Search Results

The Galaxy is a physiological data recorder intended to collect and record data from multiple physiological channels. It is intended for use by or on the order of a physician. The Galaxy is intended for use in a supervised (hospital) or unsupervised (home) environment.

The Galaxy is a wearable data recorder that collects and stores physiological signals. The role of the Galaxy is only to record the data. The following physiological signals may be collected and stored by the Galaxy device:

• EEG, EOG, EMG, ECG
• Nasal/oral Airflow
• Snore
• Thoracic and Abdominal Effort
• Body Position
• Pulse Oximetry, including:
• Oxygen Saturation (SpO2)
• Pulse Rate
• Plethysmograph
  The recorded data is stored on a secure digital (SD) card and may be passed on to a PC for analysis and reporting of the data by a cleared host software application. The Galaxy data recorder is not in any way involved in the data management performed by the host.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and study for the Respironics Galaxy device:

Based on the provided text, the device in question, the Respironics Galaxy Ventilatory Effort Recorder, is a data recorder. As such, the "acceptance criteria" and "device performance" in this context refer to its functionality in collecting and recording physiological signals, rather than diagnostic accuracy or direct clinical outcomes. The study mentioned is primarily focused on verification testing to demonstrate that the device functions as intended and meets safety standards, rather than a clinical trial in the traditional sense for diagnostic or treatment efficacy.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the document:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

   The document mentions that "All tests met the required acceptance criteria," but it does not explicitly list specific quantitative acceptance criteria or detailed performance metrics for each physiological channel. Instead, it focuses on the device's functional equivalence to a predicate device and adherence to safety standards.

   Since specific numerical acceptance criteria are not detailed for the recording accuracy of each physiological signal, the reported performance is general and refers to successful completion of verification tests.

   Acceptance Criteria (Implied)	Reported Device Performance
   Functionality verified through testing	All tests met the required acceptance criteria.
   Safety assured by IEC 60601-1 and IEC 60601-1-2 testing	Completion of IEC 60601-1 and IEC 60601-1-2 testing.
   Risk mitigation as per Risk Traceability Matrix	All hazards identified by the risk assessment are successfully mitigated.
   Ability to collect and store various physiological signals	The device collects and stores specified physiological signals (EEG, EOG, EMG, ECG, Nasal/oral Airflow, Snore, Thoracic and Abdominal Effort, Body Position, Pulse Oximetry).
   Data storage on SD card	Recorded data is stored on a secure digital (SD) card.
   Compatibility with host software application for analysis	Data may be passed on to a PC for analysis and reporting by a cleared host software application.

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

   The document does not specify a "test set" in terms of patient data or clinical cases. The testing described is verification testing of the device's functionality and safety. Therefore, information about patient sample size, country of origin, or retrospective/prospective nature is not applicable here because it's not a clinical study that evaluates algorithm performance on patient data.

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

   This question is not applicable. The device is a data recorder, not a diagnostic algorithm that produces interpretations requiring expert ground truth for its output. The "ground truth" in this context would be the actual physiological signals, and the device's performance would be assessed on its ability to accurately record these signals, not to interpret them. The document does not mention experts establishing ground truth for recorded data.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

   This question is not applicable, as there is no "test set" in the context of diagnostic performance involving human adjudication.

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 device is a physiological data recorder, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool. An MRMC study is not relevant to its function.

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

   No. The device is hardware that records data. It is not an algorithm for diagnosis or interpretation that would have standalone performance.

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

   This question is not applicable in the context of this device. The "ground truth" for a data recorder would be the actual physiological signals emitted by a patient or a signal generator, which the device aims to capture faithfully. The document does not specify how the fidelity of recorded signals was validated (e.g., comparison to a precise gold-standard measurement device), but it generally states that "functionality of the design of the device was verified through verification testing."

8. The sample size for the training set

   This question is not applicable. This device is a physiological data recorder, not an AI/ML algorithm that requires a training set.

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

   This question is not applicable, as no training set is relevant to this device.

Ask a specific question about this device