Search Results

To amplify and transmit sound to the ear.

Both the 48 and the 49PP are small slim-lined body aids. Their unique shape fits snugly and inconspicuously into any pocket or other places,e.g. brasiere etc. The 48 and the 49PP both have audio input that allows the connection to external sources. Also both have 3 position switch for off-telecoil-microphone. Assembled from standard components which are widely utilized by other hearing aid manufacturers.

Here's the analysis of the provided information regarding Rexton's Model 48 and 49PP in the context of the requested acceptance criteria and study details.

Based on the provided K970537 document, the information available is extremely limited and does not contain any of the requested details regarding acceptance criteria or a study proving device performance in the modern sense of medical device evaluation (e.g., clinical trials, AI performance studies).

The document describes a simple hearing aid submission from 1997. The concept of "acceptance criteria" and "device performance" in this context refers to technical specifications and equivalence to predicate devices, not to metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or reader improvement with AI. Similarly, a "study" here refers to the demonstration of compliance with existing standards (S3.22-1987 ANSI Specifications) rather than a clinical investigation or an AI performance study with a test set, ground truth, or experts.

Therefore, many of the requested fields cannot be populated from the provided text.

Analysis of K970537 for Rexton's Model 48 and 49PP

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

• Adherence to relevant industry standards. | Technical specifications comply with S3.22-1987 ANSI Specifications. Preliminary data sheets for the 48 and 49PP are enclosed (details not provided in summary). |
  | Substantial Equivalence:
• Device features and intended use are similar to existing approved devices. | "Substantially equivalent to other body aids." |
  | Intended Use:
• Device effectively amplifies and transmits sound to the ear. | "To amplify and transmit sound to the ear." (Functional claim, no performance metrics provided). |
  | Component Standardization:
• Constructed from widely utilized, standard components. | "Assembled from standard components which are widely utilized by other hearing aid manufacturers." |
  | Physical Characteristics:
• Small, slim-lined, fits snugly and inconspicuously. | "Both the 48 and the 49PP are small slim-lined body aids. Their unique shape fits snugly and inconspicuously into any pocket or other places, e.g. brasiere etc." |
  | Input/Switch Functionality:
• Audio input and 3-position switch for off-telecoil-microphone. | "Both the 48 and the 49PP both have audio input that allows the connection to external sources. Also both have 3 position switch for off-telecoil-microphone." |
  | Power Source:
• Compatible with standard battery. | "Standard battery size AA." |
  | User Manual/Information:
• Supplied with each hearing aid. | "A user's manual and other information is supplied with each hearing aid (enclosed)." |

Note: The "reported device performance" here is largely descriptive and refers to compliance with specifications and equivalence, not to quantifiable, clinical performance metrics. This is typical for a 510(k) submission based on substantial equivalence to a predicate device from this era, especially for a non-AI device.

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

Not applicable. The provided document does not describe any test set for evaluating a device's performance in a clinical or AI context. The "study" mentioned refers to compliance with ANSI standards, not a clinical trial or performance evaluation using a test set of patient data.

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

Not applicable. There is no mention of a test set, ground truth, or experts in the provided document.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

Not applicable. There is no mention of a test set or adjudication.

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

Not applicable. This device is a hearing aid submitted in 1997 and does not involve AI or human readers for diagnostic interpretation. An MRMC study is completely irrelevant here.

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

Not applicable. This device is a hearing aid submitted in 1997 and does not involve an algorithm or AI.

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

Not applicable. There is no mention of ground truth in the context of performance metrics for this device. The "ground truth" for this approval would be the established ANSI standards and the characteristics of the predicate devices for achieving substantial equivalence.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This device is a hearing aid submitted in 1997 and does not involve machine learning or training sets.

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

Not applicable. This device is a hearing aid submitted in 1997 and does not involve machine learning or training sets.

Ask a specific question about this device