Search Results

Ask a specific question about this device

The monitors are intended to be used for monitoring, storing, recording, and reviewing of, and to generate alarms for, multiple physiological parameters of adults and pediatrics (including neonates). The monitors are intended for use by trained healthcare professionals in hospital environments.

The monitored physiological parameters include: ECG, respiration (RESP), temperature (TEMP), functional oxygen saturation of arterial hemoglobin (SpO₂), pulse rate (PR), non-invasive blood pressure (NIBP), invasive blood pressure (IBP), carbon dioxide (CO2), and cardiac output (C.O.).

The arrhythmia detection and ST Segment analysis are intended for adult patients.

The NIBP monitoring supports iCUFS algorithm and iFAST algorithm. The iCUFS algorithm is intended for adult, pediatric and neonatal patients. The iFAST algorithm is intended for adult and pediatric patients (≥3 years of age). Both measurement algorithms are also intended for use with pregnant women, including pre-eclamptic patients. NIBP MAP is not applicable to pregnant women.

The Spot Temp with T2A module can only measure temperature of adult and pediatric (> 1 year of age) patients.

The monitors are not intended for MRI environments.

The cardiac output (C.O.) is only intended for adult patients.

The CX&UX series Patient Monitor including CX10/CX12/CX15/UX10/UX12/UX15 can perform long-time continuous monitoring of multiple physiological parameters. Also, it is capable of storing, displaying, analyzing and controlling measurements, and it will indicate alarms in case of abnormalities so that doctors and nurses can respond to the patient's situation as appropriate.

Minor differences from the predicate device are limited to some modifications of monitoring parameter specifications. These updates do not change the fundamental scientific technology of the cleared predicate device and thus do not raise any questions about the safety and effectiveness of the subject device.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter details the device's technical specifications and comparisons to predicate devices, along with the non-clinical performance data and adherence to various IEC and ISO standards. However, it explicitly states: "Clinical data: The subject device did not require new clinical studies to support substantial equivalence."

This means that the submission for this Patient Monitor device (CX10, CX12, CX15, UX10, UX12, UX15) relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device (Edan Instruments, Inc., Patient Monitor Model iX10, iX12, iX15, K232962) through non-clinical performance testing and software verification/validation, rather than new clinical trials or studies involving human patients.

Therefore, the requested information regarding acceptance criteria and studies that prove the device meets acceptance criteria through clinical performance (e.g., sample size for test set, expert involvement, MRMC studies, ground truth establishment for test/training sets, effect size of human reader improvement with AI) cannot be extracted from this document, as such clinical studies were explicitly not required for this 510(k) submission.

The document focuses on demonstrating that the new device's technical specifications and performance are similar to the predicate device, and that it complies with relevant safety and performance standards through bench testing.

Here's what can be extracted from the provided text regarding acceptance criteria and the type of study performed, specifically focusing on the non-clinical aspects:

Device: Patient Monitor (CX10, CX12, CX15, UX10, UX12, UX15)

The acceptance criteria for this device are implicitly tied to its performance meeting the standards and accuracy specifications of the predicate device and relevant international standards. Since no new clinical studies were conducted, the "proof" comes from non-clinical bench testing and software validation.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (Non-Clinical/Bench Testing)

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

• Sample Size: Not applicable in terms of human subjects or patient data test sets, as "new clinical studies" were not required. The "test set" refers to bench testing and functional system-level validation. The specific number of test cycles or a detailed breakdown of test cases for bench testing is not provided in this summary.
• Data Provenance: The data primarily originates from Edan Instruments Inc. (Shenzhen, Guangdong, China) through internal engineering and quality assurance processes for non-clinical bench testing and software validation. It is not patient data, so concepts like "retrospective or prospective" do not apply.

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

• Not applicable for clinical ground truth: Since no clinical studies were performed requiring human interpretation or diagnosis for a test set, no medical experts (e.g., radiologists) were used to establish ground truth in this context.
• Internal experts: Bench testing and software validation would have involved engineers and quality assurance professionals, whose qualifications are implicit in the quality system (21 CFR Part 820) but not specified in detail here.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

• Not applicable: Adjudication methods (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) are relevant for clinical studies involving multiple readers. This was not a clinical study. Bench testing relies on established technical specifications and standard compliance.

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

• No: No MRMC study was performed as no new clinical studies were required or conducted. Therefore, there's no effect size of human readers improving with AI assistance. The device is a patient monitor, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.

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

• Yes (for the technical components): The "performance testing-Bench" effectively represents a standalone evaluation of the device's functional components (ECG, NIBP, SpO2, etc.) and software against defined technical specifications and standards. The "software verification and validation testing" also represents a standalone evaluation of the algorithm and software functions. The specific algorithms (e.g., iCUFS, iFAST for NIBP, arrhythmia analysis logic) are tested independently for their accuracy against known inputs or reference standards as part of bench testing.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

• Technical/Reference Standards: For the bench testing, the "ground truth" would be derived from:
  • Reference standards/simulators: Calibrated medical equipment, physiological simulators, and test signals (e.g., known ECG waveforms, simulated blood pressure readings, temperature standards) are used to provide the "true" values against which the device's measurements are compared.
  • Defined specifications: The device's internal design specifications and the requirements of the referenced IEC/ISO standards serve as the "ground truth" for compliance testing.
• Not clinical ground truth: No expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data from real patients were used for establishing ground truth for this submission.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

• Not applicable: The device is a patient monitor, not a machine learning/AI algorithm that typically undergoes a distinct "training" phase with a large dataset. Its functionality is based on established physiological measurement principles and programmed algorithms. Any internal calibration or algorithm refinement would be part of the product development process, not a dedicated "training set" in the AI/ML sense.

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

• Not applicable: As there was no "training set" in the context of an AI/ML model, the concept of establishing ground truth for it does not apply to this 510(k) submission.

In summary, this 510(k) clearance relies on demonstrating that the new Patient Monitor is substantially equivalent to a previously cleared predicate device, primarily through robust non-clinical bench testing and software validation, proving compliance with established medical device standards and functional specifications. No new clinical studies with patient data were required or conducted for this specific submission.

