Search Results

The Aquarius™ Stoma Measuring Device is designed to determine the depth (length) of a well-established gastrostomy stoma tract in order to assist in proper length selection of the Aquarius™ Gastrostomy Button (G-Button). Intended for transient use (less than 60 minutes).

The Aquarius™ Stoma Measuring Device comprises a 12 Fr with graduated scale, a funnel with an inflation valve and a tubular shaft retaining balloon. The Aquarius™ Stoma Measuring Device is made of 100% silicone, EtO sterilized and for single use. Intended to be use in hospital environment.

The provided text describes the Aquarius™ Stoma Measuring Device, its intended use, and the regulatory review process. However, the document does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a study that specifically "proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" in terms of algorithmic performance, as would be common for AI/ML-based medical devices.

This device is a physical medical device and its "acceptance criteria" are related to its physical specifications, material properties, and functionality, as demonstrated through verification testing. The document is a 510(k) summary, which focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than presenting a novel performance study in the way an AI/ML device would.

Therefore, many of the requested elements (e.g., sample size for AI test sets, number of experts for ground truth, MRMC studies, standalone algorithm performance) are not applicable or not present in this type of document for this type of device.

Here's an attempt to answer the questions based only on the provided text, highlighting what is present versus what is not.

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance (Based on Provided Text)

The document lists "verification tests" performed on the device. These tests implicitly define the "acceptance criteria" by requiring the device to comply with established standards and internal requirements. The "reported device performance" is a statement that the tests were conducted and the device complied.

Specific Study Details:

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

   • Test set size: Not explicitly stated for each test. For a physical device, this would typically involve a specific number of units manufactured for testing.
   • Data provenance: Not applicable in the context of clinical data for AI. The tests are performed on the manufactured device itself. No country of origin for "data" is relevant here in the AI context. The tests were "conducted on the final sterile device," implying tests performed by the manufacturer, Degania Silicone, Ltd. (Israel).

2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. For a physical device, ground truth is established by engineering measurements, adherence to material specifications, and functional testing against predefined standards (e.g., balloon bursting volume). Expert radiologists or similar personnel are not involved in establishing ground truth for these types of tests.

3. Adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable. Adjudication is relevant for subjective assessments or disagreements in clinical interpretations, which is not the nature of these engineering and material tests.

4. 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 physical measuring tool, not an AI algorithm assisting human readers. No MRMC study was performed or is relevant.

5. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an algorithm.

6. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): The ground truth for this device's verification would be based on:

   • Engineering specifications and drawings: For dimensions, surface finish, markings.
   • Material standards: For tensile strength, biocompatibility.
   • Functional requirements: For balloon concentricity and bursting volume.
   • Regulatory standards: ISO 14971:2012 for risk management.

7. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. This device does not involve a "training set" in the context of AI/ML.

8. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable. As there's no training set for an AI algorithm, there's no ground truth to establish for it.

In summary: The provided document is for a traditional, physical medical device. It demonstrates substantial equivalence and verification against engineering and material specifications, not algorithmic performance. Therefore, most of the questions pertaining to AI/ML device studies are not applicable. The "study" mentioned is a compilation of non-clinical verification tests confirming compliance with design and safety requirements.

Ask a specific question about this device