Search Results

The single use dialyzer with pre-attached blood tubing set is indicated for use with the Fresenius 2008 Series Hemodialysis systems for the treatment of acute and chronic renal failure.

The proposed device provides for the treatment of acute or chronic renal failure when used with the commercially available Fresenius 2008 Series hemodialysis systems. The device is a single use high flux (permeability) hollow-fiber dialyzer pre-attached to a blood tubing set.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the NxStage® Streamline Express for Fresenius 2008 Series Hemodialysis Systems. This submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than presenting a study with a test set, expert ground truth, or a multi-reader, multi-case study. Therefore, many of the requested criteria cannot be directly extracted from the provided document.

Here's a breakdown of what can and cannot be answered:

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

The document provides a comparative table of technological characteristics and in-vitro performance between the proposed device and predicate devices. The acceptance criteria are implicitly that the proposed device should have "Same" or comparable performance to the predicate devices, as well as meeting general safety and performance standards for hemodialysis components.

2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

The document primarily relies on bench testing and comparison to predicate devices, not on a clinical test set with patient data. No sample size for a test set of patient data, data provenance, or retrospective/prospective nature is 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)

Not applicable. This is a 510(k) submission for a medical device (dialyzer and tubing set), not an AI/software device that requires expert-established ground truth for a test set. The evaluation is based on engineering and performance specifications.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set

Not applicable. No clinical test set with human interpretation requiring adjudication is discussed.

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

Not applicable. This is a medical device, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done

Not applicable. This is a physical medical device. The "performance" assessment is based on its physical and functional characteristics (e.g., clearance rates, pressure drops) through bench testing.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.)

The "ground truth" for this device's performance is established through in-vitro performance testing and comparison to the known engineering specifications and performance of legally marketed predicate devices. For example, clearance data is measured directly in a lab setting, not through expert consensus or clinical outcomes for this type of submission.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This is not a machine learning or AI device that requires a "training set."

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established

Not applicable. No training set is involved.

Ask a specific question about this device