Search Results

Intended to emit energy in the infrared spectrum to provide topical heating for the purposes of elevating tissue temperature when heat is indicated for the temporary relief of minor muscle and joint pain and stiffness, for the temporary relief of minor joint pain associated with arthritis, to temporarily increase local blood circulation where applied and the relaxation of muscles. This is a prescription only device.

Not Found

I am unable to extract information about the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria from the provided document. The document appears to be an FDA 510(k) clearance letter for a medical device (Physiolaser Olympic) and an associated Indications for Use form.

This type of document typically confirms that the device is substantially equivalent to a legally marketed predicate device, but it does not usually contain the detailed technical studies, acceptance criteria, or performance data that would be part of the 510(k) submission itself.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information, including:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and their qualifications
4. Adjudication method for the test set
5. If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, and its effect size
6. If a standalone performance study was done
7. The type of ground truth used
8. The sample size for the training set
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established

The document primarily focuses on regulatory clearance, general controls, and labeling requirements, along with the device's intended use for temporary relief of minor pain, stiffness, and to increase local blood circulation through topical heating.

Ask a specific question about this device

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

The STA Satellite™ Automated Multi-Parametric AnalyzerSatellite® Automated Multi-Parametric Analyzer is a fully automatic clinical instrument indicated and intended for the performance of tests on human plasmas, the results of which aid in the diagnosis of coagulation abnormalities or in monitoring anticoagulant therapy.

The STA Satellite® Automated Multi-Parametric Analyzer is designed as a fully automatic bench-top system. Samples and test reagents are loaded into the instrument where sample handling, reagent delivery, analysis, and reporting of results are performed automatically. A central processing unit controls instrument functions such as, management of patient results, quality control, system supervision, support for instrument maintenance, and work load optimization. The STA Satellite® is the bench-top version of the company's STA-R®, legally marketed predicate device.

The instrument utilizes Diagnostica Stago reagents in addition to open adaptation of other currently available reagents. Barcoding of test reagents, calibrators, and controls facilitate their use on the system and permits reagent management simple. Manual entry of reagent information enables the use of non-barcoded reagents.

The instrument performs multiple test methodologies in random access as selected by the user. These include clotting time or clot-based tests (i.e. Chronometricchronometric) measurements and photometric assays (at specific wave lengths) on plasma samples. The principle of the chronometric method consists in measuring the variation of the oscillation amplitude of the ball (in the cuvette). A decrease in oscillation amplitude corresponds to an increase in the viscosity of the media (i.e. ., coagulation). The principle of the photometric measurements on the instrument is based on measured absorbance (also referred to as Optical Density, or OD) of monochromatic light of predetermined wavelength passing through the cuvette as a (clotting) reaction takes place.

The provided text describes a 510(k) summary for the STA Satellite® Automated Multi-Parametric Analyzer, a modified version of the STA-R® device, intended for in vitro coagulation studies.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets those criteria, based only on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

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

• Test Set Sample Size: The document states that "Test samples were analyzed in duplicate on the STA -Satellite and the STA-R." However, the number of test samples or the total number of subjects from which these samples were derived is not specified in the provided text.
• Data Provenance:
  • Country of Origin: The validation study was performed at "an internal site and two external sites." The direct country of origin for these sites is not explicitly stated. However, the submitter, Diagnostica Stago, Inc., is based in Parsippany, New Jersey, USA. The predicate device manufacturer, Diagnostica Stago SAS, is likely based in France given the "CE Marked" status of the device and its commercialization in France since September 2004. It's plausible that one or more sites were in the USA, and potentially one in France, but this is an inference, not a direct statement.
  • Retrospective or Prospective: The text does not explicitly state whether the study was retrospective or prospective. The phrasing "Test samples were analyzed" suggests a prospective collection and analysis for the validation study.

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 text. The study focuses on method comparison between two instruments rather than an expert-adjudicated ground truth for patient diagnoses.

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

This information is not applicable and therefore not provided, as the study is a method comparison and does not involve adjudication of expert interpretations for a ground truth.

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, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This device is an automated instrument for performing coagulation tests, not an AI or imaging diagnostic tool that would involve human readers interpreting results with or without AI assistance.
• Effect Size: Therefore, there is no information on the effect size of human reader improvement with AI assistance.

