Search Results

A nebulizer cap deliver an aerosol of oxygen, air, and either water or saline. It consists of a dry device attached to a bottle of sterile solution. In use, the device attaches to a 50 psi source of oxygen. which is regulated by a flow meter. An air entrainment dial regulates airflow to adjust for desired oxygen concentration. The outlet port attaches to 22 mm corrugated tubing, which acts as a conduit for the aerosol to the patient.

AI/ML Overview

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and supporting study for the Cardinal Health Airlife Nebulizer Cap:

Based on the provided document, the "acceptance criteria" and "study" are not presented in a typical format of a clinical trial or algorithm performance study. Instead, the document details a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device seeking substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device.

The "acceptance criteria" for a 510(k) submission are fundamentally based on demonstrating substantial equivalence, meaning the new device is as safe and effective as a predicate device. The "study" described is a non-clinical testing summary designed to prove this substantial equivalence.

Here's the breakdown of the requested information based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Acceptance Criterion (Implicit for Substantial Equivalence)	Reported Device Performance (Summary of Testing)
Intended Use Equivalence: Same as predicate device.	"The intended use is the same"
Performance Attributes Equivalence: Same as predicate device.	"The performance attributes are the same"
Technological Characteristics Equivalence: Composed of same or similar design, materials, manufacturing characteristics.	"The proposed device and the predicate device are composed of the same or similar design, materials and the manufacturing characteristics."
Biocompatibility/Safety: Materials meet biological qualification standards.	"All materials used in the fabrication of the Airlife Nebulizer Cap were evaluated through biological qualification safety tests as outlined in ISO 10993 Part-1 'Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices'."
Functional Characteristics: Equivalent to predicate device.	"Performance testing demonstrated that the proposed device is substantially equivalent to the currently marketed Nebulizer Cap with regard to functional characteristics."
Material Quality: Materials meet industry-recognized test methods and are acceptable for intended use.	"These materials also were tested in accordance with industry recognized test methods and were found to be acceptable for the intended use."

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

Sample Size: Not explicitly stated. The document refers to "materials" and "the proposed device" being tested, implying that samples of the device and its components were subjected to various tests. It's not a human-subject study, so there's no "test set" in the sense of patient data.
Data Provenance: The testing was carried out by the manufacturer, Cardinal Health, likely at their facilities or certified labs. No country of origin for specific "data" is mentioned, as it's not a study with diverse patient populations. This is retrospective in the sense that the testing was performed on the device components/product to satisfy regulatory requirements before marketing.

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

This is not applicable as there is no "ground truth" in the context of expert consensus on medical images or diagnoses. The "ground truth" for this type of device (a nebulizer cap) is its adherence to material safety standards, functional specifications, and established engineering principles, which are verified through objective non-clinical tests rather than expert interpretation of a clinical outcome.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. This is not a study requiring adjudication of expert opinions or clinical outcomes. The "adjudication" is essentially the regulatory body (FDA) reviewing the test results presented by the manufacturer to determine substantial equivalence.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done, and Effect Size of Human Improvement with AI vs. Without AI Assistance

Not applicable. This is a physical medical device (nebulizer cap), not an AI algorithm or diagnostic tool that would involve human readers or AI assistance.

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

Not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" here is based on accepted industry standards and regulatory requirements for medical device materials (e.g., ISO 10993 Part-1 for biocompatibility) and functional performance metrics. The predicate device's established safety and effectiveness also serve as a 'ground truth' benchmark for the substantial equivalence claim.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. There is no concept of a "training set" for a physical medical device undergoing non-clinical testing for 510(k) submission.

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

Not applicable.

In summary: The provided document is a 510(k) summary for a physical medical device. The "study" described is a series of non-clinical tests (biocompatibility, performance testing) to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a predicate device. The "acceptance criteria" are derived from the requirements for substantial equivalence, focusing on identical intended use, performance attributes, and similar technological characteristics, backed by evidence of material safety and functional equivalency. It does not involve AI, human readers, or clinical trials with ground truth established by experts or pathology in the way a diagnostic algorithm would.

Ask a Question

Ask a specific question about this device

Page 1 of 1