Search Results
Found 3 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(137 days)
Intel-GE Care Innovations Connect RCM is intended to collect vital sign measurements from physiological measurement devices intended for use in the home. Patients can review the stored vital sign measurement information and receive educational and motivational content from caregivers. Patients can also engage in videoconferences with caregivers and answer the caregivers' questions by participating in surveys.
Care Innovations Connect RCM is not interpretive, nor is it intended for diagnosis or as a substitute for medical care, and it is not intended to provide real time data. It is made available to patients when time-critical care is not required.
Care Innovations Connect RCM is contraindicated for patients requiring direct medical supervision or emergency intervention. It is intended for patients who are willing and capable of managing its use. Clinical judgment and experience by a caregiver are required to check and interpret the information delivered.
Care Innovations Connect RCM will be available for over the counter use.
Care Innovations™ Connect RCM is a software application for use with measurement devices commercially available for home use. The software executes on a web server and is accessed via a browser from the patient's COTS personal computing device. A small validated software application known as Device Connector runs on patients' home COTS platforms. Off the Shelf (OTS) software is also used with the internally developed software to provide functionality such as: setting & receiving email and text-based notifications, creating & editing calendar entries, playing Learn More videos, and holding a video conference with a clinician.
Care Innovations™ Connect RCM is a software application for use with measurement devices commercially available for home use. Connect RCM provides the same client capabilities of collecting and transmitting patient data to the clinician database system as the predicate devices, and uses the existing clinician database system in the Intel-GE Care Innovations 10 Guide (K130290). No changes were required to the existing clinician database system to support the new client software.
Patients can also enter measurement data manually entered data is stored in the backend clinician database as well as the Personal Health Data Record. It is flagged as manually entered data.
The provided document, K130821, states that the "Connect RCM does not rely on an assessment of clinical performance data." It asserts that "The device will conform to FDA 's recognized consensus standards and relies on its conformity to demonstrate the safety and efficacy." Therefore, there is no study described that proves the device meets specific acceptance criteria based on clinical performance.
Instead, the submission relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices and conformity to recognized consensus standards for safety and efficacy.
Given this, I cannot fill out the requested table or answer most of the follow-up questions because the submission explicitly states that clinical performance data was not used.
Here's what I can provide based on the document:
1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance
The document does not provide a table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance in the context of clinical studies. The "acceptance criteria" for this device appear to be its conformity to FDA recognized consensus standards and its substantial equivalence to predicate devices.
Acceptance Criteria (Implied) | Reported Device Performance |
---|---|
Conformity to AAMI/ANSI/IEC ES 60601-1 (Software Safety Standard) | Device "will conform" to this standard. |
Functional equivalence to Intel-GE Care Innovations Guide (K130290) | Device has "the same functionality" as the predicate. |
Does not introduce new questions concerning safety or efficacy | Device "introduces no new questions" on safety/efficacy. |
Collection of vital sign measurements from home physiological devices | Intended to "collect vital sign measurements." |
Review of stored vital sign measurement information by patients | Patients "can review the stored vital sign measurement." |
Receive educational and motivational content from caregivers | Patients "receive educational and motivational content." |
Engage in videoconferences with caregivers | Patients "can engage in videoconferences." |
Respond to caregiver questions via surveys | Patients "answer the caregivers' questions by participating in surveys." |
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance
Not applicable. The device does not rely on clinical performance data for its 510(k) submission.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts
Not applicable. No clinical test set described.
4. Adjudication method
Not applicable. No clinical test set described.
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. The device is a remote patient monitoring system, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool, and no such study was performed or described.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
Not applicable. The device is software for collecting and displaying patient data, not an algorithm for standalone performance evaluation in a clinical sense.
7. The type of ground truth used
Not applicable. No clinical performance data was used for the 510(k) submission. The "ground truth" for regulatory approval appears to be the documented functionality of the predicate device and the adherence to safety standards.