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

Yes, the study described is a standalone performance study of the instrument itself. The device is an "Automated Multi-Parametric Analyzer," meaning it performs the analysis automatically. The "Performance Data" section describes a comparison of the STA Satellite® instrument's results to those of the STA-R® predicate device, indicating the algorithm/instrument's performance in isolation.

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

The "ground truth" in this study is the results obtained from the predicate device, STA-R®. The study's objective was to demonstrate substantial equivalence by showing that the STA Satellite® produces statistically similar results to the legally marketed STA-R®. This is a method comparison study, where the established method (predicate device) serves as the reference.

8. The sample size for the training set:

This information is not provided in the text. The document describes a validation study comparing the new device to a predicate, not the internal development or "training" of a machine learning algorithm. If there was any internal development or calibration, the details are not included here.

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

This information is not provided as there is no mention of a training set or ground truth in the context of training for this medical device's performance validation. The study focuses on direct comparison to a predicate device's measured results.

Ask a specific question about this device

The CCEI Vista, Satellite Mobile Unit and Satellite Unit are dental operative units that are intended to supply utilities to and serve as a base for dental tools and accessories.

Not Found

This 510(k) submission (K081237) is for the "Vista," "Satellite Mobile Unit," and "Satellite Unit" dental operative units. The provided documents do not contain any information regarding acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets criteria related to performance metrics, statistical analysis, or comparison with a ground truth.

The submission focuses primarily on the administrative and regulatory aspects of marketing a Class I medical device. Key sections typically found in a submission discussing performance studies (e.g., performance data, clinical data, software validation) are absent from the provided text.

Based on the provided text, I cannot answer the requested questions. The document only confirms:

• Device Name: Vista, Satellite Mobile Unit, Satellite Unit
• Manufacturer: Craftmaster Contour Equipment, Inc.
• Regulatory Class: I
• Product Codes: EIA (primary), KLC (secondary)
• Intended Use: To supply utilities to and serve as a base for dental tools and accessories.
• Regulatory Status: Substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices.

For Class I devices like this, the regulatory pathway often emphasizes general controls (e.g., good manufacturing practices, labeling) rather than extensive performance studies requiring the kind of data you've requested. The FDA's letter explicitly states that the device "does not require approval of a premarket approval application (PMA)," further indicating that detailed clinical or performance study data, as might be seen for Class II or III devices, are likely not a requirement for this specific submission.

Ask a specific question about this device

The SATELLITE™ Spinal System is intended to be inserted between the vertebral bodies into the disc space from L3 to S1 to help provide stabilization and to help promote intervertebral body fusion. This internal fixation device is intended for, and designed solely for holding bone parts in alignment while they heal. The SATELLITE™ Spinal System is intended to be used with bone graft.

The SATELLITE™ Spinal System consists of spheres manufactured from either cobalt chrome or medical grade PEEK-OPTIMA LT1, which may be implanted from L3-S1 to provide temporary stabilization in order to help promote fusion.

The provided text describes the regulatory classification and marketing authorization for the SATELLITE™ Spinal System. It does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets those criteria. The document is a 510(k) summary and the FDA's clearance letter for the device, focusing on its substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request for information regarding acceptance criteria, reported device performance, study details (sample sizes, provenance, ground truth establishment, expert qualifications, adjudication methods), MRMC studies, or standalone algorithm performance, as these details are not present in the provided text.

The information provided only discusses:

• Device Name: SATELLITE™ Spinal System
• Manufacturer: Medtronic Sofamor Danek
• Product Description: Spheres manufactured from cobalt chrome or PEEK-OPTIMA LT1, implanted from L3-S1 for temporary stabilization and to promote fusion.
• Indications for Use: Inserted between vertebral bodies L3-S1 to provide stabilization and promote intervertebral body fusion, used with bone graft. Designed solely for holding bone parts in alignment while they heal.
• Regulatory Classification: Unclassified (at the time of clearance), later reclassified as Class III (Premarket Approval) on March 30, 2023.
• Substantial Equivalence: Demonstrated the PEEK-OPTIMA LT1 spheres with Tantalum markers were substantially equivalent to previously cleared cobalt chrome SATELLITE™ Spinal System devices (K051320).
• FDA Clearance: K060415/S1 on January 5, 2007, with a specific labeling limitation: "The safety and effectiveness of this device for use in motion sparing, non-fusion procedures has not been established."

