Search Results

The Didget blood glucose monitoring system (meter, strips, and controls) is intended for self-testing by people with diabetes to monitor glucose concentrations in fresh capillary whole blood samples drawn from the fingertip only. It is intended for those ages four and older, with adult supervision as needed. The Didget blood glucose monitoring system is not intended for the diagnosis of or screening for diabetes mellitus and is not intended for use on neonates.

The Didget Blood Glucose Monitoring System consists of:

1. Didget Blood Glucose Monitor
2. Contour Blood Glucose Test Strips
3. Contour Control Solution

The provided text describes a 510(k) summary for the Didget Blood Glucose Monitoring System. It outlines the device, its intended use, and a performance assessment, but does not specify numerical acceptance criteria or detail the study results required to prove these criteria were met. The document states that "The studies showed equivalent performance with the current Contour system." and "The results of clinical evaluations... demonstrated that the device can produce blood glucose results that are substantially equivalent to results obtained on the predicate device." However, specific metrics, thresholds, and statistical analyses are not provided.

Therefore, many of the requested details cannot be extracted from the provided text.

Here is a summary of what can be extracted and what cannot:

1. Table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance:

• Note: The document does not provide specific numerical acceptance criteria (e.g., accuracy percentages, bias limits) or the detailed numerical results from the Didget system's performance. It broadly states "equivalent performance".

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not specified. The document states "a clinical setting using persons with diabetes, ages 5 through 24," but does not give a number of participants.
• Data Provenance:
  • Country of origin of the data: Not specified.
  • Retrospective or prospective: Not specified, but "studied in the laboratory and in a clinical setting" suggests a prospective study.

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

• Not applicable. This study is for a blood glucose meter, which typically uses a highly accurate laboratory reference method (e.g., YSI analyzer) as the "ground truth" rather than expert interpretation of images or other data. The text mentions "compared to a laboratory method."

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

• Not applicable. (See point 3)

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:

• No. This is not relevant to a blood glucose meter study. This type of study is typically done for diagnostic imaging or interpretation tasks involving human readers.

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

• Yes, effectively. The performance assessment of a blood glucose meter is inherently a standalone assessment of the device's accuracy against a reference method. The Didget system's performance was compared to the Contour system and "a laboratory method."

7. The type of ground truth used:

• Laboratory Method: The document states the results were "compared to... a laboratory method." This typically refers to a highly accurate and precise analytical instrument considered the gold standard for glucose measurement.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable / Not specified. Blood glucose meters are not typically "trained" in the same way machine learning algorithms are. Their performance is based on the chemical and electrochemical reactions of the test strip and the meter's electronics.

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

• Not applicable / Not specified. (See point 8)

Ask a specific question about this device