Ask a specific question about this device

The monitor B105M, B125M, B155M, B105P and B125P are portable multi-parameter patient monitors intended to be used for monitoring, recording, and to generate alarms for multiple physiological parameters of adult, pediatric, and neonatal patients in a hospital environment and during intra-hospital transport.

The monitor B105M, B125M, B155M, B105P and B125P are intended for use under the direct supervision of a licensed health care practitioner.

The monitor B105M, B125M, B155M, B105P and B125P are not Apnea monitors (i.e., do not rely on the device for detection or alarm for the cessation of breathing). These devices should not be used for life sustaining/supporting purposes.

The monitor B105M, B125M, B155M, B105P and B125P are not intended for use during MRI.

The monitor B105M, B125M, B155M, B105P and B125P can be stand-alone monitors or interfaced to other devices via network.

The monitor B105M, B125M, B155M, B105P and B125P monitor and display: ECG (including ST segment, arrhythmia detection, ECG diagnostic analysis and measurement), invasive blood pressure, heart/pulse rate, oscillometric non-invasive blood pressure (systolic, diastolic and mean arterial pressure), functional oxygen saturation (SpO2) and pulse rate via continuous monitoring (including monitoring during conditions of clinical patient motion or low perfusion), temperature with a reusable or disposable electronic thermometer for continual monitoring Esophageal/Nasopharyngeal/Tympanic/Rectal/Bladder/Axillary/Skin/Airway/Room/Myocardial/Core/Surface temperature, impedance respiration, respiration rate, airway gases (CO2, O2, N2O, anesthetic agents, anesthetic agent identification and respiratory rate), Cardiac Output (C.O.), Entropy, neuromuscular transmission (NMT) and Bispectral Index (BIS).

The monitor B105M, B125M, B155M, B105P and B125P are able to detect and generate alarms for ECG arrhythmias: Asystole, Ventricular tachycardia, VT>2, Ventricular Bradycardia, Accelerated Ventricular Rhythm, Ventricular Couplet, Bigeminy, Trigeminy, "R on T", Tachycardia, Bradycardia, Pause, Atrial Fibrillation, Irregular, Multifocal PVCs, Missing Beat, SV Tachy, Premature Ventricular Contraction (PVC), Supra Ventricular Contraction (SVC) and Ventricular fibrillation.

The proposed monitors B105M, B125M, B155M, B105P and B125P are new version of multi-parameter patient monitors developed based on the predicate monitors B105M, B125M, B155M, B105P and B125P (K213490) to provide additional monitored parameter Bispectral Index (BIS) by supporting the additional optional E-BIS module (K052145) which used in conjunction with Covidien BISx module (K072286).

In addition to the added parameter, the proposed monitors also offer below several enhancements:

• Provided data connection with GE HealthCare anesthesia devices to display the parameters measured from anesthesia devices (Applicable for B105M, B125M and B155M).
• Modified Early Warning Score calculation provided.
• Separated low priority alarms user configurable settings from the combined High/Medium/Low priority options.
• Provided additional customized notification tool to allow clinician to configure the specific notification condition of one or more physiological parameters measured by the monitor. (Applicable for B105M, B125M and B155M).
• Enhanced User Interface in Neuromuscular Transmission (NMT), Respiration Rate and alarm overview.
• Provided Venous Stasis to assist venous catheterization with NIBP cuff inflation.
• Supported alarm light brightness adjustment.
• Supported alarm audio pause by gesture (Not applicable for B105M and B105P).
• Supported automatic screen brightness adjustment.
• Supported network laser printing.
• Continuous improvements in cybersecurity

The proposed monitors B105M, B125M, B155M, B105P and B125P retain equivalent hardware design based on the predicate monitors and removal of the device Trim-knob to better support cleaning and disinfecting while maintaining the same primary function and operation.

Same as the predicate device, the five models (B105M, B125M, B155M, B105P and B125P) share the same hardware platform and software platform to support the data acquisition and algorithm modules. The differences between them are the LCD screen size and configuration options. There is no change from the predicate in the display size.

As with the predicate monitors B105M, B125M, B155M, B105P and B125P (K213490), the proposed monitors B105M, B125M, B155M, B105P and B125P are multi-parameter patient monitors, utilizing an LCD display and pre-configuration basic parameters: ECG, RESP, NIBP, IBP, TEMP, SpO2, and optional parameters which include CO2 and Gas parameters provided by the E-MiniC module (K052582), CARESCAPE Respiratory modules E-sCO and E-sCAiO (K171028), Airway Gas Option module N-CAiO (K151063), Entropy parameter provided by the E-Entropy module (K150298), Cardiac Output parameter provided by the E-COP module (K052976), Neuromuscular Transmission (NMT) parameter provided by E-NMT module (K051635) and thermal recorder B1X5-REC.

The proposed monitors B105M, B125M, B155M, B105P and B125P are not Apnea monitors (i.e., do not rely on the device for detection or alarm for the cessation of breathing). These devices should not be used for life sustaining/supporting purposes. Do not attempt to use these devices to detect sleep apnea.

As with the predicate monitors B105M, B125M, B155M, B105P and B125P (K213490), the proposed monitors B105M, B125M, B155M, B105P and B125P also can interface with a variety of existing central station systems via a cabled or wireless network which implemented with identical integrated WiFi module. (WiFi feature is disabled in B125P/B105P).

Moreover, same as the predicate monitors B105M, B125M, B155M, B105P and B125P (K213490), the proposed monitors B105M, B125M, B155M, B105P and B125P include features and subsystems that are optional or configurable, and it can be mounted in a variety of ways (e.g., shelf, countertop, table, wall, pole, or head/foot board) using existing mounting accessories.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter and summary for K242562 (Monitor B105M, Monitor B125M, Monitor B155M, Monitor B105P, Monitor B125P) do not contain information about specific acceptance criteria, reported device performance metrics, or details of a study meeting those criteria for any of the listed physiological parameters or functionalities (e.g., ECG or arrhythmia detection).

Instead, the documentation primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device (K213490) by comparing features, technology, and compliance with various recognized standards and guidance documents for safety, EMC, software, human factors, and cybersecurity.

