Search Results

The ML24000 UVA-1 Phototherapy Unit is a full body medical ultraviolet device, which is intended for use, by or under the direction of a physician, for therapeutic treatment for individuals who require ultraviolet or visible radiation for diagnosed skin disorders.

Device Description

The ML24000 UVA-1 Phototherapy Unit is a microprocessor controlled full body ultraviolet light source, with spectral output at peak wavelengths of 370-390 nm. It is intended for use by or under the direction of a physician, for the treatment of diagnosed skin disorders. The desired dose is selected using the operator interface located on the front panel of the device. The ML24000 UVA-1 Phototherapy Unit delivers full body phototherapy, wherebv Philips CLEO HPA 1018 Medium Pressure Lamps, which surround the patient, deliver the specified dose of UVA-1.

AI/ML Overview

The provided text does not contain information about acceptance criteria and a study proving a device meets these criteria in the typical sense of a clinical or performance study for an AI/CADe device. Instead, the document is a 510(k) summary for a phototherapy unit, focusing on its substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

Therefore, most of the requested information cannot be extracted directly from this document.

Here's an attempt to answer the questions based only on the provided text, indicating where information is not available:

A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

The document does not explicitly present acceptance criteria in a quantitative format typical for AI/CADe devices (e.g., sensitivity, specificity thresholds) nor does it report performance metrics against such criteria. The "Performance Data" section states: "The ML24000 UVA-1 Phototherapy Unit performance data is the same as or very similar to that of the claimed predicate devices. The UV lamps and cabinet construction used in the production of the predicate device and the ML24000 UVA-1 Phototherapy Unit are similar." This implies equivalence through comparison rather than meeting specific performance thresholds.

Acceptance Criteria (Not explicitly stated for performance metrics)	Reported Device Performance
Spectral Output Peak Wavelength: Similar to predicate	ML24000: Peak at 365nm. (Predicate 1-series also 365nm; Houva predicate 350nm, but ML24000 varies from it)
Output Spectrum Range: Similar to predicate	ML24000: 340nm to 400nm. (Houva predicate 320-400nm)
Intended Use: Same as or similar to predicate	Same or similar
General and Specific Indications for Use: Same as or similar to predicate	Same or similar
Mode of Operation: Same as or similar to predicate	Same or similar
Labeling: Same as or similar to predicate	Same or similar
Treatment Area: Same as or similar to predicate	Same or similar
General Operating Principles: Same as or similar to predicate	Same or similar
Materials of Composition: Similar and/or identical to predicate	Similar and/or identical
Energy Sources (UV lamps): Similar to predicate	Similar

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

Not applicable. This is a medical device (phototherapy unit), not an AI/CADe system relying on a "test set" of data for algorithm evaluation in the conventional sense. The "performance data" refers to the physical characteristics and operation of the device being similar to existing cleared devices, not algorithmic performance on a dataset.
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. Ground truth for a test set is not relevant for this type of device submission.
Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set

Not applicable. Adjudication methods for test sets are not relevant for this type of device.
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 phototherapy unit, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.
If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done

Not applicable. This device does not have an algorithm in the context of an AI/CADe system.
The type of ground truth used (expert concensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc)

Not applicable. Ground truth is not relevant for this type of device submission. The "ground truth" for a phototherapy unit would be its physical specifications, spectral output, safety, and efficacy in treating skin conditions, which are established through general medical knowledge and clinical practice guidelines, not a specific dataset ground truth.
The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. There is no "training set" for this kind of medical device.
How the ground truth for the training set was established

Not applicable. There is no "training set" or corresponding ground truth for this device.

Ask a Question

Ask a specific question about this device

Page 1 of 1