Search Results

The me device is a small over-the-counter, compact system comprised of a base unit assembly with power supply, and connected, via cable, to a handheld applicator with an air-cooling system. The device incorporates Intense Pulse Light (IPL) technology (output 2-4 J/cm2), like other OTC devices for hair removal. It also uses low RF energy (output 0.4-0.8 J/cm2) delivered through the RF electrodes. The RF signal serves primarily as a safety means to ensure skin contact before the IPL pulse is emitted.

AI/ML Overview

The provided text describes the "me" device, an over-the-counter light-based hair removal system. However, it does not provide specific, quantifiable acceptance criteria or a detailed study meeting those criteria in the format requested. The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than presenting a performance study against predefined numerical targets.

Based on the provided information, here's what can be extracted and what is missing:

Description of Acceptance Criteria and Performance Study for the "me" Device

The provided 510(k) summary for Syneron Medical Ltd.'s "me" device details various tests conducted to support its substantial equivalence, including clinical studies for safety and efficacy. However, it does not explicitly define quantifiable acceptance criteria (e.g., "device must achieve X% hair reduction") or present a study that directly proves the device meets such criteria as a standalone performance benchmark. Instead, the clinical studies aim to demonstrate effective use, safety, and label comprehension, which are then used to support substantial equivalence.

Therefore, the table below reflects what was reported from the clinical studies rather than a direct comparison against pre-defined numerical acceptance criteria.

Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

Acceptance Criteria (Explicitly Stated in Document)	Reported Device Performance (from Clinical Studies)
Efficacy: Not explicitly quantified with a numerical target. Implied: "effective use of the device" for hair removal.	"Significant hair clearance was achieved for all skin types groups (skin type I-VI), even without the monthly maintenance treatments."
Safety: Not explicitly quantified with a numerical target. Implied: Device must be safe under intended and overuse conditions.	No adverse events observed even under overuse conditions (simulated frequent use).
Label Comprehension & Usability: Not explicitly quantified with a numerical target. Implied: Consumers must be able to understand instructions and use the device safely.	"Confirmed adequate label comprehension and correct device use in an OTC environment."

Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance:
- Efficacy and Safety Study (Intended Use):
  - Sample Size: 87 patients
  - Provenance: "multi-center (4 sites)" - specific country of origin not stated, but implied to be within settings relevant to an OTC device. This was a prospective clinical study.
- Dedicated Study (Overuse Safety):
  - Sample Size: 37 patients
  - Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but also a clinical study. Implied to be prospective.
- Label Comprehension Study:
  - Sample Size: 63 participants
  - Provenance: Not explicitly stated. Implied to be prospective.
- Usability Testing:
  - Sample Size: 46 subjects
  - Provenance: Not explicitly stated. Implied to be prospective.

Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications of Those Experts:
- The document does not specify the number or qualifications of experts used to establish "ground truth" for the hair removal efficacy assessment. It only states that the study "evaluated the efficacy...". It is implied that clinicians or researchers involved in the multi-center study would have performed these assessments, but their specific roles or qualifications are not detailed.

Adjudication Method for the Test Set:
- The document does not provide any information regarding an adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) used for assessing the clinical outcomes.

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 question is not applicable to the "me" device. The "me" is a physical hair removal device, not an AI-assisted diagnostic or imaging tool involving human readers. Therefore, an MRMC study or AI assistance is not relevant to its performance evaluation as described.

If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:
- This is not applicable. The "me" device is a user-operated physical device, not an algorithm. Its "standalone performance" would be its direct effect on hair reduction when used by a human, as evaluated in the clinical efficacy study.

The Type of Ground Truth Used:
- For the efficacy study, the ground truth for hair reduction would have been based on clinical assessment/measurement of hair clearance. The specific method of measurement (e.g., hair counts, photographic assessment by experts, patient self-assessment) is not detailed in the summary.
- For safety, the ground truth was based on the absence of adverse events as observed by clinicians/researchers during the studies.
- For label comprehension and usability, the ground truth was based on participant responses to questions and observations of their device usage.

The Sample Size for the Training Set:
- The document does not mention a "training set" in the context of device development or clinical evaluation. This concept is typically relevant for machine learning algorithms, which are not described as part of the "me" device.

How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established:
- As there is no mention of a "training set" in the provided document, this question is not applicable.

Ask a Question

Ask a specific question about this device

Page 1 of 1