Search Results

The Bionime Diabetes Management System is an over-the-counter software system for use by Health Care Professionals and Patients with diabetes as an aid for managing diabetes. User(s) can transfer blood glucose readings from Rightest® Glucose meter(s) to a personal computer for the purpose of viewing, analyzing and printing the blood glucose readings, as well as to backup and to recover users' profile and data. Bionime Rightest™ GM550 and GM250 meters are compatible with Bionime Diabetes Management System.

The Bionime Diabetes Management System is not intended to provide treatment decisions, nor should it substitute professional opinion. All medical diagnoses and treatment plans should be performed by a licensed healthcare professional.

The Bionime Diabetes Management System allows the transfer of blood glucose readings from a compatible Bionime Rightest™ Glucose Meter to a PC via USB cable.

The Data analysis features enable the user(s) to view and analyze blood glucose readings from different meal times or time periods up to 90 days. Other features including data tables, trend charts, pie charts, and printed reports are available for viewing and analyzing these readings within the different time slots.

The system includes: 1) Installation CD with setup files for Bionime GP200 Diabetes Assistant Software and Rightest™ PC Link Adapter Driver, 2) GP550 PC Link Adapter.

Here's an analysis of the Bionime Diabetes Management System, detailing its acceptance criteria and the study that proves it, based on the provided 510(k) summary:

Analysis of Bionime Diabetes Management System Performance

The 510(k) summary for the Bionime Diabetes Management System (BDMS) provides limited details regarding specific, quantifiable acceptance criteria and the comprehensive study results to demonstrate performance. The primary focus of the performance section is on the user experience and the functionality of the software for managing glucose data.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Based on the provided text, the acceptance criteria are implicitly related to the usability and effectiveness of the software in displaying and analyzing blood glucose data.

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

• Sample Size: A consumer study was conducted with 29 lay users.
• Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin for the data or if it was retrospective or prospective. Given that the applicant is Bionime Corporation in Taiwan, it's possible the study was conducted there, but this is not confirmed. The study appears to be prospective in nature as it involved users interacting with the system, implying data was generated during the study.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth and Qualifications

The document does not mention the use of experts to establish a "ground truth" for the test set in the traditional medical device sense (e.g., expert interpretation of medical images). The study primarily focused on user interaction, usability, and the system's ability to accurately display and analyze existing blood glucose readings. The "ground truth" in this context would be the accuracy of the glucose meter readings themselves (which is outside the scope of this software's performance validation) and the correctness of the software's data processing and display.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

No adjudication method is described for the test set. Given the nature of the study (usability and display validation), an adjudication process among experts for diagnostic decisions would not be applicable here.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done

No, a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is typically used for diagnostic devices where multiple human readers interpret cases with and without AI assistance. The BDMS is a data management and analysis tool, not a diagnostic interpretation tool, and its evaluation focuses on its functionality and user experience.

6. If a Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) was done

Yes, in a sense, the core functionality of the software itself, in terms of its ability to transfer, store, and graphically represent data, would be evaluated in a "standalone" manner. The consumer study with lay users then validated the human-in-the-loop interaction from the user's perspective (usability and interpretability). The algorithm in this case is not making diagnostic decisions, but rather performing data processing and visualization. The evaluation of whether "data tables, trend charts, pie charts" are correctly generated based on the transferred data would be a standalone assessment of the algorithm's performance.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" for the BDMS would be based on:

• Correctness of data transfer: Verifying that blood glucose readings are accurately transferred from the meter to the software.
• Accuracy of data processing and display: Ensuring that the software correctly calculates trends, averages, and generates accurate charts and tables based on the transferred data.
• User feedback on usability and understandability: Direct feedback from the 29 lay users.

This is fundamentally different from a ground truth established by pathology reports or clinical outcomes data, as the software is not making diagnostic calls.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not specify a training set sample size or even the use of a distinct "training set" in the context of machine learning. The BDMS, as described, appears to be a rule-based software for data management and visualization, rather than an AI/ML diagnostic algorithm that would require a vast training dataset for learning. The "internal and external performance and validation studies" (which include the consumer study) likely served as the testing/validation phase for the software's developed functions.

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

As no specific training set for a machine learning model is mentioned, there's no information on how the ground truth for such a set was established. The software's functionality would have been developed and tested against expected outcomes for data processing and display.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Lifescan FastTake® Adapter is an accessory to the Lifescan FastTake® Blood Glucose Meter. It provides a communication link between the FastTake® Meter and the Lifescan ONE TOUCH® Interface cable, neither of which is included. The FastTake Adapter is intended to be used for data transfer between a FastTake® Meter and a personal computer.

The FastTake" Adapter is an accessory to the FastTake Blood Glucose Meter. lt provides a communication link between the FastTake Meter and the ONE TOUCH® cable, neither of which is included with the Adapter. The FastTake Adapter is intended to be used for data transfer between a FastTake Meter and a personal computer.