The summary explicitly states: "The subject of this premarket submission, the proposed monitors B105M/B125M/B155M/B105P/B125P did not require clinical studies to support substantial equivalence." This implies that the changes introduced in the new device versions were not considered significant enough to warrant new clinical performance studies or specific quantitative efficacy/accuracy acceptance criteria beyond what is covered by the referenced consensus standards.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information from the given text:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: This information is not present. The document lists numerous standards and tests performed, but not specific performance metrics or acceptance thresholds.
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not explicitly stated for performance evaluation, as clinical studies were not required. The usability testing mentioned a sample size of 16 US clinical users, but this is for human factors, not device performance.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable, as detailed performance studies requiring expert ground truth are not described.
4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable.
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 device is a patient monitor, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool that would typically involve human readers.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done: The document describes "Bench testing related to software, hardware and performance including applicable consensus standards," which implies standalone testing against known specifications or simulated data. However, specific results or detailed methodologies for this type of testing are not provided beyond the list of standards.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): Not explicitly stated for performance assessment. For the various parameters (ECG, NIBP, SpO2, etc.), it would typically involve reference equipment or validated methods as per the relevant IEC/ISO standards mentioned.
8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable, as this is not an AI/ML device that would require explicit training data in the context of this submission.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

In summary, the provided document focuses on demonstrating that the new monitors are substantially equivalent to their predicate through feature comparison, adherence to recognized standards, and various non-clinical bench tests (e.g., hardware, alarms, EMC, environmental, reprocessing, human factors, software, cybersecurity). It does not contain the detailed performance study results and acceptance criteria typically found for novel diagnostic algorithms or AI-driven devices.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Radius VSM and accessories are intended to be used as both a wearable multi-parameter patient monitor and an accessory to a multi-parameter patient monitor that is intended for multi-parameter physiological patient monitoring in hospital and healthcare facilities.

The Radius VSM and accessories are indicated for the monitoring of hemodynamic (including ECG, arrhythmia detection, non-invasive blood pressure, SpO2, Pulse Rate, PVi, heart rate, and temperature), and respiratory (e.g., impedance, acoustic, and pleth-based respiration rate) physiological parameters along with the orientation and activity of adults.

The Radius VSM and accessories are indicated for the non-invasive continuous monitoring of functional oxygen saturation of arterial hemoglobin (SpO2) and Pulse Rate (PR) of well or poorly perfused adults during both no motion and motion conditions.

The Radius VSM and accessories are indicated for continuous monitoring of skin temperature of adults.

The Radius VSM and accessories are indicated for monitoring of the orientation and activity of patients including those susceptible to pressure ulcers.

The Radius VSM and accessories are indicated for the continuous non-invasive monitoring of PVi as a measure of relative variability of the photoplethysmograph (pleth) of adults during no motion conditions. PVi may be used as a noninvasive dynamic indicator of fluid responsiveness in select populations of mechanically ventilated adult patients. Accuracy of PVi in predicting fluid responsiveness is variable and influenced by numerous patient, procedure and device related factors. PVi measures the variation in the plethysmography amplitude but does not provide measurements of stroke volume or cardiac output. Fluid management decisions should be based on a complete assessment of the patient's condition and should not be based solely on PVi.

Devices with Masimo technology are only indicated for use with Masimo accessories.

Radius VSM Accessories:

Radius VSM ECG Electrodes are disposable, single-patient use ECG electrodes intended to acquire ECG signals from the surface of the body. They are indicated for use on adults for up to 3 days of skin surface contact.

Radius VSM Blood Pressure Cuffs are accessories intended to be used with a noninvasive blood pressure measurement system to measure blood pressure. They are indicated for use on adults during no motion conditions.

The Radius VSM and accessories are an FDA cleared (K223498), wearable, battery-operated, multi-modular patient monitoring platform that allows for the ability to scale and tailor the use of different monitoring technologies based upon the hospital and clinician's assessment of what technologies are appropriate.

As part of this submission, a MAP feature is being added to the Radius VSM. The feature is a software feature that uses the previously cleared systolic and diastolic measurement capabilities to automate the calculation of MAP using the following formula: MAP = 1/3* Systolic + 2/3*Diastolic.

The MAP is calculated by the Radius VSM NIBP Module and displayed on the Radius VSM Wearable Monitor. There were no other features added as part of this submission.

The provided 510(k) clearance letter and summary discuss the addition of a Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP) feature to the previously cleared Radius VSM and Accessories device. The primary focus of the performance data section is on validating this new MAP feature.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets them, based on the provided document:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document states that the acceptance criterion for Blood Pressure (including MAP) is:

"Meets ISO 81060-2 (Mean difference of ≤5 mmHg with a standard deviation of ≤8 mmHg)"

The document directly states that the results of the clinical testing supported the clinical performance of the MAP in accordance with ISO 81060-2. While specific numerical results (e.g., the exact mean difference and standard deviation achieved) are not explicitly provided in the summary table, the clearance implies that these metrics fell within the specified ISO 81060-2 limits for the MAP feature.

Table 1: Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance for MAP Feature (as inferred from the document)

Study Details for MAP Feature Validation

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

   • Sample Size: The document does not explicitly state the numerical sample size (number of subjects/patients) used for the clinical test set. It only mentions "clinical study data."
   • Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin. It indicates it was a "clinical study" and implies it was prospective ("clinical testing is provided to support its performance" for the added feature).

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

   • Not applicable as the ground truth was established by an objective reference device, not human experts.

3. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

   • Not applicable, as the method for ground truth establishment was comparison to a reference device.

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

   • No, an MRMC study was not done. The study was a comparison of the device's calculated MAP to invasively measured MAP from a reference device. This is a technical performance validation, not a study assessing human reader improvement with AI assistance.

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

   • Yes, this was a standalone performance study. The Radius VSM automatically calculates the MAP based on the NIBP measurements (Systolic and Diastolic Pressure). The clinical testing validated the accuracy of this calculation against a reference standard, without human intervention in the MAP calculation or interpretation for the test itself.

6. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

   • Reference Ground Truth: Invasively measured MAP values from a 510(k) cleared reference device (K171801). This reference device is identified as "IntelliVue Multi-Measurement Module X3." This constitutes a device-based reference standard or instrument-based ground truth.

7. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

   • The document does not provide information about a training set since the MAP feature appears to be a direct calculation using a standard formula (MAP = 1/3* Systolic + 2/3*Diastolic) rather than a machine learning model that requires a training phase. While the device as a whole (Radius VSM) likely had training and validation phases for its other parameters, the specific "addition of a Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP) feature" is described as a software feature that "automates the calculation" using a known formula. Therefore, a separate training set for this specific MAP feature is unlikely to have been required or used in the conventional machine learning sense.

8. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set was Established:

   • As inferred above, a specific training set and ground truth establishment for this isolated MAP calculation feature are not described, given its nature as a direct formulaic calculation.

Summary of Key Information:

The core of this submission revolves around adding a simple, formula-based calculation for MAP. The primary study presented is a clinical validation confirming that the device's computed MAP aligns with a known industry standard (ISO 81060-2) when compared against an invasive reference device. This is a technical performance validation rather than a complex AI-driven diagnostic study.

Ask a specific question about this device

Intended for monitoring and recording of, and to generate alarms for, multiple physiological parameters of adults and pediatrics in a hospital environment and during patient transport inside hospitals.

Not intended for home use. Intended for use by health care professionals.

The Telemetry Monitor 5500 is a battery-operated patient worn monitor with a touchscreen display. The Telemetry Monitor 5500 is intended to monitor and record, and to generate alarms for, multiple physiological parameters like ECG, SpO2, and respiration rate. It is equipped with a 1.4 GHz radio to enable wireless bi-directional data flow with Philips' Patient Information Center (PIC) iX.

This 510(k) clearance letter pertains to the Philips Telemetry Monitor 5500 Release 4.0. The provided document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device and includes information regarding performance testing against established standards. However, it does not contain specific details about acceptance criteria for particular performance metrics, nor does it describe studies proving the device meets those specific acceptance criteria in the format often associated with AI/ML device clearances (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, AUC).

Instead, the document primarily cites compliance with general medical device standards and internal testing to support its claims of performance. Therefore, many of the requested sections below cannot be fully populated as the information is not present in the provided text.

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state quantitative acceptance criteria for device performance (e.g., a specific minimum sensitivity or accuracy percentage). Instead, it states that the device was assessed for conformity with relevant standards and that "results of the bench testing show that the subject device meets its accuracy specification and meet relevant consensus standards."

Study Details:

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

   • Test Set Sample Size: Not explicitly stated for any specific performance metric beyond general statements of testing compliance. For the "Clinical Studies" section related to SpO2 accuracy, it only notes that studies were conducted to "support accuracy performance" and "meet the acceptance criteria laid out in the associated protocols." No sample size for patients or data points is provided.
   • Data Provenance: Not specified. The document mentions "Philips conducted clinical studies" but does not detail the country of origin of the data or whether it was retrospective or prospective.

2. 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. The document describes performance testing against established standards and internal "accuracy specifications". For the SpO2 accuracy claims, ground truth would typically be established by invasive measurements (e.g., CO-oximetry of arterial blood samples), not by expert review of device output. The document does not provide details on how ground truth was established for the clinical studies supporting SpO2 accuracy.

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

   • Not Applicable/Not Specified. Since expert review for ground truth is not indicated, adjudication methods are not relevant in the context described.

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

   • No. The provided text does not mention any MRMC comparative effectiveness study. This device is a telemetry monitor for physiological parameters, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool for human readers. "Summative usability testing" was done, indicating human interaction with the device, but not in a comparative effectiveness study involving AI assistance for human "readers."

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

   • Standalone algorithm performance is implied for certain functions, but not detailed. The device uses "Philips proprietary monitoring algorithms for ECG arrhythmia monitoring" (EASI, Hexad, ST/AR Arrhythmia Monitoring, ST/AR ST Analysis Algorithm, ST/AR QT/QTc Interval Monitoring). The performance of these algorithms would constitute "standalone" performance, but the document only states "Functional and system level testing... was performed. The results of the bench testing show that the subject device meets its accuracy specification and meet relevant consensus standards." No specific performance metrics for these algorithms are provided.

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

   • Not explicitly stated for all performance metrics.
     • For SpO₂ accuracy, ground truth is typically established by comparing the device's SpO₂ readings to invasive arterial blood gas analysis (CO-oximetry). The document only states "Philips conducted clinical studies... to support accuracy performance."
     • For other performance metrics related to compliance with standards (e.g., electrical safety, EMC, usability), the "ground truth" is adherence to the standard's requirements, demonstrated through specific tests.

7. The sample size for the training set

   • Not Applicable/Not Specified. The document mentions "Philips proprietary monitoring algorithms," which would have been developed using training data. However, the size or nature of any training set is not disclosed in this 510(k) summary, as it's not a primary requirement for demonstrating substantial equivalence for this type of device.

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

   • Not Applicable/Not Specified. The document does not provide information on how the ground truth for any potential training sets used in the development of "Philips proprietary monitoring algorithms" was established.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Infinity CentralStation (ICS) is intended for use by trained health care professionals for the purpose of centralized monitoring of adult, pediatric and neonatal patient data within the hospital or clinical environment. Centralized monitoring involves the display and management of data from networked patient monitors including the annunciation of visual and audible physiologic parameter alarms at a central monitoring workstation.

Infinity CentralStation with Rest ECG is intended for the production and interpretation of diagnostic electrocardiograms for adult and pediatric patients when connected to a monitor with diagnostic 12-Lead ECG monitoring enabled.

The Infinity® CentralStation (ICS) Wide (or widescreen) is a Central monitoring station capable of real-time display and storage of multi-parameter physiological patient data and alarm annunciation for networked devices including but not limited to ambulatory and non-ambulatory wireless telemetry monitoring.

The provided text is a 510(k) premarket notification for the Infinity CentralStation Wide, a medical device for centralized patient monitoring. It describes the device's indications for use, comparison to a predicate device, and performance data from verification and validation testing.

