Search Results

The Philips Holter Analysis System provides measurements, data, and reporting of parameters such as normal sinus rhythm, arrhythmias, QT and ST measurements, paced beats analysis and HRV, that can be used by a qualified clinician for the evaluation of:

• Symptoms that may be related to rhythm disturbances of the heart in adult patients.
• Risk in patients with or without symptoms of arrhythmia. QT measurement information is provided to support this assessment by a competent health professional.
• Efficacy of antiarrhythmic therapy
• Pacemaker function
• Symptoms that may be associated with myocardial ischemia

The Philips Holter Analysis System is not intended for use for pediatric patients.

The EASI derived 12-lead ST measurements are not recommended unless patients meet the following parameters:

• Age: Between 33 to 82 years
• Height: Between 147 to 185 cm (58 to 73 inches)
• Weight: Between 53 to 118 kg (117 to 261 lbs)
• Height to Weight Ratio: Between 1.41 to 2.99 cm/kg (0.25 to 0.54 in/lb)

If patients do not meet these parameters, the EASI derived 12-lead ST measurements are not intended for use. EASI derived 12-Lead ECGs and their measurements are approximations to conventional 12-Lead ECGs and should not be used for diagnostic interpretations.

The Philips Holter Analysis System (hereinafter known as Philips HAS) is offered as standalone software. It is intended to be installed into a user's PC (general purpose computing platform). The product evaluates the heart rhythms of ambulatory ECG data over an extended period and generates a preliminary analysis for physician's review. The ECG data is downloaded from compatible ambulatory ECG recorders. It is to be used by trained personnel.

The Philips Holter Analysis System accepts ECG recordings from DigiTrak XT recorders (K071733) and analyzes the patient's heart activity for the recorded period, typically from 24 hours up to 7 days. The analysis is not performed in real time. The DigiTrak XT recorder collects up to 168 hours (7 days) of ambulatory ECG. The software can analyze up to 168 hours (7 days) of contiguous ECG data.

The algorithm (Zymed Algorithm, also internally referred to as the CAlg-Holter Algorithm) used in Holter Analysis System was first developed and approved for use in the Holter Scanner Model 1210. It was continually updated and subsequently cleared for use in more Holter Models. It includes Heart Rate Variability (Time Domain) as a standard software report configuration in March 1996. The operating system converted from a DOS operating system to a Windows operating system in April 1999. Heart Rate Variability Frequency Domain was added in February 2001. The QT analysis was added in September 2001. The most recent 510(k) including above features and functions is under K010949.

The Zymed Algorithm in the HAS incorporates the following enhancements in the subject device:

• Upgraded AFIB detection by replacing the current algorithm with the Philips ST/AR AFIB algorithm's P wave detection feature. The feature was cleared in K101521 with Philips ST/AR ST and Arrhythmia Software.
• Enhanced HRV reporting by replacing current calculations with advanced data warehouse calculations from PhysioNet. Incorporated Nonlinear HRV to provide more characterization of heart rate variability that linear methods could miss.
• Incorporated bug fix, and code security
• Upgraded compiler

The EASI derived 12-lead display function was cleared in K020456. It remains unchanged in the subject device. Philips does not incorporate any additional usage in the subject device beyond these clearances. The EASI 12-lead is only for display purposes, allowing end users to visualize EASI lead ECG recordings in a traditional 12-lead format. EASI derived 12-Lead ECGs and their measurements are approximations to conventional 12-Lead ECGs and should not be used for diagnostic interpretations.

No automatic functions or analyses utilize this data. The Zymed Algorithm performs its analysis on the raw ECG signal and does not use the EASI derived 12-lead in that analysis.

The Philips Holter Analysis System requires operator's intervention during and after the initial analysis. The Philips HAS allows the operator to view and print out an analysis report, individual heart rate strips, as well as a full disclosure report for physician's review, diagnoses, and observations. It is intended to assist the qualified medical professional in the interpretation of the recorded data; it is not intended to serve as a substitute for the review and overread of the recorded ECG data.

