Search Results
Found 1 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(13 days)
USGI TRANSPORT ENDOSCOPIC GUIDE
The USGI TransPort Endoscopic Guide is intended to be used with an endoscope to facilitate intubation of the endoscope and as a guide for various flexible endoscopic instruments.
USGI Transport™ Endoscopic Access Device
The provided text is a 510(k) premarket notification letter from the FDA regarding the USGI Transport™ Endoscopic Access Device. This type of document primarily confirms substantial equivalence to a predicate device and outlines regulatory compliance. It does not typically contain detailed information about the acceptance criteria or a specific study proving the device meets those criteria, as one would find for a novel device requiring extensive clinical trials.
Therefore, many of the requested fields cannot be directly extracted from this document. However, I will fill in what can be inferred or stated based on the nature of a 510(k) submission.
1. Table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance:
| Acceptance Criteria | Reported Device Performance |
|---|---|
| Not specified in this document. In a 510(k) submission, acceptance criteria are generally related to demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device in terms of safety and effectiveness, often through performance testing, material characterization, and sometimes limited clinical data. | The FDA determined the device is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices. This implies that the device's performance, as evaluated against the predicate(s), met the necessary criteria for equivalence in its intended use. Specific performance metrics are not detailed in this letter. |
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g., country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective):
- Sample Size for Test Set: Not specified in this document. For a 510(k) for an endoscopic access device, testing typically involves mechanical and functional performance tests rather than a "test set" in the context of AI/diagnostic algorithms. If any human-factors or limited animal/human studies were performed for the 510(k), their sample sizes are not detailed here.
- Data Provenance: Not specified.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:
- Not applicable or specified. This device is not an AI/diagnostic device that relies on expert-established ground truth for its performance evaluation in the way a diagnostic algorithm would. Its performance is assessed primarily through engineering and functional testing.
4. Adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:
- Not applicable or specified. As above, this is not a diagnostic device evaluated with expert adjudication methods.
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 not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool, so 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 a physical medical device (endoscopic access device), not an algorithm.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.):
- Not applicable in the context of AI/diagnostic ground truth. The "ground truth" for this device would be its functional performance specifications, material properties, and compatibility with endoscopes and instruments, as demonstrated through engineering tests and potentially limited animal or ex-vivo studies.
8. The sample size for the training set:
- Not applicable. This device is not an AI/machine learning model, so there is no training set.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established:
- Not applicable. There is no training set for this type of device.
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1