Search Results

The Wireless Probe Type Ultrasound Scanner (Model: UProbe-C) (frequency: 3.5Hz, module: convex) is intended for diagnostic ultrasound echo imaging, measurement, and analysis of the human body for general clinical applications including obstetrics (OB), gynecology (GY) and general (abdominal) imaging.

The Wireless Probe Type Ultrasound Scanner (Model: UProbe-L) (frequency: 7.5Hz, module: linear) is intended for diagnostic ultrasound echo imaging, measurement, and analysis of the human body for general clinical applications including small organ and peripheral vessel imaging.

The Wireless Probe Type Ultrasound Scanner (Model: BProbe) is intended to project ultrasound energy through the lower abdomen of the nonpregnant patient to obtain an image of the bladder and uses that image to calculate the bladder volume non-invasively. It is contraindicated for fetal use and for use on pregnant patients. And it should not be used by those who are allergic to coupling agent and who have abdomen wound and skin disease.

The Wireless Probe Type Ultrasound Scanner (Model: UProbe-C; UProbe-L; BProbe) is a wireless ultrasound system that uses pulsed-echo technology to transmit ultrasound images via wireless communication to a mobile device that utilizes the iOS operating system.

The mobile device for use with the Wireless Probe Type Ultrasound Scanner (Model: UProbe-C; UProbe-L; BProbe) are those that utilizes the iOS operating system, i.e. all series of iPad or iPhone from Apple Inc.

The Wireless Probe Type Ultrasound Scanner is a portable, general-purpose, software-controlled, hand-held diagnostic ultrasound system that consists of (i) a commercial off-the-shelf iOS mobile device, (ii) the Wireless Probe Type Ultrasound Scanner software that runs as an app on the mobile device, (iii) the battery-operated, hand-held Wireless Probe Type Ultrasound Scanner transducer that communicates wirelessly with iOS mobile devices, and (iv) the instructions for use manual, USB Cable for Charging, wrist wrap.

The Wireless Probe Type Ultrasound Scanner utilizes pulsed-echo technology to determine the depth and location of tissue interfaces, and to measure the duration of an acoustic pulse from the transmitter to the tissue interface and back to the receiver. Ultrasound waves are emitted from the transducer, propagate through tissues, and return to the transducer as reflected echoes. The returned echoes are then converted into electrical impulses by transducer crystals and further processed in order to form the ultrasound image presented on the screen.

The device components are not supplied sterile and do not require sterilization prior to use.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for the Wireless Probe Type Ultrasound Scanner (Models: UProbe-C, UProbe-L, BProbe). It establishes substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than providing a study proving performance against acceptance criteria for an AI/ML device.

Therefore, most of the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, reported performance, sample sizes, ground truth, experts, adjudication, and MRMC studies for an AI/ML device is not available in the provided text. The document describes a traditional medical device (ultrasound scanner) and its non-clinical testing for safety and effectiveness to demonstrate equivalence to existing devices.

Here's what can be extracted from the document:

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

This information is not directly provided in the context of device performance metrics against specific acceptance criteria. Instead, the document focuses on demonstrating that the device meets general safety and effectiveness standards comparable to predicate devices. The "reported device performance" is implicitly that it meets the requirements of the standards listed below.

For the BProbe model, specific accuracy for bladder volume measurement is mentioned:

Ask a specific question about this device

The Urine/CSF Protein assay is used for the quantitative determination of protein in human urine or cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) on the ALCYON™ Analyzer. Identification of urinary protein is used in the diagnosis and treatment of disease conditions such as renal or heart diseases or thyroid disorders, which are characterized by proteinuria or albuminuria. CSF protein measurements are used in the diagnosis and treatment of conditions such as meningitis, brain tumors, and infections of the central nervous system.