However, the document does not contain the specific information required to answer your request regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving the device meets those criteria.
Specifically, it does not provide:

• A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance.
• Sample sizes used for a test set or data provenance for such a set.
• Details on experts establishing ground truth, their qualifications, or adjudication methods.
• Information on a multi-reader, multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study, including effect size.
• Results from a standalone (algorithm-only) performance study.
• The type of ground truth used (e.g., pathology, outcomes data).
• Sample size for a training set or how ground truth for a training set was established.

The document focuses on:

• Cybersecurity modifications and defect fixes as the "significant change modifications" introduced in this submission (page 4).
• Verification and Validation Testing primarily in the context of these cybersecurity enhancements and compliance with design controls (21 CFR 820.30) (page 4). The text states that "results of Verification testing confirm that the modified device continues to meet equivalent criteria demonstrating substantial equivalence to the predicate device" and "Validation test results support the claim of substantial equivalence to the predicate device and do not raise new issues of safety and effectiveness." (page 4).
• Compliance with various medical device standards (e.g., IEC 60601 series), as detailed in the table on page 6.

In summary, this 510(k) pertains to modifications (primarily cybersecurity) to an existing device (Infinity CentralStation Wide VG5 compared to VG4). It leverages the substantial equivalence pathway, meaning it demonstrates that the modified device is as safe and effective as a legally marketed predicate device. This type of submission usually does not require extensive clinical performance studies with acceptance criteria as would be needed for a novel AI/ML-based diagnostic device in a de novo or PMA submission.

Therefore, I cannot extract the requested information from the provided text. The document does not describe the kind of performance study you're asking about (e.g., diagnostic accuracy, reader study) with specific acceptance criteria as if it were a new AI algorithm being tested for diagnostic performance.

Ask a specific question about this device

The RespArray™ patient monitor is intended to be used for monitoring, storing, reviewing of, and to generate alarms for, multiple physiological parameters of adults, pediatrics and neonates. The monitors are intended for use by trained healthcare professionals in hospital environments. The monitor is for prescription use only.

The monitored physiological parameters include: ECG, respiration (RESP), temperature (TEMP), oxygen saturation of arterial blood (SpO2), pulse rate (PR), non-invasive blood pressure (NIBP), and carbon dioxide (CO2).

The arrhythmia detection and ST Segment analysis are intended for adult patients.

The SpO2 (Nellcor™) module is intended to be used for spot-check or continuous non-invasive monitoring of functional oxygen saturation of arterial hemoglobin (SpO2) and pulse rate (PR), in motion and no motion conditions, and in patients who are well or poorly perfused.

The Microstream™ capnography module is intended for continuous non-invasive monitoring of carbon dioxide concentration of the expired and inspired breath (etCO2) and respiration rate (RR). The monitor also provides the clinician with integrated pulmonary index (IPI), apnea per hour (A/hr) and oxygen desaturation index (ODI) values. IPI is not intended for patients up to the age of one year. A/hr and ODI are intended for ages 22 and up.

The monitors are not intended for MRI environments.

The RespArray patient monitor (hereinafter called RespArray) can perform long-time continuous monitoring of multiple physiological parameters. Also, it is capable of storing, displaying, analyzing and controlling measurements, and it will indicate alarms in case of abnormity so that doctors and nurses can deal with them in time.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the Edan Instruments Patient Monitor (RespArray). It focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to a predicate device, primarily through non-clinical performance and software verification/validation.

Crucially, the document explicitly states: "Clinical data: Not applicable." This means there was no clinical study conducted to prove the device meets specific acceptance criteria in a human-use setting, particularly relating to diagnostic accuracy where AI assistance or expert consensus would be relevant.

Therefore, many of the requested items, such as multi-reader multi-case studies, ground truth establishment for a test set, and sample sizes for clinical test sets, are not applicable to this submission as per the document's contents.

Here's a breakdown based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria discussed are primarily related to electrical safety, electromagnetic compatibility (EMC), and general performance of the physiological parameter measurements (ECG, RESP, NIBP, TEMP, SpO2, CO2). The document states that the device was found to comply with relevant standards and that bench testing shows it meets its accuracy specification and relevant consensus standards.

Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (as inferred from the text):

Study Proving Device Meets Acceptance Criteria:

The study proving the device meets the acceptance criteria is described as "Non-clinical data" including:

• Electrical safety and electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) assessments.
• Performance testing-Bench
• Software Verification and Validation Testing.

Detailed Information on the Study:

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

   • Sample Size: Not explicitly quantified in terms of number of patients or physiological measurements. The testing was "bench" testing, meaning laboratory-based tests on the device's functionality and accuracy against reference standards, rather than patient-derived data.
   • Data Provenance: Not applicable in the context of clinical data. For testing against standards, it implies standardized test setups and simulated physiological signals/conditions.

2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:

   • Not applicable. No experts were used for ground truth establishment as it was non-clinical bench testing against established engineering and medical device performance standards. There's no "ground truth" of a diagnostic nature being established by human experts in this context.

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

   • Not applicable. Adjudication is relevant for human-interpreted diagnostic data. This study relies on objective measurements against engineering specifications and international standards.

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:

   • No, not applicable. The device is a patient monitor, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool that interprets medical images/signals for improved human reader performance. The submission explicitly states "Clinical data: Not applicable."

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

   • Yes, in essence. The "Performance testing-Bench" and "Software Verification and Validation Testing" evaluate the device's inherent algorithms and functionality in a standalone manner (without a human in the loop for diagnostic interpretation, but rather for operational functionality and accuracy of physiological measurements). However, this is not in the context of a diagnostic AI algorithm.

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

   • Reference standards and engineering specifications. The "ground truth" for the non-clinical tests is derived from established international and national standards for medical electrical equipment, specific performance criteria for various physiological measurement modules, and the device's own accuracy specifications validated through bench testing.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable for a clinical training set. This is not an AI/ML device in the sense of learning from a large dataset of patient cases. The device's algorithms are designed and verified, not "trained" on patient data in a machine learning sense.

