Search Results

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

The Portable Oxygen Concentrator provides a high concentration of supplemental oxygen to adult patients requiring respiratory therapy on a prescriptive basis. It may be used at home, in institution, vehicle, train, airplane, boats and other transport modalities. This device is to be used as an oxygen supplement and is not intended to be life sustaining or life supporting.

Users should follow their doctor's advice on setting the oxygen flow rate and should not adjust the flow rate without consulting a healthcare professional.

Note: Patients should regularly consult with their physician to evaluate the need for adjustments in their oxygen therapy settings.

The Portable Oxygen Concentrator is a Class II, low-risk medical device designed to provide a high-concentration oxygen supply (87%-95.5%) to adult patients requiring supplemental oxygen therapy as prescribed by a healthcare professional. It is intended for use at home, in institution, vehicle, train, airplane, boats and other transport modalities and complies with FAA regulations for in-flight use. The device is not intended for life-support or life-sustaining purposes.

The Portable Oxygen Concentrator utilizes Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA) technology, which extracts oxygen from ambient air by selectively adsorbing nitrogen through molecular sieve beds. Oxygen is delivered through a pulse dose mechanism, synchronizing oxygen release with the patient's inhalation cycle to optimize efficiency and minimize waste.

The series consists of four models, each offering different pulse dose settings:

• W-R1 (MAX): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, S
• W-R1: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
• W-R2: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
• W-R2 (Lite): 1, 2, 3, 4

The device operates in pulse flow mode and supports multiple power sources, including 100–240V AC (50–60Hz) and a rechargeable lithium-ion battery (14.4V / 6500mAh). While the hardware supports 13.0–16.8V DC input, DC operation is not currently supported, as no DC accessories are provided or authorized. A single battery charge provides up to 4.5 hours of continuous use, ensuring flexibility across various environments.

Designed for portability and efficiency, the W-R Series features a lightweight build (1.8 kg), low noise operation, and an intuitive LCD display. Its ergonomic and user-friendly design has been internationally recognized with six global design awards, including iF, Red Dot, and IDEA, for its usability, portability, and patient-centered innovation.

The device is suitable for operation within a temperature range of -5°C to 40°C (23°F to 104°F), humidity levels of 5% to 90% (non-condensing), and atmospheric pressure from 54kPa to 106kPa. It can function at altitudes up to 5,000 meters (16,400 feet).

The Portable Oxygen Concentrator consists of a casing, compressor, molecular sieve system, solenoid valve, battery, cooling fan, control board, and display screen.

Note: The device does not include a nasal cannula; patients should purchase one separately. The oxygen outlet follows international standards, and recommended cannula specifications can be found in Section 2.12: Cannula Use of the user manual.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter is for a Portable Oxygen Concentrator. This device is not an AI/ML-enabled device. The information requested in the prompt (acceptance criteria, study details, sample size, ground truth, expert adjudication, MRMC studies, etc.) is typically associated with the rigorous evaluation of AI/ML software as a medical device (SaMD) or AI-enabled medical devices, especially those using diagnostic imaging.

Medical devices like portable oxygen concentrators are evaluated primarily on their physical performance characteristics, safety standards, and conformity to established regulations for mechanical and electrical safety. The clearance letter outlines the non-clinical tests performed (safety and performance testing, biocompatibility testing, electrical safety and EMC testing, battery safety testing, and software verification/validation), but these are not the types of studies that involve expert readers, ground truth consensus, or MRMC comparative effectiveness specific to AI diagnostics.

Therefore, I cannot extract the requested information (acceptance criteria in the context of an AI study, sample sizes for test/training sets, data provenance, expert adjudication, MRMC studies, standalone performance, or ground truth establishment relevant to AI/ML) directly from this document, as it pertains to a different type of medical device evaluation.

To directly answer your request based on the provided document, which is for a Portable Oxygen Concentrator (not an AI/ML diagnostic device):

The FDA 510(k) Clearance Letter for the Portable Oxygen Concentrator focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device through:

• Same Intended Use: Providing supplemental oxygen to adult patients on a prescriptive basis for respiratory therapy.
• Similar Technological Characteristics: Utilizing breath detection, molecular sieve/pressure swing adsorption, and a pulse dose mechanism.
• Performance Data: Presenting specifications like oxygen concentration, pulse volumes, sound levels, and mechanical/electrical safety.
• Compliance with Recognized Standards: Adhering to various international IEC and ISO standards for medical electrical equipment, biocompatibility, and oxygen concentrators.

The "acceptance criteria" for a device of this type are generally meeting the performance specifications and safety standards outlined in the non-clinical testing section, and demonstrating that any differences from the predicate device do not raise new questions of safety or effectiveness.

