Search Results

The Sienna Ultimate EEG amplifier is intended to be used as a front end amplifier to acquire, store and transmit electrophysiological signals in a wired or wireless mode for the EMS Neurodiagnostic system.

The Sienna Ultimate is a small portable device which is capable of acquiring a variety of electrophysiological signals at variable sampling frequencies and can be used in a wide variety of EEG applications. The proposed device consists of two models designated as the 32 channel and the 64 channel amplifier in a wireless or wired mode, passive headboxes, medical grade power supply, WLAN access point (for wireless models) or medical grade isolated LAN cable (for wired models), Sienna EEG software. The following accessories can be connected to the passive headboxes: EEG electrodes, EEG headcaps and pulse oximeter sensors.

The provided text describes the safety and performance testing for the "Sienna Ultimate Wireless Amplifier" (EEG Amplifier), but it does not present acceptance criteria in a quantitative table or a study proving that the device meets those criteria with performance metrics. The information focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device through adherence to recognized standards.

Therefore, many of the requested details about acceptance criteria, reported performance, sample sizes, expert involvement, and ground truth are not explicitly available in the provided text.

Here's an analysis based on the information that is available:

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

The document doesn't provide a table of quantitative acceptance criteria with corresponding device performance metrics. Instead, it relies on demonstrating compliance with recognized safety and performance standards. The "Results" column in the "Safety Testing" table primarily states "There were no deviations from the standard and the proposed device passed the applicable tests and requirements."

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

The document does not specify the sample size used for any of the tests. It refers to "the subject device" or "the sample of the proposed device" passing tests, implying at least one device was tested. There is no information about data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective).

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 and not provided. The testing described is primarily engineering and regulatory compliance testing against defined standards, not a clinical study requiring expert ground truth for interpretation of observational data.

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

This is not applicable as there's no diagnostic or interpretive task described that would require an adjudication method.

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 is not applicable. The device is a physiological signal amplifier (EEG amplifier), not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool for human readers. No MRMC study was conducted or mentioned.

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

This is not applicable. The device is hardware (an EEG amplifier), not software or an algorithm.

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

This is not applicable directly in the way it's usually considered for diagnostic devices. The "ground truth" for the tests performed was compliance with the technical specifications and requirements outlined in the referenced international standards (e.g., IEC 60601-1, IEC 60601-2-26).

8. The sample size for the training set:

This is not applicable as the device is a hardware amplifier and not a machine learning model that requires a training set.

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

This is not applicable for the same reason as above.

Summary of available information regarding compliance with standards:

The study proving the device meets its requirements is a series of engineering and regulatory compliance tests against recognized international standards.

Conclusion from the document: "The Sienna Ultimate EEG amplifier meets the functional claims and intended use as described in the product labeling. The safety and effectiveness are substantially equivalent to the predicate device, Nicolet Wireless EEG Amplifier."

Ask a specific question about this device