8. The sample size for the training set
Not applicable. No machine learning model or training set is described in the context of clinical performance for this 510(k).
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established
Not applicable. No training set is described.
Ask a specific question about this device
(95 days)
The Intel® Health Guide Express is intended to collect vital sign measurements from physiological measurement devices intended for use in the home. Patients can review the stored vital sign measurement information and receive educational and motivational content from caregivers. Patients can also engage in video conferences with caregivers and answer the caregivers' questions by participating in surveys.
The Intel® Health Care Management Suite allows the caregiver to review patient data and initiate video conferencing with patients, or select and send educational and motivational content to patients.
The Intel® Health Guide Express is not interpretive, nor is it intended for diagnosis or as a substitute for medical care, and it is not intended to provide real time data. It is made available to patients when time-critical care is not required.
The Intel® Health Guide Express is contraindicated for patients requiring direct medical supervision or emergency intervention. It is intended for patients who are willing and capable of managing its use. Clinical judgment and experience by a caregiver are required to check and interpret the information delivered.
The Intel® Health Guide Express is a communication tool that allows caregivers to remotely access vital sign measurements of patients at home. The Intel® Health Guide Express is a software application running on a Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) Personal Computer (PC). It collects measurements captured on commercially available wireless or tethered medical devices which are designed for home use and connection to a COTS PC. It displays the collected measurement on the PC, and securely stores the collected information locally on a memory device installed in the PC. The Intel® Health Guide Express also stores the information remotely on a host server, where the caregiver can view the measurement via the host server once synchronization between the host server and Intel® Health Guide Express has been completed. The Intel® Health Guide Express can be used to display educational and motivational content from the caregiver and can facilitate communication between the caregiver and patient via health wellness surveys and optional video conferencing.
The Intel® Health Guide Express is not interpretive, nor is it intended for diagnosis or as a substitute for medical care, and it is not intended to provide real time data. It is made available to patients when time-critical care is not required. It is contraindicated for patients requiring direct medical supervision or emergency intervention. It is intended for patients who are willing and capable of managing its use. Clinical judgment and experience by a caregiver are required to check and interpret the information delivered.
The Intel® Health Guide PHS Express system consists of the:
- Intel® Health Guide Express software application: (1)
The software application captures, stores, displays and transmits information to a secure database on a host server running the Intel® Health Care Management Suite software via a standard telephone line or internet connection. The Intel® Health Guide Express software runs on a Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) Personal Computer (PC).
Intel® Health Care Management Suite software application: (2)
The software application runs on a host server and allows caregivers to review patient vital signs on the secure website. The Intel® Health Care Management Suite allows for predefining upper and lower limits and, when either limit is exceeded, the system emails and/or pages the caregiver.
The Intel® Health Guide Express is a remote patient monitoring system. The provided text is a 510(k) summary, which focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than detailing specific acceptance criteria and a study to prove meeting them in the way clinical studies for diagnostic accuracy often do.
Here's an analysis based on the provided document:
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
The document does not explicitly state "acceptance criteria" and "reported device performance" in the context of diagnostic accuracy or a specific performance study. Instead, it demonstrates substantial equivalence to a predicate device (Intel® Health Guide PHS6000) based on technological characteristics and functional similarities. The key performance aspect is the ability to collect, store, display, and transmit vital sign measurements, and this is compared to the predicate device's capabilities and compatibility with various peripherals.