To answer your questions about acceptance criteria and study data, information beyond what is supplied in these specific documents would be required. This type of information would typically be found in detailed clinical study reports or premarket approval (PMA) applications, which are generally more comprehensive than a 510(k) summary.

Ask a specific question about this device

Intended for use to conserve oxygen for patients prescribed supplemental oxygen and use nasal cannulas as part of an oxygen delivery system including an oxygen concentrator, compressed oxygen cylinders, or liquid oxygen system.

The Inogen Satellite Conserver is a battery operated electronic device that is microprocessor controlled and contains a breath sensor and normally closed valve. The device is connected to an oxygen supply source and upon detecting the beginning of an inhalation; the device delivers a bolus of oxygen that is equivalent in most users, depending on the flow setting, to 1 to 5 liters per minute constant flow. The Inogen Satellite Conserver can be used with bottled oxygen systems and as an accessory to the Inogen One Oxygen Concentrator (K032818). The device uses these systems as its oxygen supply and is connected by an oxygen supply tube.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for a medical device (Inogen Satellite Conserver) and does not contain the information requested about acceptance criteria and a study proving device performance against those criteria in the context of an AI/ML powered device.

Specifically, the document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices for a modified oxygen conserver, which is a hardware device, not an AI/ML powered medical device. The "Summary of Testing" section (Page 2) refers to "extensive software validation testing, safety testing, mechanical testing, performance testing, and EMI/EMC testing" for the original device, and "Comprehensive performance testing with compressed oxygen cylinders and liquid oxygen systems" for the new device to ensure it "functioned within its specifications."

However, none of this testing aligns with the requirements of describing acceptance criteria and a study for an AI/ML powered device, which would involve:

• Acceptance criteria related to AI performance metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, AUC, F1-score).
• A test set with ground truth established by experts.
• Details on reader studies (MRMC) or standalone algorithm performance.
• Information about training sets and their ground truth.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information based on the input text.

Ask a specific question about this device

The SATELLITE™ Spinal System is intended to be inserted between the vertebral bodies into the disc space from L3 to S1 to help provide stabilization and to help promote intervertebral body fusion. This internal fixation device is intended for, and designed solely for holding bone parts in alignment while they heal. The SATELLITE™ Spinal System is intended to be used with bone graft.

The SATELLITE™ Spinal System consists of cobalt chrome spheres, which may be implanted from L3-S1 to provide temporary stabilization in order to help promote fusion.

This device, the SATELLITE™ Spinal System (K051320), received 510(k) clearance in 2005. It's important to note that the provided documentation states this device is a "preamendment device" and was found substantially equivalent to a legally recognized preamendment device (the Harmon Spinal Sphere). This means that its acceptance criteria and the "study" that proves it meets them are fundamentally different from what would be expected for a novel device undergoing a PMA (Premarket Approval) process under current regulations.

The core of its "acceptance" is substantial equivalence to a predicate device that was on the market before the 1976 Medical Device Amendments. Therefore, the information requested about specific performance metrics, sample sizes, expert ground truth, etc., in the context of a prospective study for a novel device does not apply in the same way to this 510(k) clearance.

Here's an attempt to answer the questions based on the provided document, highlighting where the typical interpretation of these questions doesn't fit a preamendment predicate equivalence pathway:

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

For a 510(k) clearance based on substantial equivalence to a preamendment device, the "acceptance criteria" are primarily established by the characteristics and intended use of the predicate device. The "reported device performance" is demonstrating that the new device shares similar characteristics and performs as safely and effectively as the predicate for its intended use, based on documentation and engineering principles rather than a detailed clinical performance study against specific quantitative criteria.

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 applicable in the context of a 510(k) clearance based on substantial equivalence to a preamendment device like the SATELLITE™ Spinal System. There was no "test set" in the sense of a clinical study with a specified sample size. The clearance was based on comparison to an already marketed predicate, not new clinical data demonstrating specific performance metrics against a defined acceptance criteria.

