Search Results

A latex surgeon's glove is a device made of natural rubber intended to be worn by operating room personnel to protect a surgical wound from contamination.

The proposed device. Latex Surgeon's Gloves Powdered is a sterilized and disposable medical glove intended to be worn by operating room personnel to protect a surgical wound from contamination. The proposed device is made of natural rubber latex, per standard ASTM D3577-096', the rubber surgical gloves classification is: "Type I - gloves compounded primarily from natural rubber latex". The proposed device is Powdered Latex Surgeon's Gloves, and variations of different size. All variations share the same color, creamy white. The proposed device is provided Gamma radiation sterilized to achieve the Sterility Assurance Level (SAL) of 10-6 and place in a sterility maintenance package to ensure a shelf life of 3 years.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device: "TULIP Natural Rubber Latex Surgeon's Glove (Powdered)". This submission aims to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device rather than proving novel safety and effectiveness. Therefore, the "study" described is a series of bench tests and adherence to recognized standards, not a clinical trial in the traditional sense.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the "study" that proves the device meets them, based on your requested information categories:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

The document does not explicitly state the sample sizes used for each specific test (e.g., how many gloves were tested for dimensions, tensile strength, pinholes, etc.). It refers to adherence to the methodologies outlined in the referenced ASTM and ISO standards for these tests. These standards typically specify minimum sample sizes for their respective test methods.

The data provenance is not specified beyond being "bench tests" conducted by the manufacturer, Shanghai Jinxiang Latex Products Co., Ltd. The country of origin of the data would therefore be China, where the manufacturer is located. The nature of these tests (bench testing) makes them prospective in the context of generating data for the 510(k) submission.

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

This type of information is not applicable to this submission. The "ground truth" for glove performance is established by the accepted industry standards (ASTM, ISO, and FDA regulations) themselves. The testing involves objective measurements against these predefined numerical and qualitative criteria, not subjective expert interpretation of data.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. The tests are objective measurements against established standards, not a consensus-based adjudication process.

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

Not applicable. This is not an AI/software as a medical device (SaMD) and therefore no MRMC study or AI-related comparative effectiveness was performed or required.

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

Not applicable. This is a physical medical device (surgical glove), not an algorithm or software. "Standalone performance" in this context refers to the glove's physical and biological properties as measured by the bench tests, without human intervention in the performance of the device itself (only in its use).

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" used is defined by adherence to published and recognized national and international standards (ASTM and ISO) and FDA regulations (21 CFR 800.20). These standards specify acceptance criteria for various physical, chemical, and biological properties of surgical gloves. The tests performed are designed to objectively measure these properties against those established "ground truths."

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not a machine learning 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 this device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Tulip Disposable Cannula is intended for use in aesthetic body contouring.

The Tulip Disposable Cannulas are coated stainless steel cannulas designed for connection to syringes (Luer Lock® tip type or hub adaptor). The cannulas are designed to be used with a syringe aspirator or syringe re-injector. There is also an infiltrator configuration available, to administer a solution to surgery sites prelipoplasty. The cannulas are made of hydrophilic coated stainless steel, and are available in various diameters, lengths and tip configurations. The Tulip Disposable Cannulas are single-use disposables, supplied sterile (e beam).

This document is a 510(k) summary for the "Tulip Disposable Cannulas" by Cell Bio-Systems, Inc. It details the device's substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than a study demonstrating its performance against specific acceptance criteria for a new technology or algorithm. Therefore, much of the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, study design, sample sizes, ground truth, and expert involvement is not applicable.

However, I can extract the relevant information concerning the device's description and the rationale for its substantial equivalence.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

Since this is a substantial equivalence determination for a medical device (cannulas) and not an AI/algorithm-based device, there are no specific performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or F1 score with numerical acceptance criteria and reported performance in the context of an AI study. The "performance" is implicitly tied to safety and effectiveness, which are deemed substantially equivalent to predicate devices.

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not applicable. This is not a study testing an algorithm's performance on a dataset. It's a regulatory submission for substantial equivalence of a physical medical device.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:

• Not applicable. Ground truth, in the context of an algorithm's performance, is not relevant to this type of device submission.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

• Not applicable.

