Search Results

Siren ePCR Suite™ is intended for the collection, storage and printing of patient data that is entered by a user (paramedic), or captured from specified medical devices, and integrated into a patient care report (patient electronic medical record). Siren ePCR Suite™ is intended for use by qualified medical personnel providing direct patient care in the pre-hospital environment to document the care provided. Siren ePCR Suite™ is indicated for use by health care providers whenever there is a need for generation of a patient record.

Siren ePCR Suite™ is a software-only product. Siren ePCR Suite™ is a medical data collection system used to collect, store and print patient data that is entered by a user (caregiver), or captured from specified medical devices, and is integrated into a patient care report (patient electronic medical record). Siren ePCR Suite™ is non-alarming software that runs on a variety of commercial off-the-shelf hardware.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the "Siren ePCR Suite™" device. It focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to a predicate device ("RescueNet ePCR"). This type of submission generally does not include detailed performance studies with acceptance criteria, sample sizes, or expert adjudication in the way that an AI/ML device would be proven to meet performance claims.

Based on the provided text, the device is a software-only product classified as a "Medical Cathode-ray Tube Display" (regulatory class II) with the product codes DXJ and NSX. Its intended use is for the collection, storage, and printing of patient data entered by paramedics or captured from specified medical devices, integrated into a patient care report in a pre-hospital environment.

Here's an analysis of the provided text in relation to your questions:

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

The document does not provide a table with specific quantitative acceptance criteria (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy targets) against which the device's performance was measured for clinical effectiveness. The "reported device performance" is primarily framed around the comparison of technological characteristics to a predicate device and the successful completion of non-clinical software testing.

The acceptance criteria mentioned are general:

• "The software was tested against the established Software Design Specifications for each of the test plans to assure the device performs as intended."
• "The testing results supports that all specifications have met the acceptance criteria of each module and interaction of processes."
• "Siren ePCR Suite™ device passed all testing and supports the claims of substantial equivalence and safe operation."

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

Not applicable. This was a non-clinical software verification and validation study, not a clinical study involving patient data with a test set in the conventional sense of AI/ML performance evaluation. The "test set" refers to software testing scenarios, not a dataset of patient cases.

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)

Not applicable. Given that this was a functional software verification and validation, ground truth would be established by reference to the software design specifications and expected system behavior, rather than expert consensus on medical cases.

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

Not applicable. No mention of an adjudication method for a test set, as no clinical test set for diagnostic or predictive performance was used.

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. The document explicitly states: "There was no clinical testing required to support the medical device as the indications for use is equivalent to the predicate device." This device is a data collection and storage system, not an AI/ML device designed to assist human readers or perform diagnostic interpretations.

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

No. The device is a "software-only product" for data collection, storage, and printing, running on commercial off-the-shelf hardware. Its function is to facilitate the documentation of care by qualified medical personnel, not to provide standalone analytical performance in the way an AI/ML algorithm would.

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

For the non-clinical testing, the "ground truth" was the device's "established Software Design Specifications." The software was tested to ensure it performed as intended according to these specifications and to mitigate identified hazards.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This device is not an AI/ML product developed using a training set.

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

Not applicable. As there was no training set, there was no ground truth for a training set.

Ask a specific question about this device