Search Results

The SOMNOscreen® plus is a non-life-supporting portable physiological signal recording device intended to be used for testing adults and children (age 2 to 12 years)/adolescents (age 12 and above) suspected of having sheep related breathing disorders.

The SOMNOscreen® plus is a modular system with the following components available .: Thermistor, Nasal Canula, Effort belts with respective sensor, SpO2-Sensor, Microphone, Headbox (EXG Channels), external body position sensor, shoulder belts, activity sensor, EMG-PLM sensor, pressure sensor, gold cup electrodes and LoFlo CO2-module (optional). The SOMNOscreen® plus device provides 13 AC channels (10 Referential and 3 Differential), 11 Respiratory and AUX Channels, and 8 Internal Channels.

The SOMNOscreen plus is available in 4 different configurations.

• . Cardio-RESP
• Home Sleep
• PSG .
• . EEG 32

The purpose of this 510(k) submission is to expand the patient population to include children and adolescents. For the use in pediatric patients the DOMINO software only allows manual (visual) scoring by qualified RPSG. There is no automated analysis or highlighting available for pediatric patients.

The provided text describes a medical device, SOMNOscreen plus, and its FDA 510(k) clearance. The submission focuses on expanding the patient population to include children and adolescents, emphasizing that for this new population, only manual scoring by qualified personnel is allowed, with no automated analysis.

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

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly present a table of "acceptance criteria" against "reported device performance" in a quantitative manner for specific diagnostic metrics (e.g., accuracy, sensitivity, specificity for detecting sleep-related breathing disorders). Instead, it discusses compliance with general safety and performance standards for electroencephalographs and polysomnographs.

However, we can infer some performance aspects based on the technical specifications and comparisons:

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

The document explicitly states: "Clinical data were not relied upon for a determination of substantial equivalence." This means no specific clinical test set was used to evaluate the device's diagnostic performance for sleep-related breathing disorders in humans for this submission. The evaluation focused on technical and safety equivalence to predicate devices and adherence to standards.

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

As no clinical data was relied upon, there was no test set requiring expert-established ground truth. The "ground truth" implicitly referred to here is compliance with technical standards and AASM recommendations for polysomnography signal acquisition. For pediatric applications, the text mentions "manual (visual) scoring by qualified RPSG" (Registered Polysomnographic Technologist), implying that human experts are crucial for interpreting the device's output, especially in the expanded pediatric population. However, this is about the use of the device, not the validation of its performance in a clinical study for this submission.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable, as no clinical test set was used or described.

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

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done, as stated by "Clinical data were not relied upon for a determination of substantial equivalence." The document indicates that for pediatric populations, the software "only allows manual (visual) scoring by qualified RPSG. There is no automated analysis or highlighting available for pediatric patients." This suggests that any comparative effectiveness of human readers with AI assistance versus without AI assistance is not relevant to this specific clearance for the pediatric population, as AI assistance for scoring is explicitly not provided for them.

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

No standalone algorithm performance study was described. In fact, for the new pediatric population, the device explicitly does not offer automated analysis or highlighting, emphasizing human interpretation.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

For the purposes of this 510(k) submission, the "ground truth" used was primarily compliance with recognized standards (IEC 60601-1, IEC 60601-1-2, ISO 14971, ISO 10993, IEC 62366-1) and technical specifications, as well as adherence to minimum performance specifications recommended by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) for signal types. No clinical ground truth (like pathology, expert consensus on diagnostic outcomes, or long-term outcomes data) was used in a specific clinical study for this submission.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

No training set information is provided, as the submission did not rely on clinical data or automated algorithms that would require a training set for this clearance. The "training" here refers to the design and verification process of the device itself against engineering and safety requirements.

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

Not applicable, as no training set for an AI algorithm was described. The device's "training" in an engineering sense involved verification and validation against pre-specified requirement specifications and relevant performance standards, ensuring basic safety and essential performance.

Ask a specific question about this device