The provided 510(k) summary for the FastTake® Adapter does not contain detailed acceptance criteria or a specific study that proves the device meets such criteria in a quantitative manner. This submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, the Precision Link™ Communications Box.

Here's an analysis of the information provided, trying to extract what's available for each requested point:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

Note: The document is limited in providing specific, measurable acceptance criteria (e.g., success rate of data transfer, error rate, speed of transfer) and instead offers a general statement about "reliable communication" being demonstrated through verification and validation tests.

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

The document does not specify a "test set" in the context of a clinical study or a dataset with labeled ground truth. The "verification and validation tests" mentioned are likely product-level hardware and software testing, not a study involving patient data. Therefore, details regarding sample size, country of origin, or retrospective/prospective nature of data are not provided.

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

As there is no mention of a "test set" involving expert-labeled ground truth, this information is not applicable/not provided.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

Since a test set requiring adjudication by experts is not described, this information is not applicable/not provided.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done:

No MRMC study is mentioned. This device is a communication adapter, not an AI or diagnostic device that would typically involve human readers. Therefore, this is not applicable/not provided.

6. If a Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance Study Was Done:

The document indicates "Software and hardware verification and validation tests" were performed, which implies standalone testing of the device's functionality. However, specific details about the methodology, metrics, or results of these tests beyond the general statement of "reliable communication" are not provided. The device itself is described as "microprocessor controlled communication devices," implying an "algorithm" (firmware/software) controls its function, and this would have been tested in a standalone manner during verification and validation.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

For the "reliable communication" claim, the ground truth would likely be defined by successful data transfer operations as per the device's specifications (e.g., data transmitted equals data received, correct data formatting). This would be established through engineering and software testing protocols, not clinical outcomes or pathology. Specifics are not provided.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

This device is not an AI/machine learning model that typically requires a "training set" of data in the sense of supervised learning. Its functionality is based on established communication protocols and hardware/software design. Therefore, a "training set" in this context is not applicable/not provided.

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

As there is no training set described, this information is not applicable/not provided.

In summary:

This 510(k) submission for the FastTake® Adapter is for a Class I accessory device, and its approval relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device (the Precision Link™ Communications Box) with "the same technological characteristics" and "the same intended use." The performance data is limited to a general statement that "Software and hardware verification and validation tests demonstrate that the FastTake Adapter provides reliable communication." This level of detail is typical for such a device classification and regulatory pathway at the time of approval (1998), where the focus is on functional equivalence rather than extensive clinical efficacy studies with detailed statistical metrics as would be expected for more complex diagnostic or therapeutic devices, especially AI-driven ones.

Ask a specific question about this device

The ROBOLITE is an automatic needle guidance system that provides means for accurate positioning of a biopsy needle of a mammography system, to enable accurate penetration to sites of detectable breast lesions.

The ROBOLITE is an automatic needle guidance system that provides means for accurate positioning of a biopsy needle of a mammography system, to enable accurate penetration to sites of detectable breast lesions. The ROBOLITE I S an attachment to and is mounted on a parent mammography system. It comprises a robotic biopsy unit and a film read out and motor control evaluation unit. After creating a stereotactic exposure of a previously detected breast lesion, the Robolite drives a needle holder along three orthogonal axes so that the needle penetrates the precise location of the lesion. The ROBOLITE can be used for fine for core biopsy by using the reqular needle aspiration (FNA) or carrier with a biopsy gun. needle with either plain film with a The ROBOLITE can be used X-ray or digital camera.

{0}
The provided text does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a study proving that the device meets acceptance criteria for the ROBOLITE device. The text primarily focuses on a summary of safety and effectiveness, a description of the device, and a comparison of its technological characteristics to a predicate device.

To answer your request, I would need a section of the document that specifically outlines:

1. Acceptance Criteria: Quantifiable benchmarks for performance (e.g., accuracy, precision, sensitivity, specificity).
2. Study Design and Results: Details of a study conducted to evaluate the device's performance against these criteria.

Without this information, I cannot generate the table or
address the specific questions about sample sizes, ground truth, expert involvement, or comparative effectiveness.

{1}
I am sorry, but the provided text for the ABBOTT Advisor One-Step Pregnancy Test does not contain any information about acceptance criteria or a study that proves the device meets those criteria.

The text focuses on:

• A summary of safety and effectiveness.
• Trade name, common name, classification, and predicate device.
• Intended use and indications for the device.
• A brief physical description of the device.

To answer your request, I would need a section of the 510(k) summary (or a linked document) that specifically details:

1. Performance Metrics: Quantifiable acceptance criteria (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy against a reference method or expected hCG levels).
2. Clinical/Performance Study: A description of the study design, sample size, ground truth, and the results demonstrating that the device meets the stated criteria.

Without this information, I cannot create the table or address the specific questions you've posed.

Ask a specific question about this device