The Philips Holter Analysis System provides viewing, printing, and report capabilities as listed below:

• A view of the data and a summary of the heart events that have taken place
• Detection of anomalies such as ventricular ectopy and supraventricular ectopy
• Patency of the pacemaker and pacemaker anomalies
• Advanced scanning techniques, such as determining ST and QT anomalies
• Heart rate data and heart rate variability
• Full disclosure reports

The Philips Holter Analysis System can operate in a networked environment that includes the following devices and interfaces to transfer orders and Holter reports.

• Philips IntelliVue Information Center (PIIC) (K153702)
• A fleet of Holter Remote Links and one or more Holter Central Links
• IntelliSpace ECG Management System (ISECG) (K120855)
• An IntelliBridge Enterprise (IBE) data interface engine / brokering system
• DICOM-based enterprise systems

PIC , Holter Remote Links, and Holter Central Links provide alternate ECG input mechanisms for Holter analysis. ISECG Central Link, Report Viewer, and IBE can accept Holter reports. IBE can provide Orders and ADT information for HAS. DICOM-based systems support patient orders via DICOM Modality Worklist and accept exported DICOM Encapsulated PDF reports.

The Philips Holter Analysis System provides three models with different configurations for customers to select: Series 3000, Series 5000, and Series 7000.

The provided text does not contain detailed acceptance criteria or a comprehensive study plan that proves the device meets specific performance metrics in the format of a clinical or analytical validation study for an AI/ML medical device.

The document is a 510(k) Premarket Notification from the FDA, asserting substantial equivalence of the Philips Holter Analysis System to a predicate device (2010 Plus Holter for Windows, K010949). The information provided focuses on:

• Device Description and Intended Use: The Philips Holter Analysis System analyzes ambulatory ECG data for various cardiac parameters. It incorporates updated algorithms (e.g., ST/AR AFIB algorithm's P wave detection, enhanced HRV reporting) and supports interoperability. It is intended for adult patients and trained clinicians.
• Comparison to Predicate Device: Detailed tables compare the subject device's indications for use, target population, intended user, intended use environment, and various technological characteristics (e.g., Holter applications, EASI Hookup, supported channels, analysis configuration, arrhythmia and event detection, QT/ST analysis, Pacemaker analysis, Caliper, Important Events, Report Output, Supported ECG source) to the predicate.
• Performance Data Summaries: It states that the device "successfully passed all the testing conducted, and the results demonstrated the Philips Holter Analysis System meets the performance claims and supports a determination of substantial equivalence to the predicate device."
• Non-Clinical Tests - Standards: It lists compliance with several recognized standards (ISO 14971, IEC 62304, IEC 82304-1, IEC 62366-1, IEC 60601-2-47, AAMI EC57). These standards cover risk management, software lifecycle, health software safety, usability engineering, and requirements for ambulatory electrocardiographic systems.
• Non-Clinical Bench Tests: It broadly states that the device was "evaluated against all applicable standards and internal procedures and successfully passed all verifications and validations. The results demonstrated that Philips Holter Analysis System meets all claims and supports a determination of substantial equivalence to the predicate."
• Clinical Studies: It explicitly states that "The Philips Holter Analysis System, like the predicate device, does not require clinical trials."

Missing Information:

The document does not provide the following specifics required to answer your prompt:

• A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance: While it mentions "performance claims," the actual criteria (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy targets for specific arrhythmia detection) and the quantitative results are not in the document.
• Sample size used for the test set and data provenance: No details on the size or origin of any specific test datasets used for performance evaluation of the algorithmic changes.
• Number of experts used to establish ground truth and their qualifications: No information on how ground truth was established for any internal performance testing.
• Adjudication method for the test set: No mention of adjudication.
• Multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study: The document clearly states no clinical trials were required. Thus, no MRMC study details are available.
• Standalone (algorithm only) performance: While the document describes software updates, it does not explicitly provide standalone performance metrics for the AI/ML components (like the upgraded AFIB detection or enhanced HRV). The entire device is presented as assisting clinicians, not replacing them.
• Type of ground truth used: No specific type of ground truth is detailed for performance evaluation, beyond stating it passed internal verification and validation against claims.
• Sample size for the training set: No information on training data is provided.
• How ground truth for the training set was established: No information on this.