Urine/CSF Protein is an in vitro diagnostic assay for the quantitative determination of protein in human urine or cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) on the ALCYON™ Analyzer. The Urine/CSF Protein assay is a clinical chemistry assay using a turbidimetric procedure in which benzethonium chloride is used as the protein denaturing agent. Proteins present in the urine or CSF are denatured by benzethonium chloride resulting in the formation of a fine suspension which is quantitated turbidimetrically at 405 mm. The reagent has been modified to overcome the problem of high concentration (Hook) effect, where very high concentrations of protein in urine can cause an apparent zero or low reading.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the Abbott Urine/CSF Protein assay, framed by the requested information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The submission does not explicitly list "acceptance criteria" in a typical quantitative sense (e.g., "correlation coefficient must be > 0.95"). Instead, it states that the new device is "substantially equivalent" to the predicate, and this is demonstrated by the reported performance characteristics. The acceptance is implicitly met if the reported performance is considered "acceptable correlation" and "substantially equivalent" to the predicate.

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

• Sample Size: The document does not explicitly state the exact number of samples used for the method comparison study (the "test set"). It mentions "comparative performance studies" and "precision studies."
• Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin of the data. It implies the data was collected at Abbott Laboratories or a contract research organization working with them. It is a prospective study as it involves conducting new tests to compare the device against a predicate, rather than analyzing existing datasets.

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

This is an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) assay for quantitative protein measurement. The "ground truth" is established by the reference method (the predicate device) or by established analytical techniques. It doesn't involve human expert adjudication in the same way an imaging or pathology device would. Therefore, this question is not directly applicable in a conventional sense for this type of device. The "experts" would be the laboratory personnel performing the assays and analyzing the results according to validated laboratory practices.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. As noted above, this is an IVD assay where quantitative measurements from one device are compared against another, not a diagnostic interpretation requiring adjudication of reader opinions.

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 an in vitro diagnostic assay, not an AI-assisted diagnostic imaging or pathology system for human readers.

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

Yes, in the context of an IVD, the "standalone" performance refers to the device's analytical performance on its own, which is what the linearity, precision, and sensitivity studies assessed. The method comparison also evaluates the device's performance against a predicate as a standalone system.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used (Expert Consensus, Pathology, Outcomes Data, etc.)

The ground truth for the performance studies was:

• Reference Method/Predicate Device: For method comparison, the Boehringer Mannheim® Urinary/CSF Protein assay on the Hitachi® 717 Analyzer served as the reference standard.
• Known Concentrations: For linearity and sensitivity, materials with known concentrations (e.g., calibrators/standards) were used.
• Control Materials: For precision studies, control materials with expected ranges were used.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable in the typical sense of machine learning. This is a traditional in vitro diagnostic assay based on a turbidimetric chemical reaction. There isn't a "training set" of data for an algorithm as there would be for an AI/ML device. The "training" of the assay involves optimization of the reagent formulation and reaction conditions, which is a chemical and engineering process, not a data-driven algorithm training.

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

Not applicable. As mentioned, there isn't a "training set" in the AI/ML context. The optimization of the assay's chemical parameters (reagent formulation, reaction conditions) would be based on fundamental chemical principles and empirical experimentation to achieve desired analytical performance characteristics. The "ground truth" for this optimization would be accurate measurements from established analytical methods during development to ensure the new reagent performs as expected.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Urine/CSF Protein assay is used for the quantitative determination of protein in human urine or cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) on the AEROSET System. Identification of urinary protein is used in the diagnosis and treatment of disease conditions such as renal or heart diseases or thyroid disorders, which are characterized by proteinuria or albuminuria.

Urine/CSF Protein is an in vitro diagnostic assay for the quantitative determination of protein in human urine or cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). The Urine/CSF Protein assay is a clinical chemistry assay using a turbidimetric procedure in which benzethonium chloride is used as the protein denaturing agent. Proteins present in the urine or CSF are denatured by benzethonium chloride resulting in the formation of a fine suspension which is quantitated turbidimetrically at 405 nm. The reagent has been modified to overcome the problem of high concentration (Hook) effect, where very high concentrations of protein in urine can cause an apparent zero or low reading.

Here's a summary of the acceptance criteria and study details for the Urine/CSF Protein assay, based on the provided 510(k) summary:

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 size (number of patient samples) used for the method comparison or precision studies.
• The data provenance is not specified (e.g., country of origin, retrospective or prospective). It is implied to be clinical samples since it refers to "human urine or cerebrospinal fluid."

