Search Results

The Nitrile Patient Examination Gloves are non-sterile disposable devices intended for medical purposes that are worn on the examiner's hands or finger to prevent contamination between patient and examiner.

The subject device is powder free nitrile examination gloves. The subject device is blue. The subject device is non-sterile.

This looks like a 510(k) premarket notification for Nitrile Patient Examination Gloves, not an AI/ML medical device. Therefore, the questions about acceptance criteria, study design for AI, sample sizes, expert ground truth, MRMC studies, and standalone performance are not directly applicable.

Instead, the document details the device's adherence to established standards for medical gloves. Here's a breakdown of the relevant information provided:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document uses a comparison table against a predicate device and adherence to industry standards as its form of "acceptance criteria" and "reported device performance."

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

• Test Set (for performance and safety): The document does not specify exact sample sizes for each test (e.g., how many gloves were tested for holes, tensile strength, or biocompatibility). However, it references conformity to international standards (ASTM and ISO). These standards typically define sampling plans for lot release and quality control.
• Data Provenance: The tests were conducted by the manufacturer, Huayuan Medical Technology (Shangqiu) Co., Ltd. located in China. The data's origin would therefore be from their internal testing processes. The study is prospective in the sense that the tests were performed on the manufactured device to demonstrate compliance.

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)

This is not applicable for this type of device. "Ground truth" in the context of medical gloves is established by objective measurements against established physical, chemical, and biological standards (ASTM, ISO). There are no human expert interpretations involved in determining if a glove has a hole or its tensile strength.

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

Not applicable. As noted above, the evaluation relies on objective measurement against defined specifications, not subjective interpretation requiring adjudication.

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 not an AI/ML device.

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

Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device.

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

The "ground truth" (or more accurately, the pass/fail criteria) is based on established international and national consensus standards for medical gloves:

• ASTM D6319-19 (Standard Specification for Nitrile Examination Gloves for Medical Application)
• ASTM D5151-19 (Standard Test Method for Detection of Holes in Medical Gloves)
• ASTM D6124-06 (Reapproved 2017) (Standard Test Method for Residual Powder on Medical Gloves)
• ISO 10993-5:2009 (Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices - Part 5: Tests For In Vitro Cytotoxicity)
• ISO 10993-10:2010 (Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices - Part 10: Tests For Irritation And Skin Sensitization)

These standards define the acceptable physical properties, barrier integrity, and biocompatibility.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device. There is no concept of a "training set" for physical products like examination gloves in this context.

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

Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device