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 applicable. There was no "test set" requiring ground truth establishment by experts for performance evaluation in a clinical study. The FDA's review for substantial equivalence focuses on comparing the new device's design, materials, and intended use to the predicate.

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

This information is not applicable for the reasons stated above.

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 information is not applicable. The SATELLITE™ Spinal System is a physical implant, not an AI or imaging device. Therefore, no MRMC study, AI assistance, or human reader improvement analysis would be relevant or performed.

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

This information is not applicable as the device is a physical implant, not an algorithm.

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

This information is not applicable in the context of establishing performance for this 510(k) clearance. The "ground truth" for the clearance was essentially the FDA's acceptance that the predicate device (Harmon Spinal Sphere) was legally marketed and considered safe and effective for its intended use, and that the SATELLITE™ Spinal System was sufficiently similar.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not applicable. There was no "training set" as this device is a physical implant and not an algorithm requiring machine learning.

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

This information is not applicable as there was no training set.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Inogen Satellite Conserver is intended for use to conserve oxygen for patients prescribed supplemental oxygen and use nasal cannulas and an oxygen concentrator.

The Inogen Satellite Conserver intended to be used as an accessory to the Inogen One Oxygen Concentrator (K032818). The device uses the Inogen One Oxygen Concentrator as its oxygen supply and is connected by an oxygen supply tube. The Inogen Satellite Conserver is a battery operated electronic device that is microprocessor controlled and contains a breath sensor and normally closed valve. Upon detecting the beginning of inhalation, the device delivers a bolus of oxygen that is equivalent in most users to 1 to 5 liters per minute constant flow, depending on the flow setting.

This 510(k) premarket notification for the Inogen Satellite Conserver does not contain the results of a study with acceptance criteria and device performance.

The document is a submission to the FDA claiming substantial equivalence to predicate devices (Medical Electronic Devices Corporation unmodified POCD and the Airsep Lifestyle Oxygen Concentrator). The content focuses on:

• Device Description: The Inogen Satellite Conserver is an accessory to an oxygen concentrator, designed to conserve oxygen by delivering a bolus during inhalation. It's microprocessor-controlled with a breath sensor and valve.
• Technological Characteristics: Claims identical electronic circuitry to a predicate, with software modifications to control the valve for oxygen bolus delivery. The dosing algorithm is stated to be identical to another predicate device.
• Summary of Testing: A statement is made that "Appropriate performance, mechanical, and electrical testing was performed to demonstrate that the Inogen Satellite Conserver would perform as intended." However, no specific acceptance criteria or detailed results of these tests are provided in this document.
• Conclusion: Based on the above, the manufacturer concludes the device is substantially equivalent to marketed devices and is safe and effective.
• FDA Response: The FDA's letter acknowledges receipt and review, confirming substantial equivalence based on the provided information, but does not detail the specific testing or acceptance criteria.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information in the table format or answer the specific questions about sample sizes, expert involvement, adjudication, MRMC studies, standalone performance, or ground truth details. This document is a regulatory submission, not a study report.

Ask a specific question about this device

The CODMAN Neurotrend Cerebral Tissue Monitoring System measures Intracranial oxygen, carbon dioxide, pH and temperature, and is intended as an indicallarial oxygon, and in these parameters, indicating the perfusion and metabolic acidosis/alkalosis status of cerebral tissue local to sensor placement. metabolic academand values are relative within an individual, the Neurotrend should not be used as the sole basis for decisions as to diagnosis or therapy. It is intended to provide data additional to that obtained by current clinical practice, in cases where hypoxia/ischaemia is a concem.

The Neurotrend Sensor (C7004S) is a modified version of the Fluorescent Paratrend 7 sensor which has been cleared for the US Market (K953893). The measurement parameters for Neurotrend are essentially the same as the Fluorescent Paratrend 7. The sensor does not require a heparin treatment, as a consequence of the application - to monitor cerebral tissue and fluid gas parameters.