Here's a breakdown of the closest equivalents to your requested categories, given the nature of the device and the document:

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

For a portable oxygen concentrator, acceptance criteria are generally related to its physical and performance specifications like oxygen purity, flow rates, noise levels, and battery life, rather than diagnostic accuracy metrics.

Ask a specific question about this device

Ultra-Fast Vitri is indicated for use in the preparation, vitrification and storage of oocytes (MII).
Ultra-Fast Warm is indicated for use in the preparation and warming of vitrified oocytes(MII).

The Ultra-Fast Vitri and Ultra-Fast Warm is composed of a set of three media to vitrify and warm oocytes for assisted reproductive technology (ART) procedures.

The Ultra-Fast Vitri includes two components, Equilibration Solution (ES) and Vitrification Solution (VS), containing the cryoprotectants ethylene glycol and dimethyl sulfoxide. There are two vitrification procedures to choose from. During the vitrification process, oocytes are first exposed to ES then in VS within several minutes. Using this methodology, permeating cryoprotectants can replace water in the oocytes prior to vitrification and storage in liquid nitrogen. The Ultra-Fast Vitri comes prepackaged with 1.5 mL vial or 4 mL vial of ES, three 1.5 mL vials or three 4 mL vials of VS.

Ultra-Fast Warm is composed of one media used for warming and removing cryoprotectants from vitrified oocytes. It is composed of Thawing Solution (TS). The Ultra-Fast Warm comes pre-packaged with four 4.0 ml vials of TS.

All the media in the Ultra-Fast Vitri and Ultra-Fast Warm contain Gentamicin. The media undergoes aseptic filtration, while the vials are sterilized by radiation.

Based on the provided FDA 510(k) Clearance Letter, here's a description of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them:

Device: Ultra-Fast Vitri; Ultra-Fast Warm
Description: A set of three media used for the vitrification (cryopreservation) and warming of oocytes (MII) for Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) procedures.

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The core acceptance criteria for this device, as demonstrated through non-clinical and clinical performance data, revolve around its biological compatibility and effectiveness in preserving and recovering oocytes without compromising their viability or subsequent reproductive outcomes.

Study Proving Device Meets Acceptance Criteria

The provided document describes both non-clinical (bench) and clinical performance studies to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of the Ultra-Fast Vitri and Ultra-Fast Warm device and its substantial equivalence to the predicate device.

1. Non-Clinical Performance Data (Bench Testing):

• Description: A series of laboratory tests conducted directly on the media to confirm its physical, chemical, and biological properties.
• Specific Tests: Color/Appearance, pH Testing, Endotoxin testing, Osmolality Testing, Sterility Testing, Gentamicin Test, Initial Media Dispensing Validation, Mouse Embryo Assay (MEA), and Biocompatibility.
• Proof of Concept: The device passed all these tests, including achieving >80% one-cell development in the Mouse Embryo Assay, which is a critical biological performance indicator for reproductive media as per FDA guidance.

2. Clinical Performance Data:

• Study Design: A comparative study referenced from literature that evaluated the effectiveness of the ultra-fast vitrification and warming protocols using the subject device against conventional protocols (presumably using the predicate or similar conventional vitrification/warming solutions).
• Study Objective: To demonstrate comparable outcomes (oocyte survival, clinical pregnancy, live birth rates) between the ultra-fast protocol and conventional protocols.

Here's a breakdown of the specific requested information about the clinical study:

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

  • Sample Size: 1,077 mature oocytes in total.
    • 519 oocytes for the conventional vitrification and warming protocols group.
    • 558 oocytes for the ultra-fast protocols (subject device) group.
  • Data Provenance: The document states "The referenced literature used Kitazato's vitrification and warming solutions (K171748 and K160864)".
    • It does not explicitly state the country of origin of the data.
    • It does not explicitly state if the study was retrospective or prospective. However, given it's a "study" comparing protocols, it's typically prospective, but this cannot be confirmed from the text.

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

  • This information is not provided in the document. The study focuses on clinical outcomes (survival, pregnancy, live birth rates) rather than human interpretation of images or other subjective assessments that would require expert consensus for ground truth.

• 4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

  • This information is not applicable/not provided. Adjudication methods (like 2+1, 3+1) are typically relevant for studies involving human interpretation where reviewer disagreement needs to be resolved (e.g., radiology studies). This study measures biological/clinical outcomes.

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

  • No, an MRMC study was not done. MRMC studies are used to assess the impact of a device (often AI) on human reader performance, typically in diagnostic imaging. This study evaluated the direct clinical effectiveness of the media itself.
  • Therefore, an effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs. without AI assistance is not applicable.

