Search Results

The SLENDERTONE® CoreFit Abs 8, Type 734 is indicated for the improvement of abdominal muscle tone, for strengthening of abdominal muscles, and for the development of a firmer abdomen.

The SLENDERTONE® CoreFit Abs 8, Type 734 is a portable neuromuscular electrical stimulator intended to deliver electrical stimulation to the abdominal muscles. The device includes a control unit, abdominal garment, 3 adhesive gel pads (electrodes), USB cable and instructions for use. It contains ten pre-installed programs. The control unit is connected to the abdominal belt garment via three magnetic connectors. The control unit contains the primary controls for operation of the device and push buttons are available for switching the unit on off and to increase or decrease the stimulation intensity. The SLENDERTONE® CoreFit Abs 8. Type 734 contains an Organic Light-Emitting Diode (OLED) display which indicates status relating to battery charge and stimulation. Power is derived from a 3.7V Li-Po rechargeable battery pack and the unit can be recharged by using the supplied USB cable.

This document is a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device called SLENDERTONE CoreFit Abs 8, Type 734. It's a review by the FDA to determine if the device is "substantially equivalent" to a legally marketed predicate device. This type of submission relies on comparisons to existing devices rather than extensive clinical studies to prove effectiveness.

Therefore, the provided document does not contain the kind of detailed information about acceptance criteria, efficacy studies, expert adjudication, or MRMC studies that you requested for an AI/ML-based medical device.

The study described here is primarily safety and performance testing against electrical and electromagnetic compatibility standards, and biocompatibility testing of materials. It does not involve a "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" in the sense of demonstrating improvement in muscle tone or strength through a clinical trial with human subjects and outcome metrics.

Here's an explanation based on the provided document, addressing your points where possible, and highlighting what is not present:

Key Takeaway from the Document:
The SLENDERTONE CoreFit Abs 8, Type 734 is an electrical muscle stimulator. Its clearance is based on substantial equivalence to a predicate device (Slendertone System Ultra, Type 390, Model E70/X70), meaning its technological characteristics and intended use are similar enough not to raise new questions of safety or effectiveness. This is not a new technology being proven effective through a clinical trial, but rather a demonstration that a new product design is as safe and performs similarly to an already approved one.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information, with answers based on the document and explanations for what is not applicable or present:

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

   The document does not provide acceptance criteria and reported device performance in terms of clinical efficacy (e.g., specific metrics for "improvement of abdominal muscle tone" or "strengthening of abdominal muscles" that would be measured in human subjects).

   Instead, it discusses biocompatibility testing results and compliance with international safety and performance standards for electrical medical devices.

   Table for Biocompatibility Testing:

   Test	Result	Toxicological Conclusion
   Cytotoxicity Test: MTT Method MEM with 10% FBS Extract	Potential toxicity at extract concentration >=75%	No toxicological risk to users.
   Cytotoxicity Test: MTT Method MEM Extract	No potential cytotoxic potential	No toxicological risk to users.
   Skin sensitization: Buehler test in guinea pigs	Dermal scoring using the Magnusson and Kligman scoring system was graded as 0 (no visible change)	No toxicological risk to users.
   Skin irritation Test: Direct contact	No abnormal signs were observed during the study. The response of skin on test side did not exceed that on the control side.	No toxicological risk to users.

   Performance Testing (Compliance with Standards):
   The document states: "Performance testing was conducted in accordance with the following international standards for safety:" followed by a list of IEC 60601 series standards (e.g., IEC 60601-1, IEC 60601-1-6, IEC 60601-1-2, IEC 60601-2-10, IEC 60601-1-11) and IEC 62133 for battery testing.
   The "acceptance criterion" here is compliance with these standards, which implies the device demonstrated it met the requirements (e.g., limits for leakage current, electromagnetic compatibility, usability, etc.). The specific numerical results of these tests (e.g., exact leakage current measurements) are not detailed in this summary.

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

   This document refers to engineering and biocompatibility testing, not human clinical trials or AI model validation data.

   • Biocompatibility: The tests used guinea pigs for skin sensitization and likely in-vitro cell cultures for cytotoxicity. The sample sizes for these biological tests are not specified in this summary.
   • Electrical Performance: These involve testing the device hardware against electrical and EMC standards. The "sample size" would typically be a few devices subjected to a series of tests in a lab.
   • Data Provenance: Not applicable in the context of clinical data. The tests were conducted to international standards, presumably in a controlled lab environment.

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 is not applicable. The "ground truth" for this device's clearance is its compliance with recognized safety and performance standards and its technological similarity to a legally marketed predicate device. There is no "test set" in the context of clinical images or patient data that would require expert annotation to establish ground truth for an AI algorithm.

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

   Not applicable. There is no human reading or interpretation task that requires adjudication for this type of device clearance.

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. This device is an electrical muscle stimulator, not an AI diagnostic tool that assists human readers. Therefore, an MRMC study is not relevant.

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

   Not applicable. This is not an AI algorithm. Its performance is inherent to its electrical stimulation characteristics and physical design, not software-based interpretation of data.

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

   The "ground truth" for this 510(k) clearance is:

   • Compliance with established electrical safety and performance standards (IEC 60601 series).
   • Acceptable biocompatibility test results.
   • Demonstrated equivalence of technological characteristics and indications for use to a legally marketed predicate device.
   • Failure of a device to meet specific criteria outlined in these standards (e.g., excessive leakage current, failure of an electrical test) would constitute a "non-compliance" or "failure" against this ground truth.

8. The sample size for the training set

   Not applicable. This device does not use an AI/ML algorithm that requires a training set.

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

   Not applicable. There is no training set for an AI/ML algorithm.

In summary, the provided document describes a 510(k) substantial equivalence submission for a powered muscle stimulator. This process focuses on demonstrating safety and performance equivalence to an existing device through engineering tests and biocompatibility analysis, rather than proving clinical efficacy of a novel technology or validating an AI algorithm with clinical data. Therefore, most of your specific questions related to AI/ML device validation are not applicable to this document.

Ask a specific question about this device