The provided text describes the Neurotrend Multiparameter Sensor, a device intended to measure intracranial oxygen, carbon dioxide, pH, and temperature. The submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device by showing that the modification (absence of heparin treatment) does not negatively impact performance.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study information based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document doesn't explicitly state quantitative acceptance criteria in terms of specific thresholds for bias, precision, or drift. Instead, the "acceptance criteria" appear to be met by demonstrating comparable performance between the modified device (non-heparin treated) and the predicate device (heparin treated) in terms of accuracy characteristics.

Study Information

1. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance:

   • Test Set Sample Size:
     • Heparin-treated sensors (predicate): n = 8
     • Non-heparin treated sensors (device under review): n = 7
   • Data Provenance: The study was an in vitro test, not involving human data. The devices were manufactured in the UK (based on the submitter's address).

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

   • The ground truth for the in vitro test set was established using precision gas mixtures and the Henderson-Hasselbalch equation for pH in tonometers maintained at 37°C. This is a laboratory-based, objective method, so no human experts were used to establish the ground truth for this in vitro study.

3. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

   • No adjudication method was mentioned as the ground truth was objectively determined by precision instruments and physical/chemical equations.

4. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done:

   • No, a multi-reader, multi-case comparative effectiveness study was not done. This was an in vitro performance study comparing device characteristics.

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

   • This is not applicable in the context of this device. The Neurotrend Sensor directly measures physiological parameters. The "standalone" performance described here is the in vitro performance of the sensor itself, without human interpretation of the raw measurements.

6. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

   • For the in vitro study, the ground truth was established by precision gas mixtures for partial pressures of O2 and CO2, the Henderson-Hasselbalch equation for pH, and a reference thermometer for temperature within equilibrated tonometers. This is an objective, laboratory-based physical/chemical ground truth.

7. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

   • The document does not describe the development or training of an algorithm in the traditional sense. It's a sensor device providing direct measurements. Therefore, there's no "training set" for an AI algorithm as typically understood. The sensors themselves are calibrated according to the Instructions For Use (IFU), but this is part of device manufacturing and operational procedure, not an algorithm training process.

8. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established:

   • Not applicable as no algorithm training set is described. The "calibration" of the sensors is done against primary standards in a manufacturing/testing environment.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Neotrend Multiparameter Sensor is inserted via an intravascular access device into the vascular system, e.g. umbilical artery (neonates), femoral artery (paediatrics, adults). It is intended to be used in the management of critically ill patients of any age, but especially neonates, by providing continuous blood gas data while permitting the simultaneous monitoring of blood pressure via an external transducer.

The Neotrend sensor is designed for use in conjunction only with the custom umbilical artery catheter supplied when the umbilical artery is to be the access site.

The sensor is used in conjunction with the Paratrend 7 Multiparameter Senior and/or Satellite Monitor systems.

Within the United states market, the use of this device should be limited to 72 hours.

The Neotrend Sensor (N7004S) is a modified version of the currently legally marketed device, the Paratrend 7 sensor (MPS7004). The measurement of pO2 using an electrochemical sensor (Clark electrode) in the predicate Paratrend 7 sensor has been replaced in the Neotrend device by a sensor based on optical fibre/fluorescence quenching technology. All other measurement parameters are essentially unchanged. The application has been expanded to include umbilical artery access.

The provided text describes the Neotrend Multiparameter Sensor, a modified version of the Paratrend 7 sensor. It details the device's technical characteristics, intended use, and claims substantial equivalence to previously cleared devices. However, the document does not describe acceptance criteria or a study that proves the device meets specific acceptance criteria.

Instead, it presents a comparison of the Neotrend sensor's accuracy to its predicate device, the Paratrend 7. This comparison focuses on bias and precision for pO₂, pCO₂, and pH measurements. The study methodology is outlined, but specific acceptance criteria (e.g., maximum allowable bias or standard deviation) are not provided. Therefore, it's impossible to report whether the device "meets" acceptance criteria based on this document.

Here's a breakdown of the information that is available and the parts that are missing based on your request:

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

• Acceptance Criteria: NOT PROVIDED. The document states "The data presented above satisfies product accuracy claims and shows comparable results for both Senior and Satellite," but it does not specify what those "product accuracy claims" are in terms of concrete numerical acceptance criteria (e.g., ΔpO₂

Ask a specific question about this device