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:

• Not applicable. MRMC studies are used for evaluating diagnostic systems with human interpretation, typically AI models. This is a physical surgical tool.

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

• Not applicable. This device is not an algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used:

• Not applicable.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable. This device did not involve a "training set" in the context of machine learning.

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

• Not applicable.

Summary of the document's relevance to the prompt:

This document is a 510(k) Premarket Notification for a medical device (Tulip Disposable Cannulas). The core of a 510(k) submission is to demonstrate that the new device is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices. This means that the new device has the same intended use as a predicate device, and the same technological characteristics as the predicate device; or has different technological characteristics from a predicate device but information is submitted that demonstrates that the device is as safe and effective as a legally marketed device and does not raise different questions of safety and effectiveness.

The document does not describe a study involving acceptance criteria for an AI or algorithmic device, nor does it provide performance metrics from such a study. Instead, it establishes "substantial equivalence" based on:

• Identical intended use (aesthetic body contouring).
• Similar technological characteristics (stainless steel cannulas, various diameters, lengths, and tip configurations).
• Similar materials (stainless steel, with a note on coatings being comparable if not identical).
• No new technology or changes in indications for use.

The "study" here is essentially the comparison and justification provided in the 510(k) summary, arguing that the Tulip Disposable Cannulas meet the requirements for safety and effectiveness because they are fundamentally similar to approved predicate devices.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Tulip condom is used for contraception and for prophylactic purposes (to help prevent pregnancy and the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases).

This condom is made of a natural latex sheath, which completely covers the penis with a closely fitted membrane. This condom is straight-walled with a reservoir tip, nominal length 180mm, nominal width 52mm, and nominal thickness 0.05mm. It is lubricated with silicon, with cornstarch as a dressing material. The condom is offered in natural latex color and is designed to conform to established American and international voluntary standards including ASTM D3492-02 and ISO 4074-1-1996

{
  "acceptance_criteria_and_study_description": {
    "acceptance_criteria_table": [
      {
        "Feature": "Length (mm)",
        "Acceptance Criteria": null,
        "Reported Device Performance": "180"
      },
      {
        "Feature": "Width (mm)",
        "Acceptance Criteria": null,
        "Reported Device Performance": "52"
      },
      {
        "Feature": "Thickness (mm)",
        "Acceptance Criteria": null,
        "Reported Device Performance": "0.05"
      },
      {
        "Feature": "Air Burst Pressure(kPa)",
        "Acceptance Criteria": null,
        "Reported Device Performance": "2.3"
      },
      {
        "Feature": "Air Burst Volume (dm³)",
        "Acceptance Criteria": null,
        "Reported Device Performance": "38.5"
      },
      {
        "Feature": "Lubricant System",
        "Acceptance Criteria": null,
        "Reported Device Performance": "Silicone"
      },
      {
        "Feature": "Reservoir Tip",
        "Acceptance Criteria": null,
        "Reported Device Performance": "Yes"
      }
    ],
    "study_details": {
      "sample_size_test_set": "Not explicitly stated for a distinct test set. The document implies comparison to a predicate device's characteristics rather than a separate test of the 'Tulip Condom' against specific acceptance criteria with a defined sample size.",
      "data_provenance": "Not explicitly stated as a separate study with specific data provenance. The document compares the 'Tulip Condom' characteristics with those of a predicate device, which would imply the characteristics of the Tulip Condom were measured/derived, likely from manufacturing or internal testing. The manufacturer is Shanghai Latex Factory, China.",
      "number_of_experts_ground_truth_test_set": "Not applicable, as this is a comparison of physical device characteristics, not an expert-driven ground truth assessment.",
      "qualifications_experts_ground_truth_test_set": "Not applicable.",
      "adjudication_method_test_set": "Not applicable, as this is a comparison of physical device characteristics, not an expert-driven ground truth assessment.",
      "multireader_multicase_comparative_effectiveness_study": "No, this is not a multi-reader multi-case comparative effectiveness study. It's a comparison of technological characteristics for a medical device.",
      "effect_size_human_readers_ai_without_ai": "Not applicable.",
      "standalone_algorithm_only_performance": "Not applicable, as this device is a physical product (condom), not an algorithm or AI.",
      "type_of_ground_truth_used": "Device specifications/measurements, compared against a predicate device's specifications and established standards (ASTM D3492 and ISO 4074-1).",
      "sample_size_training_set": "Not applicable. This is not an AI/algorithm-based device requiring a training set.",
      "how_ground_truth_training_set_established": "Not applicable."
    },
    "acceptance_criteria_description": "The device (Tulip Condom) is presented as having the same technological characteristics as its predicate device (Latex Condom 510(k) #[K994118](https://510k.innolitics.com/search/K994118)). The acceptance criteria are implicitly met if the Tulip Condom's characteristics (Length, Width, Thickness, Air Burst Pressure, Air Burst Volume, Lubricant System, Reservoir Tip) are equivalent or within acceptable ranges of the predicate device's characteristics and conform to established American and international voluntary standards (ASTM D3492-02 and ISO 4074-1-1996)."
  }
}