Acceptance Criteria (Implied by Substantial Equivalence Claim) | Reported Device Performance (as presented in K103276) |
---|---|
Software Functionality: Capture, store, display, and transmit information to a secure database. | The Intel® Health Guide Express software application captures, stores, displays, and transmits information to a secure database on a host server. |
Operating System: Compatible with standard PC operating system. | Compatible with Microsoft Windows 7 (32-bit versions). Predicate used Microsoft Windows XP embedded. |
Communication Method: Standard telephone line or internet connection. | Uses standard telephone line or internet connection for transmission. |
Sensor Interface: Ability to interface with commercially available wireless or tethered medical devices. | Interfaces with listed medical devices for Blood Pressure, Weight, Blood Glucose Level, Oxygen Saturation, and FEV/PEF. |
Data Collection Implementation: Similar method to predicate device. | Claimed substantially equivalent to predicate in implementation method of collecting data from sensors. |
Connectivity/Communication Protocol/Power Source/Display Method: Similar to predicate device. | Claimed substantially equivalent to predicate in these aspects. |
Hardware Compatibility (COTS PC): Meets minimum specified hardware requirements. | Requires a COTS PC with minimum specifications for OS, CPU, Memory, Storage, Ports, Display, etc. (Table 2). |
Safety Standard Compliance: Complies with relevant safety standards. | The device relies on conformity to FDA's recognized consensus standards to demonstrate safety and efficacy. COTS PC safety standard: UL 60950-1:2007. Predicate safety standard: ES60601-1:2005. Differences analyzed in risk analysis. |
Patient Leakage Current: Within acceptable limits for a COTS PC. | For COTS PC, patient leakage current (from patient connection to earth) is 3.5mA (compared to 100μA for predicate, with differences covered in risk analysis). |
Essentially, the "acceptance criteria" here are that the new device performs its intended functions (collecting and transmitting data) and is at least as safe and effective as the predicate device, given its specific use case as a communication tool and not a diagnostic device.
2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance
The document does not describe a specific "test set" or a study involving patient data for performance evaluation in the context of diagnostic accuracy or a similar clinical measurement. The device is a "Remote Patient Monitoring System" that collects data from other commercially available medical devices.
The assessment is primarily a technical comparison and declaration of substantial equivalence to a predicate, not a clinical trial evaluating the performance on a patient cohort or a specific dataset. There is no mention of data provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective).
3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications
This information is not applicable as there is no mention of a "test set" requiring ground truth established by experts for performance evaluation. The device's function is data capture and transmission, not interpretation or diagnosis.
4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set
This information is not applicable for the same reason as point 3. No test set requiring expert adjudication for ground truth establishing is described.
5. If a Multi Reader Multi Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done
No, a MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. The device is a data collection and communication tool, and its primary purpose is not to assist human readers in interpretation or diagnosis. Therefore, a study of improved human reader performance with AI assistance is not relevant to this type of device.
6. If a Standalone Study (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
No, a standalone study in the context of algorithmic performance for diagnosis/interpretation was not described. The device is a software application running on a COTS PC that interacts with other medical devices. Its performance is assessed in terms of its ability to correctly capture, store, transmit data, and its compatibility with hardware, rather than standalone diagnostic accuracy. The safety and efficacy claims "do not rely on an assessment of clinical performance data" but on conformity to recognized consensus standards.
7. The Type of Ground Truth Used
Not applicable. As stated earlier, the submission focuses on substantial equivalence based on technological characteristics and safety standards, not on evaluating diagnostic accuracy against a ground truth. The device itself is "not interpretive, nor is it intended for diagnosis."
8. The Sample Size for the Training Set
Not applicable. This device is a remote patient monitoring software system. There is no mention of a "training set" for an AI algorithm in the context of diagnosis or prediction.
9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set was Established
Not applicable. For the same reasons as point 8, there is no mention of a training set or ground truth establishment relevant to an AI model's training.
Ask a specific question about this device
(189 days)
For in vitro diagnostic use (i.e. for external use only) by healthcare professionals and in the home by people with diabetes mellitus to assess the performance of the BREEZE 2 Blood Glucose Monitor.
The FDTX Glucose Control Solution consists of a viscosity-adjusted, aqueous liquid control solution containing a known quantity of glucose. The product is packaged in plastic dropper tipped bottles for easy application of the control solutions to the test strips and a red coloration to aid the user to visually confirm application of the control. The product is non-hazardous and contains no human or animal derived materials.
Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for the FDTX Glucose Control Solution based on the provided text:
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:
The document doesn't explicitly state numerical acceptance criteria in a dedicated table format with corresponding reported performance values for each criterion. Instead, it outlines the general characteristics of the device and compares them to predicate devices, and then lists the types of performance studies conducted. The implication is that the performance of the FDTX Glucose Control Solution was found to be comparable or acceptable relative to the predicate devices and industry standards for these types of control solutions.
Acceptance Criteria Category/Characteristic | Reported Device Performance (as implied by comparison to predicates and study types) |
---|---|
Intended Use | For in vitro diagnostic use by healthcare professionals and in the home by people with diabetes mellitus to assess the performance of the Bayer Ascensia BREEZE 2 Blood Glucose Monitor. (Matches predicate's function for a specific glucose monitor). |
Levels of Control | 1 level of control (Matches predicate devices). |
Analyte | Glucose (Matches predicate devices). |
Target (mg/dL) | 100 mg/dL (Matches predicate devices). |
Target Range (mg/dL) | 85 - 130 mg/dL (Matches Predicate Device No. 1, different from Predicate Device No. 2, but likely within acceptable range for the intended use and specific meter). |
Container | Plastic bottle with dropper-tip (Matches predicate devices). |
Fill Volume | 3.6 mL (Matches Predicate Device No. 2, different from Predicate Device No. 1, but likely acceptable). |
Color | Red (Matches Predicate Device No. 2, different from Predicate Device No. 1, but this is a visual aid and not a performance criterion). |
Matrix | Buffered aqueous solution of D-Glucose, a viscosity modifier, preservatives, and other non-reactive ingredients (Similar to predicate device composition). |
Stability | "Tests were performed to verify specific performance characteristics: Stability." (Implies satisfactory stability was demonstrated, though no specific numerical acceptance range or duration is provided). |
Open Vial Stability | "Tests were performed to verify specific performance characteristics: Open Vial." (Implies satisfactory open-vial stability was demonstrated, though no specific numerical acceptance range or duration is provided). |
Test Precision | "Tests were performed to verify specific performance characteristics: Test precision." (Implies satisfactory precision was demonstrated, though no specific numerical acceptance limits or results are provided). |
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:
- The document does not specify the sample size used for the test set (number of measurements, number of vials, etc.) for stability, open vial, or precision studies.
- The document does not specify the data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective or prospective). Given the context of a 510(k) submission for a control solution, these studies would typically be prospective and conducted internally by the manufacturer, but this is not explicitly stated.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:
- This information is not applicable and not provided for this device. The device is a "Glucose Control Solution," which is a diagnostic reagent used to verify the performance of a blood glucose monitor. Ground truth for such a control solution is established by its manufactured concentration and subsequent assay/calibration against reference methods, not by expert interpretation. Experts are not directly involved in establishing the "ground truth" of the control solution itself.
4. Adjudication method for the test set:
- This information is not applicable and not provided. As explained above, expert adjudication is not relevant for establishing the "ground truth" or performance of a glucose control solution.
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:
- This information is not applicable. The device is a glucose control solution, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool, and involves no human interpretation of medical images or data that would necessitate an MRMC study.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:
- This information is not applicable. The device is a physical control solution, not an algorithm, so the concept of standalone algorithmic performance doesn't apply.
7. The type of ground truth used:
- The ground truth for a glucose control solution is the known, manufactured, and independently verified concentration of glucose within the solution, established through rigorous chemical assays and calibration against reference standards. The document states the solution contains a "known quantity of glucose" and has a "Target (mg/dL)" of 100. This known concentration serves as the ground truth.
8. The sample size for the training set:
- This information is not applicable and not provided. This device is not an AI algorithm that requires a "training set" in the conventional sense. The development of such a control solution involves chemical formulation, analytical testing, and process validation, not machine learning model training.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established:
- This information is not applicable. As stated above, there is no "training set" for this type of device. The ground truth (known glucose concentration) for the product itself is established through chemical manufacturing and analytical testing procedures.
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1