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

   • Not applicable. As above, no clinical training set or associated ground truth establishment process is described or relevant for this type of device submission.

In summary, the provided 510(k) focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence through adherence to recognized performance and safety standards via non-clinical bench testing and software validation, rather than clinical studies involving human patients or complex AI diagnostic algorithms requiring expert review and adjudication.

Ask a specific question about this device

AliveCor's Corvair ECG analysis system assists the healthcare professional (HCP) in measuring and interpreting resting diagnostic ECGs for rhythm and morphological information by providing an initial automated interpretation. The interpretation by the analysis program may then be confirmed, edited, or deleted by the HCP. The analysis program is intended for use in the general population ranging from healthy subjects to patients with cardiac abnormalities. Corvair is intended for use by healthcare professionals, or trained personnel in healthcare facilities (e.g. the doctor's office or hospital) and in acute settings.

Corvair analyses should be used only as an adjunct to clinical history, symptoms, and the results of other non-invasive and/or invasive tests. Corvair analyses are considered unconfirmed and must be reviewed by a qualified physician. The provisional automated ECG analysis should not be used for clinical action if it has not been reviewed by a qualified healthcare professional capable of independently interpreting the ECG signal.

Corvair is Software as a Medical Device (SaMD) intended for use by healthcare professionals to analyze a diagnostic-bandwidth ECG. Corvair analyzes a 10-second ECG and provides rhythm analysis, morphological analysis, and ECG interval estimation. Corvair provides 35 separate determinations with 14 rhythm and 21 morphology determinations. Rhythm determinations include Normal Sinus Rhythm, Atrial fibrillation, Atrial flutter, Paced Rhythm, Junctional Rhythm, and Bigeminy, with the modifiers of 1* Degree AV Block, Higher Degree AV Block (including 2nd and 3rd degree AV blocks), Sinus Arrhythmia, Marked Sinus Arrhythmia, Marked Bradycardia, Sinus Tachycardia, and PVCs. Morphology determinations include Intraventricular block (RBBB, LBBB, and Other Intraventricular Block), Hypertrophy (LVH, and RVH), Atrial Enlargement (LAE and RAE), Acute Myocardial Infarction (Anterior MI, Inferior MI, Lateral MI), Old/Previous Myocardial Infarction (Anterior Old MI, Inferior Old MI, Lateral Old MI), Ischemia (Anterior, Inferior, Lateral), Prolonged QT, Paced ECG, Other Morphological Defects (Early Repolarization, Wolff-Parkinson-White Syndrome (WPW)), and Normal or Otherwise Normal. Rhythm and morphology determinations are overlapping. i.e., an ECG could receive multiple rhythm and morphology determinations (e.g., Sinus Rhythm, Acute MI). The device also provides global ECG measurements (PR, ORS, OT, OTcB, OTcF, and Heart Rate). No beat-level analysis is provided by the device. Corvair may fail to detect or misidentify conduction system pacing and demand pacing. Corvair does not detect sinus pause. While Corvair provides PR interval estimation and does detect WPW, it does not have a separate determination of abnormally short PR intervals.

This SaMD provides these capabilities in the form of an Application Program Interface (API) library. Any software or device ("target device") can incorporate the Corvair API library into its device software to provide users with resting ECG analytics. The input ECG is provided by the target device to Corvair, to which the various Corvair algorithms are applied, and outputs generated accordingly. Corvair has a C++ interface and a distributed binary (library), which is used by the target device to statically link to Corvair. Viewing of Corvair's ECG analysis is handled by the target device.

Corvair is intended to be used with standard diagnostic-bandwidth, resting ECG recordings collected using 'wet' Ag/AgCl electrodes with conductive gel/paste. Corvair only requires 4 ECG leads for analysis, specifically, either Leads {I, II, V2, and V4}, or Leads {I, II, V1, and V4}. Compatible devices include resting ECGs from GE Medical Systems® (e.g., K081437, MAC 1600, K110266, MAC 5500, K173830, MAC VU360, etc.), and AliveCor's Impala (K232035). Regardless of the lead configuration, Corvair provides the same set of rhythm, morphological, and interval determinations. Corvair has two modes of operation, Symptomatic Mode, which is used when the pre-test probability for a specific rhythm or morphology is high, and Asymptomatic Mode, which optimizes the PPV, by optimizing the specificity, to detect the various rhythms and morphologies. The target device can choose which lead set and which mode of determinations to utilize based on the target clinical application and the patient's clinical presentation.

Corvair utilizes several deep neural networks (DNNs) for its analysis. These DNNs were trained on a dataset of approximately 1 million 12-Lead ECGs acquired from about 400K clinical patients at the Emory University Hospital over several decades between 1985 and 2010. Each ECG has a physician overread confirmed diagnosis with multiple diagnostic codes. The dataset had a 52%/48% ratio of ECGs from male and female patients, respectively. The average age of the patient was 61.3 ± 16. The dataset included 56% white, 33% African American, 2.2% Asian, 9% other races/ethnicities.

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

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

The document states that Corvair was evaluated against a large set of ECGs and compared its analysis output against a known reference using standard ECG performance metrics. These outputs were evaluated against clinically relevant acceptance criteria. However, the specific numerical acceptance criteria for sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and error margins for interval outputs are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The text only mentions that acceptable performance was demonstrated.

Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (Summary based on text):

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance

• Test Set Size: The document states that Corvair was evaluated "against a large set of ECGs" and mentions "additional large validation datasets" created from sites independent of the training data. For PR, QRS, QT interval estimation, the Common Standards for Quantitative Electrocardiography Standard Database (CSEDB) and an AliveCor proprietary dataset developed from ECGs collected in a clinical study at the Mayo Clinic's Genetic Heart Rhythm Clinic were used. For Heart Rate and QTcF validation, the AliveCor proprietary dataset was also used. The exact numerical sample sizes for these test sets are not explicitly provided.
• Data Provenance:
  • Training Data: Approximately 1 million 12-Lead ECGs acquired from about 400,000 clinical patients at the Emory University Hospital over several decades (1985-2010).
  • Test Data:
    • CSEDB (Common Standards for Quantitative Electrocardiography Standard Database) - an established public database.
    • AliveCor proprietary dataset from clinical study at Mayo Clinic's Genetic Heart Rhythm Clinic.
    • Additional large validation datasets from sites independent of the training data.
  • Retrospective/Prospective: The Emory University Hospital data (1985-2010), used for training, is retrospective. The Mayo Clinic data used for the proprietary dataset likely has a prospective component if collected specifically for this study, but the text doesn't explicitly state its collection method. The "additional large validation datasets" are not detailed regarding their collection method.
  • Country of Origin: Emory University Hospital and Mayo Clinic are in the United States.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts

The document mentions that the training dataset ECGs "each has a physician overread confirmed diagnosis with multiple diagnostic codes." For the test sets, the ground truth is against a "known reference." While it refers to "physician overread confirmed diagnosis" for the training set, it does not explicitly state the number or specific qualifications of experts who established the ground truth for the test set. For CSEDB, the ground truth is part of the established database, which typically involves expert consensus. For the AliveCor proprietary dataset, the text implies a clinical study setting, but details on ground truth establishment by experts are missing.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

The document does not explicitly state the adjudication method used for establishing the ground truth of the test set (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none). It refers to "physician overread confirmed diagnosis" for the training data and "known reference" for the test data, implying an established ground truth, but the process of its establishment is not detailed.

5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, and if so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance.

The document explicitly states: "No clinical testing was required or conducted to support a determination of substantial equivalence." This indicates that an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not performed for this submission. The device is intended to assist healthcare professionals, providing an "initial automated interpretation" that "may then be confirmed, edited, or deleted by the HCP," but its impact on human performance was not part of this specific submission's evidence.

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

Yes, a standalone performance evaluation was done. The nonclinical performance testing sections describe evaluating Corvair's analysis output against a known reference using standard ECG performance metrics (sensitivity, specificity, PPV, mean error, standard deviation of error, mean absolute error). This directly assesses the algorithm's performance without a human in the loop. The device provides its analysis as an API library, which integrates into other software, implying a standalone analysis capability.

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

The ground truth for the training set was based on "physician overread confirmed diagnosis with multiple diagnostic codes." For the test sets, it was against a "known reference." For the CSEDB, it's generally accepted expert consensus reference data. For the proprietary dataset from Mayo Clinic, it likely involves clinical diagnoses and expert review, but the specific process (e.g., expert consensus vs. single physician overread) is not detailed.

8. The sample size for the training set

The training set consisted of approximately 1 million 12-Lead ECGs acquired from about 400,000 clinical patients.

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

The ground truth for the training set was established through "a physician overread confirmed diagnosis with multiple diagnostic codes" for each ECG. This indicates that medical professionals reviewed and confirmed the diagnoses, which were then used as the labels for training the deep neural networks.

Ask a specific question about this device

The iX series Patient Monitors including iX10, iX12, iX15 are intended to be used for monitoring, storing, and reviewing of, and to generate alarms for, multiple physiological parameters of adults and pediatics (including neonates). The monitors are intended for use by trained healthcare professionals in hospital environments.

The monitored physiological parameters include: ECG, respiration (RESP), temperature (TEMP), functional oxygen saturation of arterial hemoglobin (SpO2), pulse rate (PR), non-invasive blood pressure (NIBP), invasive blood pressure (IBP), carbon dioxide (CO2), cardiac output (C.O.), and Anaesthesia gas (AG).

The arrhythmia detection and ST Segment analysis are intended for adult patients.

The NIBP monitoring supports iCUFS algorithm and iFAST algorithm is intended for adult, pediatric and neonatal patients. The iFAST algorithm is intended for adult and pediatic patients (≥3 years of age). Both measurement algorithms are also intended for use with pregnant women, including pre-eclamptic patients. NIBP MAP is not applicable to pregnant women.

The Spot Temp with T2A module can only measure temperature of adult and pediatric (> 1 year of age) patients. The monitors are not intended for MRI environments.

The cardiac output (C.O.) is only intended for adult patients.

The iX series Patient Monitors including iX10, iX12, iX15 can perform long-time continuous monitoring of multiple physiological parameters. Also, it is capable of storing, displaying, analyzing and controlling measurements, and it will indicate alarms in case of abnormalities so that doctors and nurses can respond to the patient's situation as appropriate.

This document describes the premarket notification (510(k)) for the Edan Instruments, Inc. Patient Monitor (iX10, iX12, iX15) and its equivalence to a predicate device.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria for the new device were generally established by compliance with various international standards for medical electrical equipment and specific performance characteristics. The reported device performance indicates that the device meets these standards and its specified accuracy.

For the Quick Temp Module (T2A), the provided text details specific clinical study results. Other parameters were tested for compliance with relevant standards through non-clinical testing.

2. Sample Size for Test Set and Data Provenance

For the Quick Temp Module (T2A) Predict Mode clinical accuracy study:

• Sample Size: 142 valid cases for sublingual and axillary temperature measurements.
• Data Provenance: Clinical investigation (prospective study). No country of origin is explicitly stated, but the company is based in China.

For other parameters, specific sample sizes for non-clinical (bench) testing are not provided, but the document states "Edan has conducted functional and system level testing to validate the performance of the results of the bench testing show that the subject device meets its accuracy specification and meet relevant consensus standards."

3. Number of Experts and their Qualifications for Ground Truth

The document does not specify the number or qualifications of experts used to establish ground truth for the clinical study of the Quick Temp Module (T2A). It only mentions that the study compared the new module against the "direct mode of F3000 Temp Module of M3A Vital signs monitor," implying the predicate device served as a reference for accuracy.

