Search Results

EliA RNA Pol III is intended for the in vitro semi-quantitative measurement of IgG antibodies directed to RNA polymerase III (RNA Pol III) in human serum as an aid in the diagnosis of systemic sclerosis (diffuse form) in conjunction with other laboratory and clinical findings. EliA RNA Pol III uses the EliA IgG method.

EliA RNA Pol III is a semi-quantitative solid-phase fluoroenzymeimmunoassay, for the determination of autoantibodies against RNA polymerase III. The EliA RNA Pol III test System is fully integrated and automated system which comprises of assay-specific reagents, EliA method-specific reagents, and general reagents.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for the EliA RNA Pol III device, based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

Study Details

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

• Test Set (Method Comparison with Predicate Device):
  • Sample Size: 193 patient serum samples.
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but includes 126 samples with a diagnosis of SSc. The context suggests these are clinical samples.
• Test Set (Clinical Sensitivity and Specificity):
  • Sample Size: 596 clinically defined serum samples.
  • Data Provenance: Clinically defined samples from patients with various diagnoses, including Systemic Sclerosis (diffuse and limited forms), and various control diseases/conditions (e.g., Celiac disease, Crohn's disease, SLE, RA, bacterial/viral infections). The text does not specify country of origin or if prospective/retrospective; however, "clinically defined serum samples" typically implies retrospective collection with known diagnoses.
• Test Set (Assay Cut-Off):
  • Sample Size: 70 apparently healthy blood donor samples and 17 target disease (Systemic Sclerosis, diffuse) samples.
  • Data Provenance: "apparently healthy blood donor samples" and "target disease samples" (Systemic Sclerosis, diffuse). The text explicitly mentions "sera from Caucasian, African American, Hispanic and Asian population obtained from a blood bank" for the frequency distribution, which likely overlaps with the "apparently healthy blood donor samples" used for cut-off establishment.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth (Test Set):

• Number of Experts: Not specified.
• Qualifications of Experts: Not specified. The wording "clinically defined serum samples with a diagnosis" implies that the diagnoses used as ground truth were established clinically by medical professionals, but their specific roles, number, or years of experience are not detailed.

4. Adjudication Method (Test Set):

• Adjudication Method: Not specified. The diagnostic labels for the clinical samples are presented as established fact without mention of an adjudication process.

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

• Was an MRMC study done? No. This device is an in-vitro diagnostic (IVD) assay designed for automated measurement of antibodies, not for interpretation by human readers. Therefore, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study regarding human reader improvement with AI assistance is not applicable.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance:

• Was a standalone study done? Yes. The entire performance evaluation, including analytical performance, method comparison, and clinical sensitivity/specificity, evaluates the performance of the EliA RNA Pol III assay itself (the "algorithm only" in this context, as it's an automated system) without human interpretation as part of the primary measurement. The results are generated directly by the instrument.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used:

• For Method Comparison: The ground truth was the results from the predicate device, QUANTA LITE RNA POL III ELISA.
• For Clinical Sensitivity and Specificity: The ground truth was clinical diagnosis ("clinically defined serum samples with a diagnosis from patients with systemic sclerosis, diffuse," etc.).
• For Assay Cut-Off: The ground truth was based on apparently healthy blood donors and clinically diagnosed Systemic Sclerosis, diffuse patients.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set:

• Training Set (Assay Cut-Off establishment): This involved 70 apparently healthy blood donor samples and 17 target disease (Systemic Sclerosis, diffuse) samples. While not explicitly called a "training set," these samples were used to "define the cut-off," which is a form of model training/optimization for classification.
• Other "training" data: The document mentions that "New batches of IgG calibrators are compared to a secondary standard (standardized with the IRP) or the IRP directly and adjusted accordingly to meet the correct concentration." This implies a continuous process of calibration and standardization, where previous data/standards (IRP) could be considered a form of "training" for the calibrators. However, a distinct, large-scale training set for an AI/algorithm in the conventional sense is not detailed as this is a chemical assay.

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

• For Assay Cut-Off establishment: The ground truth for the 70 apparently healthy blood donors means they were confirmed healthy (presumably through standard screening). For the 17 Systemic Sclerosis (diffuse) samples, the ground truth was their clinical diagnosis.
• For Calibrators: The ground truth for calibrators is established through their traceability to the International Reference Preparation (IRP) 67/86 of Human Serum Immunoglobulins A, G and M from WHO.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Unity Network ID is indicated for use in data collection and clinical information management through networks with independent bedside devices. The Unity Network ID is not intended for monitoring purposes, nor is the Unity Network ID intended to control any of the clinical devices (independent bedside devices/ information systems) it is connected to.

