Search Results
Found 1 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(155 days)
The VascuMetrix Gelbfish™ Vascular Dilators are to be used over a guidewire to dilate or calibrate blood vessels.
The VascuMetrix Gelbfish™ Vascular Dilators consist of a small diameter stainless steel tube with a smooth stainless steel tip welded to one end. The lumen of the tube sicer tube with a slide over an 0.035" guidewire. The tips are available in ten sizes and can be used to dilate or calibrate the lumen of a blood vessel.
The dilator can be inserted into a blood vessel either through a surgical cutdown or I he unator can of inserted int for use only by physicians using sterile technique. It is shipped sterile and intended as a single use device.
The provided text is a 510(k) submission for the Gelbfish™ Vascular Dilator, which is a medical device. This type of submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than undergoing a de novo clinical trial with explicit acceptance criteria and performance metrics typically associated with AI/ML devices. Therefore, a direct answer to all points of the request in the context of an AI/ML study is not applicable.
However, I can extract the relevant information from the document that pertains to the device's acceptance as substantially equivalent.
Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance (in the context of substantial equivalence):
The "acceptance criteria" here are not performance metrics in the AI sense, but rather a demonstration that the new device is as safe and effective as a legally marketed predicate device.
Acceptance Criteria (Demonstration of Equivalence) | Reported Device Performance (Comparison) |
---|---|
Physical Chemistry, Wall Thickness, Temper, Nominal Tensile Strength, % Elongation: Must be identical or similar to predicate. | Constructed of identical material. Results of these tests are "really strong" (interpreted as strong evidence of equivalence). The strength is "equal to or greater than" the predicate device. |
Flexibility Characteristics: Must be similar to predicate. | Has "similar flexibility characteristics." |
New Safety or Efficacy Issues: Must pose no new issues compared to predicate. | "Pose no new safety or efficacy issues." |
Indications for Use: Must be identical to predicate. | "The indications for use are identical." |
Study Details (in the context of substantial equivalence):
Given this is a 510(k) for a physical medical device, not an AI/ML product, many of the requested points ("sample sized used for the test set," "number of experts," "adjudication method," "MRMC comparative effectiveness study," "standalone performance," "training set") are not applicable or documented in the provided text. The "study" here is a series of physical and material tests comparing the new device to a predicate.
- Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: The document mentions "Physical testing has demonstrated..." and "results of the really strong..." for material characteristics like physical chemistry, wall thickness, etc. It does not specify the sample size for these physical tests or the provenance of the materials used in the tests, beyond stating the new device and predicate are constructed of "identical material."
- Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable for this type of device submission. The "ground truth" is established by comparing the physical and material properties to the predicate device.
- Adjudication method: Not applicable. Assessment is based on direct physical and material property comparison, not expert adjudication of outputs.
- If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done: No. This is not an AI/ML device.
- If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: No. This is not an AI/ML device.
- The type of ground truth used: For the physical device, the "ground truth" for comparison is the established physical properties and performance characteristics of the legally marketed predicate device (Peripheral Vascular Dilator, K974617). The comparison is based on direct measurement of manufacturing specifications and performance, not expert consensus or pathology in the clinical sense.
- The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. There is no concept of a "training set" for this physical device.
- How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.
In summary, the provided document details a 510(k) submission for a traditional medical device, the Gelbfish™ Vascular Dilator. The "acceptance criteria" and "study" are focused on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device through comparison of physical properties, material composition, and intended use, rather than clinical performance metrics in the context of an AI/ML system.
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1