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

  • Yes, in a sense, the clinical study assessed the "standalone" performance of the media with its associated protocols. It compared the outcomes from using the media (with its specific ultra-fast protocol) to conventional media/protocols. There isn't an "algorithm" in the traditional sense for this device; it's a chemical formulation and protocol. The "performance" is the biological outcome achieved by the oocytes.

• 7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

  • The ground truth was based on clinical outcomes data:
    • Oocyte survival rate after vitrification and thawing.
    • Clinical pregnancy rate (following embryo transfer resulting from these oocytes).
    • Live birth rate (following clinical pregnancy).
  • These are considered objective biological and clinical endpoints.

• 8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

  • This information is not applicable/not provided. This device is a media (consumable), not an AI algorithm that requires a separate "training set" of data. The "development" of the media and protocols would be based on laboratory research and refinement rather than a data training paradigm.

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

  • This information is not applicable/not provided for the same reasons as #8.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Wearable Breast Pump (Model W6), is a powered breast pump intended to be used by lactating women to express and collect milk from their breasts. It is intended for a single user.

The Wearable Breast Pump (Model W6) is a powered breast pump intended to be used by lactating women to express and collect milk from their breasts; they are intended for a single user. Wearable Breast Pump (Model W6) is a breast pump powered by lithium battery, utilizing an embedded control program to manage all device functions. The main components of this pump includes: Pump, valve, control board, and milk collector. The user interface allows the user to switch from stimulation, expression, auto, and hot compress modes and control the vacuum levels within those modes.

The Wearable Breast Pump (Model W6) is capable of providing 12 vacuum levels from 40-120 mmHg with cycling rates from 90-143 cycles per minute in stimulation mode, vacuum levels from 105-245 mmHg with cycling rates from 30-105 cycles per minute in expression mode, vacuum levels from 40-150 mmHg with cycling rates from 87-128 cycles per minute in massage mode, and vacuum levels from 40-245 mmHg with cycling rates from 30-143 cycles per minute in auto mode. The Wearable Breast Pump (Model W6) has a hot compress mode with one heating level

This FDA 510(k) clearance letter pertains to a Wearable Breast Pump (Model W6), not an AI/software device that requires acceptance criteria for algorithm performance. The acceptance criteria and study detailed in the provided text are focused on the hardware performance, safety, and functionality of a physical medical device (a breast pump), not the diagnostic or analytical performance of an AI model.

Therefore, many of the requested items related to AI model evaluation (like sample size for test/training sets, data provenance, expert ground truth, MRMC studies, standalone performance, etc.) are not applicable to this document.

However, I can extract the acceptance criteria and the studies performed to prove the device meets these criteria as described in the 510(k) summary, reframing them to fit the provided sections where possible.

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance for Wearable Breast Pump (Model W6)

Given that this document describes a physical medical device (a breast pump) and not an AI/software for diagnosis or analysis, the acceptance criteria and performance studies are focused on the device's functional safety and efficacy.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

• Stimulation: 40-120 mmHg
• Expression: 105-245 mmHg
• Massage: 40-150 mmHg
• Auto: 40-245 mmHg | Demonstrated that the devices meet mode/cycle specifications. Implies successful verification that actual vacuum levels fall within the stated ranges. |
  | Cycle Speed Verification | Devices meet specified cycling rates (±2 cycles/minute) for each mode.
• Stimulation: 90-143 cycles/min
• Expression: 30-105 cycles/min
• Massage: 87-128 cycles/min
• Auto: 30-143 cycles/min | Demonstrated that the devices meet mode/cycle specifications. Implies successful verification that actual cycle speeds fall within the stated ranges. |
  | Backflow Protection | Liquid does not backflow into the tubing. | Testing verified liquid does not backflow into the tubing. Implies successful backflow protection. |
  | Use Life Consistency | Devices maintain specifications throughout their proposed use life. | Testing conducted to demonstrate devices maintain specifications. Implies successful use life performance. |
  | Battery Performance | Battery remains functional during its stated battery use-life. | Testing conducted to demonstrate battery remains functional. Implies successful battery performance. |
  | Battery Status Indicator Functionality | Battery status indicator remains functional during its stated battery life. | Testing conducted to demonstrate indicator remains functional. Implies successful battery status indicator performance. |
  | Hot Compress Temperature | Hot compress function remains functional during stated use-life and provides a heating level ≤ 42 ºC. | Testing conducted to demonstrate hot compress function remains functional. Implies successful temperature control (≤ 42 ºC) and functionality throughout use-life. |

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

• Sample Size: The document does not specify exact sample sizes for each performance test (e.g., number of units tested for vacuum, cycle speed, use-life, etc.). It only states that "testing was conducted."
• Data Provenance: Not specified in terms of country of origin or whether the underlying studies were retrospective or prospective. These are typically laboratory performance tests, not clinical data.

