Search Results

eClinic Stethopod is an Electronic Stethoscope. It converts patient auscultation sound (heart, lungs, bowel, arteries, and veins) into audio signal and transmits it to clinically defined virtual appointment methods. It is intended to be used by professional users in a clinical environment or by lay users in a nonclinical or clinical environment to assist remote healthcare professionals' physical assessment. The device is not intended for self-diagnosis. eClinic Stethopod is intended for patients or customers who are 2 years and older. It is for both prescription use and over the counter use.

eClinic Stethopod is an electronic stethoscope that is designed to be used with virtual communication systems for telehealth. It provides patient auscultation sounds for clinicians during virtual appointments while maintaining communication between clinicians and patients. The eClinic Stethopod is a passive electromechanical device. It converts physiological sounds into audio signals through a microphone. It further processes the signal through passive electronics for noise reduction and then transmits the real time data to clinically defined communication applications that connect patients and clinicians. eClinic Stethopod has a chest piece to pick up acoustic signal, a handle housing electronics that converts acoustic signal to audio signal and a cable to connect with communication devices. eClinic Stethopod needs to be connected to a communication device to achieve its intended use. There are two accessories: Apple ear pod and Apple adapter (lighting to 3.5 mm jack).

The provided text describes the 510(k) summary for the eClinic Stethopod, an electronic stethoscope. It details the device's characteristics, intended use, and a comparison with a predicate device, the Eko Core (K200776).

However, the document does not provide specific acceptance criteria or details of a study that proves the device meets
these criteria in the way typically expected for an AI/ML medical device (e.g., performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, AUC). Instead, it primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device based on design verification and validation tests related to sound quality and functionality.

Based on the provided text, here's an attempt to answer the questions, highlighting where information is not available:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance
   The document does not present quantitative acceptance criteria or detailed performance metrics in the format of a table as might be expected for software performance (e.g., sensitivity, specificity). Instead, it states:
   "Based on design verification test, eClinic Stethopod is equivalent to the predicate device on sound rhythm, heartbeat rate, frequency spectrum and signal to noise ratio for its intended application."
   "eClinic stethopod sound quality are further evaluated by clinicians and volunteers in design validation. It is concluded eClinc stethopod sound quality through phone calls and Zoom is acceptable and it is easy to use."

   Acceptance Criterion (Inferred from testing claims)	Reported Device Performance (as stated in the document)
   Equivalence on sound rhythm	Met (equivalent to predicate device)
   Equivalence on heartbeat rate	Met (equivalent to predicate device)
   Equivalence on frequency spectrum	Met (equivalent to predicate device)
   Equivalence on signal to noise ratio	Met (equivalent to predicate device)
   Sound quality through phone calls and Zoom	Acceptable
   Ease of use	Easy to use

2. Sample sizes used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g., country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)
   The document mentions "design verification and design validation tests" and that "eClinic stethopod sound quality are further evaluated by clinicians and volunteers in design validation." However, no specific sample sizes for these tests (e.g., number of patients, number of sounds) are provided. The data provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective) is also not mentioned.

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)
   The document states that "clinicians and volunteers" were involved in the design validation to evaluate sound quality. It does not provide the specific number of these individuals or their detailed qualifications (e.g., years of experience, specific medical specialty).

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set
   No adjudication method is described for the evaluation of sound quality by clinicians and volunteers.

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 MRMC comparative effectiveness study is described. The device is a "passive electromechanical device" that converts sounds to audio signals for transmission, rather than an AI that assists human readers in interpretation. Therefore, a study of human readers improving with AI assistance is not applicable to the description provided.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
   The device itself is not described as an algorithm performing a diagnostic task in isolation. Its function is to convert and transmit physiological sounds. The "design verification test" concluded equivalence on technical aspects like sound rhythm, heartbeat rate, frequency spectrum, and signal-to-noise ratio. This could be considered a form of "standalone" evaluation of the device's signal processing capabilities, but it's not an "algorithm only" performance in a diagnostic sense.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.)
   For the technical aspects ("sound rhythm, heartbeat rate, frequency spectrum and signal to noise ratio"), the "ground truth" seems to be based on comparison to the predicate device's performance, implying a technical benchmark. For the "sound quality" and "ease of use," the ground truth was established by the subjective evaluation of "clinicians and volunteers." No objective clinical ground truth (like pathology or outcomes data) is mentioned for the device's performance given its intended function as a sound transmission tool.

8. The sample size for the training set
   The document describes a physical medical device, not an AI/ML algorithm that requires a "training set" in the conventional sense. Therefore, this question is not applicable to the information provided.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established
   As the device is not an AI/ML algorithm with a training set, this question is not applicable to the information provided.

Ask a specific question about this device