Conclusion based on the provided text:

The Philips Holter Analysis System received 510(k) clearance based on substantial equivalence to a predicate device, supported by compliance with recognized standards and successful completion of non-clinical bench testing, software verification and validation, usability validation, and risk management activities. This regulatory pathway typically does not require extensive clinical trial data detailing specific algorithmic performance metrics or human-AI interaction studies as might be submitted for novel AI/ML devices with significantly different indications or technological characteristics. The document emphasizes adherence to engineering and quality standards, and broad performance claims rather than specific quantitative performance targets and studies.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Passport Series Patient Monitors(Passport 12), are intended to be used for monitoring, displaying, reviewing, storing and alarming of multiple physiological parameters including ECG (3-lead, or 12-lead selectable), arrhythmia detection and ST Segment analysis, QT analysis, heart rate (HR), respiration (Resp), temperature (Temp), pulse oxygen saturation (SpO2), pulse rate (PR), non-invasive blood pressure (NIBP), invasive blood pressure (IBP), cardiac output (C.O.), carbon dioxide (CO2), and anesthetic gas (AG).

All the parameters can be applied to single adult, pediatric and neonatal patients with the following:

• ·C.O. monitoring is restricted to adult patients only;
  · PAWP monitoring is not intended for neonatal patients;

· The Mortara ECG Algorithm arrhythmia detection and ST Segment analysis is intended for adult and pediatric patients. The Mindray ECG Algorithm arrhythmia detection is intended for adult and pediatric patients, and the Mindray ECG Algorithm ST Segment analysis is intended for adult patients only.

· 12-lead monitoring and AG monitoring are available for Passport 12 Patient Monitor only.

The monitors are to be used in healthcare facilities by clinical physiciate medical staff under the direction of physicians.

The subject Passport Series Patient Monitors includes two monitors:

• Passport 8 Patient Monitor ●
• Passport 12 Patient Monitor ●

All of the devices in the family are multiparameter monitors indicated for monitoring, displaying. reviewing, alarming, and transferring multiple physiological parameters. The Passport 8 and Passport 12 Patient monitors provide patient monitoring capabilities based on the user selected modules that are plugged into the main monitor.

This document is a 510(k) premarket notification for the Passport Series Patient Monitors (Passport 8 and Passport 12), not a study report. It states that "Mindray conducted functional and system level testing on the subject devices. The testing provided an evaluation of the performance of the device relevant to each of the modifications to the subject devices since their previous clearance. The functional and system level testing showed that the devices continue to meet specifications and the performance of the device is equivalent to the predicate."

Therefore, most of the information required to answer the question is not present in the provided text. The document refers to "Mindray conducted functional and system level testing" and "testing to ensure the subject devices meet relevant consensus standards" but does not detail the specific studies, sample sizes, or ground truth methodologies that would typically be found in a clinical study report.

However, based on the provided text, here is what can be inferred or explicitly stated regarding acceptance criteria and performance:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance:

The document doesn't explicitly present a table of "acceptance criteria" alongside "reported device performance" like a typical study report. Instead, it compares the "Subject Devices" (Passport 8 and Passport 12) with a "Predicate Device (K132662)" and notes changes and additions in features. The "Performance Data" section broadly states that testing showed the devices "continue to meet specifications and the performance of the device is equivalent to the predicate."

For features where "Same" is indicated, the "Predicate Device" rows effectively represent the performance (specifications) that the current devices are expected to meet. For new or modified features, the stated capabilities in the "Subject Devices" row serve as the claimed performance.

Let's extract an example for a specific parameter based on the device comparison table:

• Added an additional Pace detection channel to enhance the Pace detection function
• Added ECG J-point auto detection
• Added adjustable QRS Detection Threshold |
  | Arrhythmia Analysis (Mindray Algorithm) | - Asystole, VFib/VTac, Vtac, Vent. Brady, Extreme Tachy, Extreme Brady, PVC, Couplet, Bigeminy, Trigeminy, R on T, VT>2, PVCs, Tachy, Brady, Missed Beats, Vent. Rhythm, PNP, PNC, Multif. PVC, Nonsus. Vtac, Pause, Irr. Rhythm | - Added AFib |

Crucially, the document does NOT provide quantitative performance metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, error margins) that would typically serve as acceptance criteria or reported performance figures from a clinical study for these algorithms. It only lists the features that the device supports and how they compare to the predicate.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g., country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

• Not provided. The document states "Mindray conducted functional and system level testing," but no details about the sample size of the test set or the provenance of the data (e.g., patient demographics, country, retrospective/prospective nature) are given.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g., radiologist with 10 years of experience)

• Not provided. The document does not mention the use of experts for establishing ground truth for any testing performed.

4. Adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set

• Not provided. No information regarding adjudication methods is mentioned.

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 / Not provided. This device is a patient monitor, not an AI-assisted diagnostic imaging device requiring human-in-the-loop comparison. The document focuses on the device's technical specifications and equivalence to predicate devices, not on improving human reader performance.

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

• Implied, but details are not provided. The document states that "Mindray conducted functional and system level testing on the subject devices." This implies standalone testing of the algorithms (e.g., for arrhythmia detection, ST segment analysis, QT analysis, NIBP accuracy) as part of ensuring they "meet specifications and the performance of the device is equivalent to the predicate." However, specific details of these standalone performance studies (metrics, methodologies) are not included.

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

• Not provided. The document doesn't specify how ground truth was established for the "functional and system level testing." For vital sign monitors, ground truth often involves comparison to established reference standards or expert-derived measurements.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable / Not provided. This document describes a medical device's premarket notification, not the development or validation of a machine learning algorithm where a distinct "training set" would typically be discussed. While the algorithms within the monitor (e.g., ECG algorithms) would have been developed and "trained," this document does not provide details of that process or associated training set sizes.

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

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

In summary, the provided FDA 510(k) document is a regulatory submission for substantial equivalence, not a detailed scientific study report. It asserts that the device "meets specifications and the performance of the device is equivalent to the predicate" based on internal testing, but it does not provide the specific, granular data (sample sizes, expert qualifications, quantitative performance metrics, ground truth methodologies) that would be required to fully answer your questions about acceptance criteria and study particulars.

Ask a specific question about this device

Passport 12m and 17m Patient Monitors:

The Passport 17m and Passport 12m patient monitors are intended for monitoring, displaying, alarming, and transferring of multiple physiological parameters including ECG (3-lead or 12-lead selectable, arrhythmia detection, ST segment analysis, OT analysis, and heart rate (HR)), respiration rate (Resp), temperature (Temp), pulse oxygen saturation (SpO2), pulse rate (PR), non-invasive blood pressure (NIBP), invasive blood pressure(IBP), pulmonary artery wedge pressure (PAWP), cardiac output (C.O.), continuous cardiac output (CCO), mixed/central venous oxygen saturation (Sv02/Scv02), carbon dioxide (C02), Oxygen (02), anesthetic gas (AG), impedance cardiograph (ICC), bispectral index (BIS), and respiration mechanics (RM). The equipment also provides an interpretation of resting 12-lead ECG.

All the parameters can be monitored on single adult, pediatric, and neonatal patients with the exception of the following: · The arrhythmia detection, ST Segment analysis of Mortara algorithm, BIS, RM, CCO, SvO2/Scv02, and PAWP monitoring are intended for adult and pediatric patients only;

· ST Segment analysis of Mindray algorithm is intended for adult patients only;

· C.O. monitoring is restricted to adult patients only;

• ICG monitoring is only for use on adult patients who meet the following requirements: height: 122 to 229cm, weight: 30 to 155kg.

The monitor is to be used in healthcare facilities by clinical professionals or under their guidance. It should only be used by persons who have received adequate training in its use. It is not intended for helicopter transport, hospital ambulance, or home use.

T1 Patient Monitor:

The T1 Patient Monitor is intended for monitoring, displaying, reviewing, and transferring of multiple physiological parameters including ECG (3-lead, or 12-lead selectable, arrhythmia detection, ST Segment analysis, QT analysis, and heart rate (HR)), respiration (Resp), temperature (Temp), pulse oxygen saturation (SpO2), pulse rate (PR), non-invasive blood pressure (NIBP), invasive blood pressure (IBP), pulmonary artery wedge pressure (PAWP), and carbon dioxide (CO2). The equipment also provides an interpretation of resting 12-lead ECG.

All the parameters can be monitored on single adult, pediatric, and neonatal patients with the exception of the following: • The arthythmia detection, ST Segment analysis of Mortara algorithm, and PAWP monitoring are intended for adult and pediatric patients;

· ST Segment analysis of Mindray ECG algorithm is intended for adult patients only.