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

• Not applicable. This relates to evaluation of AI/diagnostic algorithms. For a physical device like a breast pump, "ground truth" is established by direct measurement against engineering specifications and industry standards, not by expert human graders of images or clinical data.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not applicable. This relates to resolving discrepancies in expert labeling for AI/diagnostic algorithms. For device performance testing, adjudication is generally a process of reviewing test results against predefined engineering limits and specifications, not expert consensus on qualitative data.

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

• No, not specified and not applicable. An MRMC study is relevant for evaluating the impact of AI assistance on human performance in diagnostic tasks. This document describes the performance of a physical breast pump.

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

• Not applicable for the overall device performance in the context of typical AI review. While the breast pump does have "embedded software," the performance described (vacuum, cycle speed, battery, etc.) is the device's standalone performance, not an algorithm's diagnostic or analytical performance. The document states "Software was evaluated at the Basic Documentation level," which refers to standard software validation processes for medical devices, not an "algorithm-only" performance study in the AI sense.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• Engineering Specifications and Standardized Test Methods: The "ground truth" for this device's performance is derived from established international standards (IEC 60601 series, ISO 10993-1) and the device's own design specifications (e.g., specific vacuum ranges, cycle speeds, temperature limits). These are objective, measurable criteria. For example, a vacuum gauge provides the "ground truth" for vacuum level, and a timer/counter for cycle speed.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not applicable. This device does not use a "training set" in the context of machine learning. Its internal software is "embedded" and controls device functions based on pre-programmed logic, not learned from data.

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

• Not applicable. (See point 8).

Ask a specific question about this device

RO handpiece, AGNES (F) RF handpiece and AGNES (B) RF handpiece of RFMagik are intended for use in dermatologic and general surgical procedures for electrocoagulation and hemostasis.

RFMagik is a medical device combined with RF current, to function as an electrosurgical device for use in dermatology and general surgical procedures. It is possible to select and change modes, parameters, outputs, etc. using the panel on the main body. It consists of the main device, LCD screen, two handpieces, single use electrodes, electrode pad, NE pad cable, food switch.

There are three handpieces. RO handpiece, AGNES (F) RF handpiece and AGNES (B) RF handpiece that delivers RF energy through the disposable electrode in the handpiece.

This document is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter for an RF Electrosurgical Device (RFMagik). It states that the device is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices.

However, the provided document does NOT contain information about acceptance criteria, device performance results, sample sizes, expert ground truth establishment, or clinical study details. The section on "Clinical Testing" explicitly states: "Clinical testing is not a requirement and has not been performed."

The document focuses on:

• Regulatory details: Device classification, product codes, indications for use.
• Technological comparison: Detailed comparison of the subject device (RFMagik) with a primary predicate device (RFMagik Lite) and a reference device (AGNES). This comparison highlights similarities and differences in handpieces, electrodes, output power, etc., and explains why these differences do not affect substantial equivalence.
• Non-clinical testing: Biocompatibility, sterility, shelf-life, and performance bench testing. An "Ex Vivo Study" was conducted on tissue types (liver, skin, muscle) for thermal testing.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request for a table of acceptance criteria, device performance, sample sizes for the test set, data provenance, number/qualifications of experts, adjudication methods, MRMC study details, standalone performance, type of ground truth, training set sample size, or how training ground truth was established. This information is typically found in specific study reports or sections of a 510(k) submission that go beyond what is published in the clearance letter itself.

The document indicates that the substantial equivalence was primarily demonstrated through bench testing and comparison to predicate devices, rather than clinical trials or extensive human-in-the-loop performance studies.

Summary of what CANNOT be provided from the given document:

1. Table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance: Not present.
2. Sample size for the test set and data provenance: No clinical test set. Ex vivo study mentioned, but specific sample sizes are not detailed.
3. Number of experts and qualifications for ground truth: Not applicable as no clinical study with expert ground truth review was performed.
4. Adjudication method for the test set: Not applicable.
5. MRMC comparative effectiveness study: Not conducted.
6. Standalone (algorithm only) performance: Not applicable as this is a physical electrosurgical device, not an AI algorithm.
7. Type of ground truth used: Not applicable for a clinical study. Ex vivo study used physical tissue, but no "ground truth" akin to medical image labeling.
8. Sample size for the training set: Not applicable as there is no mention of an AI/ML algorithm requiring a training set.
9. How ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device