For other non-clinical tests, the ground truth is implicitly defined by the specifications and performance requirements outlined in the referenced international standards.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not describe a specific adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) for the clinical study or any other test sets.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

No multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study is mentioned in the provided text. The device is a patient monitor, and its performance evaluation typically focuses on the accuracy and reliability of its physiological parameter measurements, not on improving human reader performance with AI assistance.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance Study

Yes, standalone performance was evaluated for the components of the device. The non-clinical data section describes extensive functional and system-level testing to validate the performance against relevant consensus standards. This includes specific tests for algorithms like cardiac rhythm and ST segment measurement. The clinical study for the Quick Temp Module (T2A) also assesses the standalone performance of that specific module.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• For the Quick Temp Module (T2A) clinical study: The ground truth was established by comparison to a reference device's direct temperature measurement mode ("direct mode of F3000 Temp Module of M3A Vital signs monitor"). This is a form of reference standard comparison (using a predicate device as the reference).
• For other parameters (e.g., ECG, NIBP, SpO2, CO2, AG): The ground truth for non-clinical testing is implicitly based on the specifications and performance requirements outlined in the referenced international consensus standards (e.g., IEC 60601 series, ISO 80601 series, AAMI standards).

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not provide information about a training set since this is a patient monitoring device and not a machine learning algorithm as typically understood in the context of large-scale image-based diagnostics. The "algorithms" mentioned (e.g., arrhythmia detection, NIBP algorithms) are likely engineered signal processing algorithms rather than deep learning models requiring large training datasets.

9. How Ground Truth for Training Set was Established

Not applicable, as no training set for a machine learning model is described in the provided text. The algorithms for the patient monitor's functions are developed and validated against established physiological principles and engineering standards.

Ask a specific question about this device

MFM-CMS central monitoring system (hereinafter referred to as MFM-CMS) supports centralized management of patients' clinical data provided by EDAN medical devices. Clinicians can obtain patient clinical data via MFM-CMS. The indications for use of the MFM-CMS central monitoring system include:

• · Viewing patient real-time clinical data and alarms.
• · Storing and reviewing patient clinical data and alarms.
• · Printing real-time and history patient data.
• · Configuring local settings as well as synchronizing settings to a remote device through network.
• · Accessing patient clinical data between several departments.

MFM-CMS is intended to be used only in clinical or hospital environment by well-trained healthcare professionals.

MFM-CMS is indicated for use when monitoring adult and/or pediatric and/or neonate patients as indicated by labeling of the medical device providing the data.

MFM-CMS is a central monitoring system product, which can connect and manage information from EDAN medical devices. MFM-CMS offers central management for monitoring information from the medical devices. All these collected information can be displayed, printed, alarmed and recorded.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the Edan Instruments, Inc. MFM-CMS Central Monitoring System. It describes the device, its intended use, and a comparison to predicate devices, but does not contain information related to specific acceptance criteria, reported device performance in those criteria, sample sizes, expert qualifications, or ground truth establishment for a diagnostic AI device.

The submission is for a "Central Monitoring System" (MFM-CMS), which supports centralized management of patient clinical data from other EDAN medical devices. It is classified as an "Arrhythmia detector and alarm (including ST-segment measurement and alarm)" with product code MHX. However, the summary focuses on the system's ability to display, store, review, and print data, and manage settings, rather than its performance as an arrhythmia detector itself.

Therefore, many of the requested details cannot be extracted from this document, as they are typically found in the clinical validation studies of algorithms that perform diagnostic or interpretative tasks.

Here's an analysis based on the information available in the document:

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

This information is not provided in the document. The submission focuses on functional changes and comparison to predicates, not specific performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or accuracy for an arrhythmia detection algorithm. The "Performance" section within the comparison table refers to features like "Bi-directional Configuration" and "Data Review," not numerical performance criteria.

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

This information is not provided. The document states "Clinical testing: Not applicable. Clinical testing is not required to establish substantial equivalence to the predicate device." This indicates that no clinical test set was used to validate the device's performance in a diagnostic capacity.

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 information is not provided, as no clinical test set for diagnostic accuracy was utilized.

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

This information is not provided, as no clinical test set for diagnostic accuracy was utilized.

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

There is no indication that an MRMC study was done. The device is a "Central Monitoring System" and is not described as an AI-powered diagnostic tool that assists human readers.

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

This information is not provided, as the document does not describe the MFM-CMS as a standalone diagnostic algorithm. Its primary function is a central data management system. Although it is classified under "Arrhythmia detector and alarm," the detailed description of its updates and comparison to predicates emphasizes data handling and system functionality rather than algorithm performance for arrhythmia detection.

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

This information is not provided, as no clinical validation study is described.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not provided. As the submission focuses on software updates and functional equivalence, details about training sets for an AI algorithm are not relevant or discussed.

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

This information is not provided, as no clinical validation study or AI training is described.

Summary of what is available in the document:

The document describes the MFM-CMS as a central monitoring system that connects to other EDAN medical devices to manage patient clinical data. The submission is for an updated version (K232694) of an existing device (K120727), with the primary predicate being the BeneVision Central Monitoring System (K220058).

Key changes and comparisons:

The main changes to the software include:

• Add distributed function.
• Add license authorization.
• Support department management, device management, and user management.
• Support time synchronization function.
• Support data automatic dump function.
• Replace the software development platform.
• Supports simultaneous login of multiple clients.
• Support domain account to log in to the CMS client.

The comparison table highlights similarities and differences in intended use, operating system support, data review features, calculations, telemetry support, print capabilities, and network connectivity between the subject device and its predicate.

Performance Data (as per the document):
The document states:

• Non-clinical test: Biocompatibility testing and Electrical safety & electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) are "Not applicable."
• Software Verification and Validation Testing: Conducted in accordance with FDA guidance for software in medical devices.
• Bench Testing: Functional and system-level testing was conducted to validate performance, and results "show that the subject device meets relevant consensus standards" (e.g., IEC 60601-1-8:2006 + Am1:2012 for alarm systems).
• Clinical testing: "Not applicable. Clinical testing is not required to establish substantial equivalence to the predicate device."

Conclusion: The submission concludes that "The bench testing data and software verification and validation demonstrate that MFM-CMS Central Monitoring System is substantially equivalent to the predicate devices."

In essence, this FDA 510(k) summary focuses on demonstrating that the updated MFM-CMS system maintains the safety and effectiveness of its predicate devices through non-clinical testing and software verification, rather than providing a detailed performance study of a diagnostic algorithm against specific clinical acceptance criteria.

Ask a specific question about this device