The Unity Network ID system communicates patient data from sources other than GE Medical Systems Information Technologies, Inc. equipment to a clinical information system, central station, and/or GE Medical Systems Information Technologies Inc. patient monitors.

The Unity Network ID acquires digital data from eight serial ports, converts the data to Unity Network protocols, and transmits the data over the monitoring network to a Unity Network device such as a patient monitor, clinical information system or central station.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for the GE Healthcare Unity Network ID V7. It describes a data collection and clinical information management system.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study information based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly list specific quantitative acceptance criteria (e.g., accuracy, sensitivity, specificity) for the Unity Network ID V7, nor does it present device performance against such. Instead, it focuses on demonstrating that the device meets design specifications and complies with applicable voluntary standards.

The "Determination of Substantial Equivalence: Summary of Non-Clinical Tests" section indicates: "The Unity Network ID V7 and its applications were tested to, and comply with, applicable voluntary standards. The Unity Network ID V7 was tested to assure that the device meets its design specifications."

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

The document does not specify a "test set" in the context of clinical or performance data from a specific dataset of patients or cases. The testing described is primarily software and hardware verification and validation, rather than an evaluation against a clinical dataset. Therefore, there is no mention of sample size or data provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective).

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

Since there is no "test set" based on patient data, there is no mention of experts needed to establish ground truth or their qualifications. The "ground truth" in this context refers to the successful functionality and compliance of the device against its specifications and standards.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable, as there is no mention of a test set requiring adjudication by experts.

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

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. The device is a data collection and management system, not an interpretive diagnostic tool that involves human readers interpreting clinical output. The document explicitly states: "The subject of this premarket submission, Unity Network ID V7, did not require clinical studies to support substantial equivalence."

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

The "testing included all new or modified features" and involved various quality assurance measures like unit-level testing, integration testing, performance testing, and safety testing. These tests would evaluate the algorithm's functionality and accuracy in its intended role of data conversion and transmission. So, in essence, the "standalone" performance of the data conversion and routing algorithms was assessed as part of these non-clinical tests. However, it's not a "standalone performance study" in the typical sense of evaluating diagnostic accuracy.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" for the non-clinical tests appears to be:

• Design specifications: The device's output and functionality were compared against predefined technical and functional specifications.
• Voluntary standards: Compliance with relevant engineering and medical device standards (though specific standards are not listed in this summary, they are implied).
• Expected behavior: For simulated use testing and verification, the "ground truth" would be the expected correct data conversion and transmission as per the device's design and independent bedside device protocols.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. This device is a data integration and conversion system, not an AI/ML model that requires a "training set" in the typical sense of machine learning for image analysis or diagnostics. Its functionality is based on established communication protocols and data mapping.

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

Not applicable, as there is no training set for this type of device.

Ask a specific question about this device

PeriFlux 6000 equipped with PF 6040 is intended for continuous non-invasive transcutaneous monitoring of the partial pressures of oxygen and/or carbon dioxide. It is intended for use on neonates, pediatrics, and adults not under gas anesthesia.

PeriFlux 6000 is a transcutaneous oxygen/carbon dioxide (tcpO2/CO2) monitor, and consists of a main unit, PF 6001, that can be equipped with 1 to 8 PF 6040 function units. An electrode E5250 or E5280 is connected to each function unit and is applied to a patient's skin. Electrode E5250 consists of a Clark sensor and is used for O2 measurement. Electrode E5280 is a combined Clark sensor and Stow-Severinghaus-type sensor, and is used for both O2 and CO2 measurement. Upon measurement, the electrode is heated to make the skin permeable to gas diffusion, which allows O2 and CO2 to diffuse through the skin into the sensor. The instrument is operated from its touch screen interface and allows the users to record, analyze and report top(22 and tcpCO2 values.

The provided document describes the PeriFlux 6000, a transcutaneous oxygen/carbon dioxide monitor, and its 510(k) summary for FDA clearance. The document focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to predicate devices and demonstrating compliance with safety and performance standards. However, it does not contain specific acceptance criteria or a study detailing device performance against such criteria in the way typically expected for an AI/ML device.

The information provided is largely about regulatory compliance, intended use, device description, and comparison to predicate devices, rather than a detailed performance study with quantitative acceptance metrics.

