Search Results

The Procedure mask/Surgical mask/Face mask is intended to be worn to protect both the patient and healthcare personnel from transfer of microorganisms, body fluids, and particulate material. These face masks are intended for use in infection control practices to reduce the potential exposure to blood and body fluids. This is a single-use, disposable device, provided non-sterile.

The subject device is a three-layer, single-use, flat-pleated mask. The inner and outer layers of the mask are made of polypropylene nonwoven, and the middle layer is made of polypropylene melt-blown nonwoven. The subject device is available in one type, ear loop. The ear loops are made of polyester and spandex. The ear loops model is held in place over the users' mouth and nose by two elastic ear loops welded to the mask. The nose clip is made of Iron and polypropylene. Users can adjust the nose clip according to the shape of the bridge of the nose, and fix the mask on the bridge of the nose to prevent the mask from falling off. The ear loop masks are available in two size, 17.5 × 9.5 cm and 14.5 × 9.5 cm. And the colors for the ear loop mask are yellow, blue and white. The ear loop masks are available in level 1, level 2 and level 3 masks based on ASTM F2100-23. This is a single-use, disposable device, provided non-sterile.

The provided document is a 510(k) Clearance Letter for a medical device: Procedure mask/Surgical mask/Face mask. This type of document, specifically the "Summary of Non-Clinical Test" section, details the performance characteristics required for the device to meet regulatory standards.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them, based on the provided text:

Important Note: The provided document is for a medical mask, not an AI-powered diagnostic device. Therefore, many of the typical questions regarding AI/software performance studies (e.g., sample size for test set, number of experts, adjudication, MRMC studies, training set details, ground truth for AI) are not applicable to this submission. The "study" here refers to physical and biological performance testing of the mask material itself.

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are based on established standards like ASTM F2100-23, ASTM F1862/F1862M-24, ASTM F2101-23, EN 14683:2019+AC:2019, 16 CFR Part 1610, and ISO 10993 series. The table below summarizes these criteria and the reported performance:

Table 1: Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Study Details (Applicable to Face Mask Device)

Given that the device is a medical face mask, the "study" primarily consists of non-clinical, laboratory-based performance and biocompatibility testing, not clinical trials or AI performance evaluations as would be done for software.

1. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:

   • Sample Size: Not explicitly stated in terms of number of masks or test replicates for each test, but standard test methodologies (e.g., ASTM F1862/F1862M-24, ASTM F2101-23) typically specify a minimum number of samples. The results are given for specific "lots" (e.g., Yellow mask (Level 1), White mask (Level 1), Blue mask (Level 1, 2, 3)), implying that multiple samples from these production lots were tested.
   • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated. The manufacturer is Winner Medical Co., Ltd. from Shenzhen, China. This indicates the testing was likely conducted in China or by labs accredited to perform these standards. The tests are "Non clinical tests," meaning they are laboratory experiments rather than human subject or retrospective studies.

2. 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 (medical mask), "ground truth" is established by adherence to validated, objective, and standardized laboratory test methodologies and measurements, not by expert human interpretation (like in imaging for AI). The tests measure physical and biological properties directly.

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

   • Not Applicable. Adjudication methods are relevant for human interpretation tasks (e.g., reading medical images) where there can be inter-reader variability. These are objective, quantitative laboratory tests.

4. 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 physical medical device (mask), not an AI-powered diagnostic tool. MRMC studies are used to assess the performance of AI systems in combination with human readers.

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

   • Not Applicable. This is a physical medical device (mask), not an algorithm.

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

   • Objective Laboratory Measurements/Standards. The "ground truth" for this device is based on the objective measurements obtained through the specified ASTM, EN, CFR, and ISO standards (e.g., bacterial filtration efficiency percentage, differential pressure values, absence of penetration by synthetic blood, flammability class, cellular toxicity grading, sensitization response). These are empirical, quantitative, and qualitative results from standardized test protocols.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not Applicable. This is a physical device being tested against performance standards, not an AI/ML algorithm that requires a "training set."

8. How the ground truth for the training set was established:

   • Not Applicable. As above, no training set for an algorithm is involved.

Ask a specific question about this device