Ask a specific question about this device

Tulip Colorswitch is a dental impression material based on alginate. It is used for taking impressions of the oral cavity with the purpose of constructing a gypsum cast that is a copy of the situation in the mouth. It is a general purpose impression material for making study models, first impressions for the construction of individual trays, situation models, orthodontic impressions etc.

Tulip Colorswitch is a dental impression material based on alginate. Tulip Colorswitch has the special characteristic of being a color-changing alginate: it becomes violet upon contact with water in the mixing bowl, changes to pink indicating the end of the mixing time and then finally changes to white indicating the end of the setting time in the mouth.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for a dental impression material, "Tulip Colorswitch Alginate Impression Materials" (K032116), and the FDA's determination of substantial equivalence to a predicate device. However, this document does not contain any information about acceptance criteria or a study that proves the device meets specific performance criteria.

The FDA letter and the "Indications for Use" statement focus on regulatory approval based on substantial equivalence, general controls, and the intended use of the device. There is no mention of specific numerical performance metrics, clinical study design, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, or expert evaluations.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information. The document itself is a regulatory approval letter, not a performance study report.

Ask a specific question about this device

Tulip Alginate impression material is a dental impression material based on alginate. It is used for taking impressions of the oral cavity with the purpose of constructing a gypsum cast that is a copy of the situation in the mouth. It is a general purpose impression material for making study models, first impressions for the construction of individual trays, situation models, orthodontic impressions etc.

Tulip Alginate impression material is a dental impression material based on alginate.

The provided text is a 510(k) clearance letter from the FDA for a dental impression material named "Tulip Alginate Impression Material." This document does not contain any information about acceptance criteria, device performance studies, sample sizes, expert qualifications, or ground truth methodologies that would be typically associated with an AI/ML device or a complex diagnostic medical device.

The letter explicitly states: "We have reviewed your Section 510(k) premarket notification of intent to market the device referenced above and have determined the device is substantially equivalent (for the indications for use stated in the enclosure) to legally marketed predicate devices marketed in interstate commerce prior to May 28, 1976..."

This indicates that the clearance was based on demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices, rather than a de novo clinical study with specific acceptance criteria and detailed performance metrics as would be required for novel or high-risk devices.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information from the given text. The text does not describe a study proving the device meets acceptance criteria in the manner you've outlined.

Ask a specific question about this device

THE DENTAL ALGINATE IMPRESSION MATERIAL IS JSED TO TAKE THE PATIENT'S IMPRESSIONS OF TEETH AND GUM WHEN THE PATIENT NEEDS DEVIURE, PARTIAL, OR ANY KINDS OF DENTAL APPLIANCES AND ORTHODONTIC APPLIANCES.

DENTAL ALGINATE IMPRESSION MATERIAL

I am sorry, but the provided text is a 510(k) clearance letter for a dental alginate impression material from 1997. It describes the regulatory approval of the device but does not contain any information about acceptance criteria, study data, performance metrics, or details of a study used to prove the device meets acceptance criteria.

Therefore, I cannot extract the requested information.

Ask a specific question about this device