Therefore, I cannot directly extract the full requested information about acceptance criteria and a study proving device performance as it's not present in the provided text. I will address the points that can be inferred or are explicitly stated, and note where information is missing.

Summary of Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance for PeriFlux 6000

The provided document describes the regulatory submission for the PeriFlux 6000, focusing on its substantial equivalence to predicate devices and compliance with relevant safety and performance standards. It does not present specific quantitative acceptance criteria or a detailed clinical study demonstrating the device's performance against such criteria. Instead, the "acceptance criteria" are implied to be adherence to recognized international consensus standards for medical electrical equipment and transcutaneous partial pressure monitoring.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Note: The document explicitly states that the new device "meets the performance requirements" and "is equipped with the required safety mechanisms," and "fully complies" with the listed international standards. However, it does not provide detailed measurement accuracy, precision, bias, sensitivity, specificity, or similar quantitative performance metrics that would typically be expected from a device study. The provided text is a summary for regulatory clearance, focusing on equivalence and standard compliance rather than a detailed performance report.

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

• This information is not provided in the document. The filing focuses on compliance with standards rather than clinical testing with a specific test set.

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

• This information is not provided in the document. Ground truth establishment with experts is generally associated with clinical or image-based diagnostic studies, which is not the type of study described here for a transcutaneous monitor.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

• This information is not provided in the document. Adjudication methods are typically used in studies involving expert review where consensus on ground truth is required.

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:

• A multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not conducted (or at least not reported) as this device is a standalone physiological monitor, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool for human readers. Therefore, the concept of "human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance" is not applicable.

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

• The PeriFlux 6000 is a standalone device for continuous non-invasive transcutaneous monitoring. The document states it is "a modern transcutaneous oxygen/carbon dioxide monitor that meets the performance requirements." While it doesn't detail a specific "standalone study" with quantitative results beyond compliance with standards, its function is as a standalone measurement device. The performance claims are inherently for the algorithm/device itself.

7. The type of ground truth used:

• For the technical and performance standards, the "ground truth" would be the defined specifications and test methods within the cited international consensus standards (e.g., IEC 60601-1, IEC 60601-2-23). The device's performance is measured against these established engineering and safety benchmarks.
• For the physiological measurements (tcpO2/tcpCO2), traditional ground truth in such devices often involves comparison to arterial blood gas measurements, but the document does not specify if such a comparison was part of the "performance requirements" that were met.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• This information is not applicable as the PeriFlux 6000 is a hardware monitor based on established physiological measurement principles (Clark sensor, Stow-Severinghaus-type sensor), not an AI/ML device that requires a "training set" in the conventional sense.

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

• This information is not applicable for the same reason as point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device

The TCM CombiM Monitoring Systems is intended for continuous monitoring of transcutaneous Carbon Dioxide (tcpCO₂), oxygen (tcpO₂) partial pressure in neonates, pediatrics and adults not under gas anesthesia.

The TCM TOSCA Monitoring Systems is intended for continuous monitoring of transcutaneous Carbon Dioxide (tcpCO2), oxygen saturation of arterial haemoglobin (SpO2) and pulse rate in pediatrics and adults.

The TCM TOSCA monitoring system and the TCM CombiM monitoring system are based on the TCM 4/40 Monitoring System (K043003) which consist of a basic unit that has touch screen and two modules. One module for the combined tcpO2/tcpCO2 monitoring and one for SpO2. Both new modules have an integrated callbration unit. Both Sensors can be used with either earclip- or a conventional fixation ring application system. In addition the CombiM also comes with a double adhesive ring. The software of the TCM 4/40 basic unit has been updated (to version 3.01) and two new modules have been developed to enable the use of the sensor technology from the TOSCA500 Monitoring System (K063434) and from the MicroGas 7650 rapid (K003943). Thereby the SpO2 and tcpCO2 can be measured using the new TCM TOSCA module and the combined SpO2/tcpCO2 sensor of the TOSCA500 system. The tcpO2 and tcpCO2 can be monitored using the new TCM CombiM module and the combined tcpOz/tcpCO2 sensor of the MicroGas 7650 rapid system. A new single tcpCO2 sensor can also be used with this module.