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

• This is not applicable as the study involves a comparative performance analysis against a legally marketed predicate device (Boehringer Mannheim Urinary/CSF Protein assay on the Hitachi 717 Analyzer), not a diagnostic device requiring expert interpretation for ground truth establishment. The "ground truth" is effectively the results obtained from the predicate device.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

• Not applicable, as this is a performance comparison of an in vitro diagnostic assay against a predicate device, not a study involving expert interpretation or adjudication.

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

• No, an MRMC study was not done. This device is an in vitro diagnostic assay, not an imaging or interpretive device that would typically involve human readers.

6. If a Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Was Done:

• Yes, the performance characteristics (method comparison, precision, linearity, sensitivity) are presented as standalone performance of the UPro assay on the AEROSET system. There is no human interaction described in the performance evaluation of the device itself.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

• The "ground truth" for evaluating the UPro assay was established by comparison to a legally marketed predicate device, the Boehringer Mannheim Urinary/CSF Protein assay on the Hitachi 717 Analyzer. The performance of the predicate device serves as the reference standard.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

• The document does not provide information about a training set. As an in vitro diagnostic assay, the "training" would typically refer to the development and optimization of the reagent and assay protocol, rather than a machine learning training set with a specific sample size.

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

• Not applicable in the context of this traditional in vitro diagnostic assay. The ground truth for development and optimization would have been based on established analytical chemistry principles and potentially reference methods, but this type of detail is not typically included in a 510(k) summary.

Ask a specific question about this device

An Abbott Clinical Chemistry Calibrator is a device intended for medical purposes for use in a test system to establish points of reference that are used in the determination of values in the measurement of substances in human specimens.

Abbott Clinical Chemistry Calibrators were used for the calibration of each clinical chemistry reagent on the ALCYON 300/300i. The calibration curve generated was used for the quantitation of each analyte for the purpose of collecting performance data in support of the reagent 510(k) as outlined on the next page.

The provided text describes the submission of a 510(k) for Abbott Clinical Chemistry Calibrators. These are in vitro diagnostic devices intended for use in clinical chemistry assays to establish points of reference for the measurement of substances in human specimens.

However, the document does not contain a detailed study proving the device meets specific acceptance criteria in the way described in your request for AI/medical imaging devices. This is because calibrators, unlike diagnostic algorithms, are typically evaluated through different validation processes.

Here's an breakdown based on the information available and why certain sections of your request cannot be fulfilled:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance (Based on provided text)

Study Information (Based on provided text)

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

• Not provided. The document describes the calibrators' intended use in supporting the performance data for reagents, rather than a direct study on the calibrators themselves with a test set of human specimens. The 510(k) process for calibrators often focuses on their stability, traceability, and ability to produce expected values when used with their respective reagents, which involves different types of testing.

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/Not provided. This type of information is relevant for AI algorithms that diagnose or interpret medical images. For a calibrator, "ground truth" would relate to the accuracy and traceability of the calibrator's assigned values, which is typically established through metrological methods, reference materials, and laboratory testing, not expert consensus on patient data.

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

• Not applicable/Not provided. Pertains to expert review of discrepancies in AI performance evaluation.

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/Not provided. Pertains to AI diagnostic algorithms.

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

• Not applicable/Not provided. Pertains to AI diagnostic algorithms.

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

• Not explicitly detailed in the document. For calibrators, "ground truth" refers to the highly accurate and traceable assigned values for each analyte within the calibrator. This is established through rigorous laboratory methods, often traceable to international reference materials or definitive methods (e.g., mass spectrometry for small molecules). The document states the calibrators generate curves for "quantitation of each analyte," implying their values serve as the reference.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable/Not provided. This refers to machine learning models.

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

• Not applicable/Not provided. This refers to machine learning models.

Summary regarding the nature of this submission:
This 510(k) submission is for calibrators, which are reference materials used to ensure the accuracy of other diagnostic tests (reagents). The "study" referenced in the text is not a clinical trial or an AI performance study with patient data, but rather the internal validation demonstrating that these calibrators can successfully generate "calibration curves" for specific reagents on a particular instrument (ALCYON 300/300i). The performance data collected using these calibrators would then be submitted as part of the 510(k) for the individual reagents themselves (as indicated by the list of K numbers for each reagent).

Therefore, the type of detailed performance evaluation requested, particularly concerning expert review and AI-specific metrics, is not present because it's not relevant for this type of in vitro diagnostic calibrator.

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device