study" was conducted, and it involved "nasal/nasopharyngeal wash specimens." The country of origin of the data is not specified but implied to be within the US due to FDA submission. The study type is a clinical study, which typically implies prospective data collection, though this is not explicitly stated as "prospective" or "retrospective."

2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not explicitly stated.

3. Adjudication method for the test set: Not applicable based on the provided information, as ground truth was established by viral culture rather than expert consensus on device results.

4. 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 device is a dipstick immunoassay, not an AI-powered diagnostic requiring human-in-the-loop interpretation or MRMC studies.

5. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Yes, the performance characteristics (sensitivity, specificity, accuracy) were calculated for the device itself as a standalone diagnostic, comparing its results to a ground truth (viral culture).

6. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): Viral culture. The summary states, "Sensitivity, specificity and overall accuracy were calculated using nasal/nasopharyngeal wash specimens compared to viral culture."

7. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. This is not a machine learning or AI device that requires a training set in the conventional sense. The test relies on a lateral-flow immunoassay with pre-defined reagents.

8. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable, as there is no training set for this type of device.

Ask a specific question about this device

An in vitro diagnostic test for the qualitative identification of methadone in urine. This test was calibrated against methadone at a cut-off concentration of 300 ng/ml. Measurements obtained by this device are used in screening for drug abuse.

Immunoassay for the qualitative detection of methadone in urine. The QuickScreen™ Test, like many commercially available drug screening test kits, qualitatively measures the presence of target drugs or their metabolites by visual color sandwich one step immunoasay technology.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study details for the QuickScreen™ Methadone Screening Test, based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are implicitly defined by the reported performance used to demonstrate substantial equivalence to predicate devices, particularly the expectation of high agreement with established methods like EMIT II and GC/MS.

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

• Positive Samples: 49 methadone-positive urine specimens
• Negative Samples: 60 methadone-negative urine specimens
• Data Provenance: The document states "clinical sample kit comparison study, using 49 methadone-positive urine specimens and 60 methadone-negative urine specimens." This indicates the data is from retrospective clinical specimens. There is no specific country of origin mentioned, but the manufacturer is based in San Diego, California, USA, implying the studies were likely conducted within the US.

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

The ground truth was established using laboratory methods rather than human expert interpretation of the device's results.

• Number of Experts: Not applicable in the traditional sense, as the ground truth was derived from analytical methods.
• Qualifications of Experts: Not specified, but the methods used (Behring EMIT II and GC/MS) are standard laboratory techniques that would be performed by qualified laboratory personnel.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The ground truth was established by comparison to two established laboratory methods: Behring EMIT II and GC/MS. While not an "adjudication" in the sense of multiple human readers, the use of two independent, highly regarded analytical methods served as the authoritative reference.

• Adjudication Method: Comparison to Behring EMIT II and Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS). GC/MS is explicitly stated as "the preferred confirmatory method."

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

No. The study described is a performance evaluation of a rapid immunoassay device against established laboratory methods. There is no mention of human readers evaluating cases with and without AI assistance (as the device itself is a standalone immunoassay, not an AI assisting human interpretation).

6. Standalone Performance

Yes, a standalone performance study was done. The QuickScreen™ Methadone Screening Test is an "algorithm only" device in the sense that it provides a direct qualitative result (positive/negative) based on a chemical reaction, without human interpretation of complex images or data needing AI assistance. The performance reported directly reflects the device's ability to classify samples on its own.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• Type of Ground Truth: Analytical laboratory results from established methods. Specifically, Behring EMIT II (an immunoassay) and Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) (a highly specific and sensitive confirmatory method).

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not explicitly mention a separate "training set" or "validation set" in the context of machine learning. As a rapid immunoassay, the device's "training" refers to its design and calibration, not a machine learning model. The study described is a performance evaluation using clinical samples.

• Sample Size for Training Set: Not applicable or not specified in this type of device evaluation.

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

As there is no explicit training set described in the machine learning context, this question is not directly applicable. The device's design and internal calibration would rely on chemical principles and validation against known standards, which is a different process than establishing ground truth for a machine learning training set.

Ask a specific question about this device

An in vitro test for the qualitative identification of barbiturates in urine at a cutoff concentration of 200 ng/mL of Secobarbital. Measurements that are obtained by this device are used in the screening for drug abuse.