This document is a 510(k) Premarket Notification Submission for the TCM TOSCA/CombiM Monitoring System. It describes the device's intended use and claims substantial equivalence to predicate devices, but does not contain any information about clinical studies or acceptance criteria with reported device performance.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information, specifically:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance
2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts
4. Adjudication method for the test set
5. If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, and its effect size
6. If a standalone performance (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
7. The type of ground truth used
8. The sample size for the training set
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established

This type of submission often focuses on demonstrating equivalence through comparison of technical characteristics and intended use, rather than presenting new clinical study data to establish performance against acceptance criteria for a novel device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Osteo CT is intended to be used for routine assessment of bone mineral content in the vertebral bodies of the lumbar and thoracical spine with high precision through the use of SOMATOM CT scanners. It is also applicable to assessment of changes in bone mineral content over time.

OSTEO CT is a scan/evaluation option added to the SOMATOM AR family, and Plus 4 CT scanners. It provides assessment of the bone mineral density (BMD) through the use of single energy quantitative CT technology. An Osteo package contains 1 reference calibration phantom designed for all SOMATOM CT systems, 1 tabletop pad specially designed for housing the reference phantom, 1 coupling pad designed to eliminate possible air bubbles between the patient and the reference phantom, 1 foam insert to prevent the phantom from moving vertically within the tabletop pad and to eliminate possible air bubbles between the table and the reference phantom, 1 pad insert to prevent the phantom from moving longitudinally within the tabletop pad, and the bone mineral density scanning/evaluation software.

The provided text describes a 510(k) summary for the "Osteo CT Option for SOMATOM CT Systems," a device intended for assessing bone mineral density (BMD). However, it does not contain a detailed study with acceptance criteria and a comprehensive report of device performance against those criteria. The document is primarily a regulatory submission rather than a scientific publication of a clinical trial.

Therefore, many of the requested elements for describing acceptance criteria and a study proving the device meets them cannot be directly extracted from the provided text.

Based on the available information, here's what can be inferred and what is missing:

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

This information is not present in the provided document. The document states "A multi-center clinical study was carried out in Europe to collect cortical and trabecular bone CT images from individuals with normal bone mineral density. The collected data, after statistical analysis, served as the reference database." However, it does not specify any performance metrics (e.g., accuracy, precision, sensitivity, specificity) for the device itself or any acceptance criteria that these metrics needed to meet.

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

• Sample size for test set: Not explicitly stated. The document mentions a "multi-center clinical study" but does not provide the number of participants or scans.
• Data provenance: "Europe" (multi-center). The study collected data from "individuals with normal bone mineral density," suggesting it was for establishing a reference database rather than testing the device's diagnostic performance against a specific condition. It appears to be prospective data collection for establishing norms.

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

This information is not provided. The study collected data to serve as a "reference database" from individuals with "normal bone mineral density." It's unclear if expert interpretation was part of establishing this "normality" or if it was based solely on the CT images themselves.

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

This information is not provided. Given the described purpose of the study (establishing a reference database of "normal" bone density), a formal adjudication method for a "test set" in the diagnostic sense is unlikely to have been documented in this submission.

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:

• MRMC study: Not indicated. The document describes the device as a "scan/evaluation option" that assesses BMD. The function is to provide assessment, not to assist human readers in a diagnostic capacity in the way an AI algorithm might. Therefore, an MRMC study comparing human readers with and without AI assistance is not applicable to this device as described.
• Effect size: Not applicable/not provided.

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

The device, "Osteo CT," is described as "assessment of the bone mineral density (BMD) through the use of single energy quantitative CT technology" and "calculates the patient's bone mineral density (BMD) with reference to the phantom, offer a reference database, and provide BMD results in both tabular and graphical forms." This suggests it is an algorithm-only (standalone) performance that provides calculated BMD values, which are then used by clinicians for interpretation. No human-in-the-loop interaction for performance improvement is implied for the device itself.

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

The study was conducted to establish a "reference database" of individuals with "normal bone mineral density." While the exact method for determining "normal" isn't detailed, it implies a baseline of healthy individuals. It's not stated that an independent "ground truth" like pathology or long-term outcomes data was used to validate the device's accuracy against a disease state, but rather to establish a normal range.

8. The sample size for the training set:

The document mentions that the "collected data, after statistical analysis, served as the reference database." This "reference database" likely functions as what would be considered a training/reference set for the device's internal calculations. The sample size for this set is not provided.

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

The ground truth for the "reference database" was established by collecting cortical and trabecular bone CT images from individuals with "normal bone mineral density" in a multi-center clinical study in Europe. The specific criteria for defining "normal" BMD for inclusion in this study are not detailed, but it suggests a population presumed to be healthy in terms of bone density.

Ask a specific question about this device