Immunoassay for the qualitative detection of barbiturates in urine. The QuickScreen™ Test, like many commercially available drug screening test kits, qualitatively measures the presence of barbiturates by visual, color sandwich, one-step immunoassay technology.

Acceptance Criteria and Study for QuickScreen™ Barbiturates Screening Test

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document implicitly defines the acceptance criteria as achieving "substantial equivalence to the reported performance characteristics of other commercially available tests for the qualitative detection of barbiturates in urine." The specific performance metric provided is agreement with a predicate device.

2. Sample Size and Data Provenance for Test Set:

• Clinical Sample Correlation Study: The exact sample size for this study is not explicitly stated. It refers to "clinical specimens" without specifying the number.
  • Data Provenance: Retrospective, as it involved "clinical specimens" and "correlation studies," suggesting analysis of previously collected samples. The country of origin is not specified, but the manufacturer is based in San Diego, California, USA, implying U.S. data.
• Blind-Labeled Spiked Sample Study: The exact sample size for this study is not explicitly stated.
  • Data Provenance: Prospective, as it involved "spiked samples," indicating controlled addition of the substance to samples for testing. The country of origin is not specified, but the manufacturer is based in San Diego, California, USA, implying U.S. data.

3. Number and Qualifications of Experts for Ground Truth:

The document does not explicitly state the number or qualifications of experts used to establish ground truth for the test set.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

The adjudication method is not mentioned. The primary comparison is against a "predicate device" (Behring EMIT II) for the clinical samples and through "blind-labeled spiked samples."

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study:

A multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not explicitly mentioned. The study focuses on the device's performance against a predicate device and spiked samples, not on human reader improvement with or without AI assistance.

6. Standalone Performance Study:

Yes, a standalone performance study was done. The "clinical sample correlation study and a blind-labeled spiked sample study" evaluate the QuickScreen™ Barbiturates Screening Test's performance independently, comparing its results to a ground truth (either the predicate device's results or the known concentrations in spiked samples).

7. Type of Ground Truth Used:

• Clinical Sample Correlation Study: The ground truth was established by another "commercially available test" – the Behring EMIT II. This is a form of comparative ground truth against an established method.
• Blind-Labeled Spiked Sample Study: The ground truth was based on known concentrations of barbiturates in the "spiked samples." This represents a form of analytical ground truth.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set:

The document does not provide information about a separate training set or its sample size. The studies described appear to be validation or performance evaluation studies, not explicitly detailing a training phase for a learning algorithm.

9. How Ground Truth for Training Set Was Established:

As no training set is explicitly mentioned, the method for establishing its ground truth is not provided. The device described uses "basic immunochemical sandwich assay principle," which is a traditional laboratory method and does not typically involve machine learning requiring a "training set" in the modern sense.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Kinamed NeuroPro™ , Quick Tap™ Self Drilling Screws are indicated for use in conjunction with bone plates and mesh implants of the parent NeuroPro System in internal fixation of fractures and osteotomies of the craniofacial skeleton including fixation of cranial bone flap osteotomies as well as for reconstruction of bony defects and deficits of the craniofacial skeleton.

The Kinamed NeuroPro™ , Quick Tap™ Self Drilling Screws are not indicated for use in the spine.

Not Found

I am sorry, but the provided text is a 510(k) clearance letter from the FDA, along with the indications for use for the Kinamed NeuroPro™, Quick Tap™ Self Drilling Screws. This document does not contain any information about acceptance criteria or a study that proves the device meets those criteria.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request for the detailed table and study information as it is not present in the given input.

Ask a specific question about this device

Quick & Sure Onestep Home Pregnancy Test is the Abacus Diagnostics name for an "over-the-counter" (OTC) solid phase immunoassay in vitro diagnostic test kit for the qualitative detection of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) in urine as an indicator of Pregnancy.

Not Found

I am sorry, but the provided text does not contain the detailed information necessary to answer your request about acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them. The document is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter for a home pregnancy test, confirming its substantial equivalence to previously marketed devices. It does not include specific study design, performance metrics, or ground truth establishment details.

Ask a specific question about this device