The monitor is to be used in healthcare facilities by clinical professionals or under their guidance. It should only be used by persons who have received adequate training in its use. It is not intended for helicopter transport, hospital ambulance, or home use.

The subject Passport Series Patient Monitors includes three monitors:

• Passport 12m Patient Monitor ●
• o Passport 17m Patient Monitor
• o T1 Patient Monitor

All of the devices in the family are multiparameter monitors indicated for monitoring, displaying, reviewing, alarming, and transferring multiple physiological parameters. The Passport 12m and 17m Patient monitors provide patient monitoring capabilities based on the user selected modules that are plugged into the main monitor. The T1 patient monitor is one of the available modules that can be plugged into the Passport 17m or 12m monitor. The T1 can also be used as a standalone monitor and when used as a standalone monitor, it provides a subset of the functions that are provided by Passport 17m and 12m.

The provided text focuses on the substantial equivalence of the Passport Series Patient Monitors to predicate devices, rather than outlining specific acceptance criteria and a study demonstrating the device meets those criteria with detailed performance metrics. The information pertains to a 510(k) submission, which aims to show equivalence to a legally marketed device, not necessarily to prove it meets pre-defined acceptance criteria with a new, standalone study the way a PMA might.

However, I can extract information related to performance testing and changes from the provided text.

Here's an analysis based on the supplied document:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state "acceptance criteria" in the traditional sense of numerical thresholds that the device must meet for specific clinical performance metrics. Instead, it describes "performance data" in the context of demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device. The performance is assessed against the specifications of the predicate device and relevant consensus standards.

The table in the document (pages 7-8) compares the features and performance specifications of the subject devices to the predicate device (K143195). The relevant performance aspects are nested within the "Feature" column and include:

Note: For features like "QT analysis" (added to ECG Mindray Algorithm) and "AFib" (added to Arrhythmia Analysis Mindray Algorithm), and "Adjustable QRS Detection Threshold" (added), the document states "Added" or "Same" but does not provide specific performance metrics or acceptance criteria for these new or modified features in the provided text. It generally states that "The testing provided an evaluation of the performance of the device relevant to each of the modifications... The functional and system level testing showed that the devices continue to meet specifications and the performance of the device is equivalent to the predicate."

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

The document states: "Mindray conducted functional and system level testing on the subject devices." It does not specify the sample size for this testing or the data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective or prospective). The testing appears to be internal engineering and verification testing rather than a clinical trial with patient data.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications

The document makes no mention of experts being used to establish ground truth for a test set. The validation described is based on engineering and system-level testing against specifications derived from the predicate device and consensus standards.

4. Adjudication Method

No adjudication method is mentioned, as there is no indication of expert review or clinical ground truth establishment in the provided text.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

The document does not describe a MRMC comparative effectiveness study, nor does it mention any effect size of human readers improving with or without AI assistance. This type of study would typically be conducted for diagnostic or interpretive algorithms, not necessarily for a multi-parameter patient monitor's basic physiological parameter measurements.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance Study

The document generally refers to "functional and system level testing" and "conformance with applicable standards." While this implies algorithm performance was assessed as part of the overall device functionality, it does not specifically detail a standalone algorithm-only performance study with dedicated metrics like sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, etc., for a particular diagnostic output. The focus is on the device's ability to measure and present physiological parameters in a manner equivalent to the predicate.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

Based on the provided text, the ground truth for the performance evaluations (e.g., accuracy of measurement ranges) would likely be established using calibrated test equipment, simulation, and potentially comparison to established reference methods or predicate device outputs during engineering and system-level testing. There is no mention of pathology, expert consensus, or outcomes data being used as ground truth for this submission. The "ground truth" for showing equivalence seems to be alignment with predicate device specifications and recognized consensus standards.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not mention a training set or its sample size. This is a 510(k) submission for a patient monitor, not a machine learning or AI-driven diagnostic device that would typically involve a separate training set. While the device does have "arrhythmia detection" and "ST segment analysis" algorithms, the document focuses on their functional equivalence and adherence to standards rather than detailing the methodology of their development or independent training/testing.

9. How Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

As no training set is mentioned, this information is not provided.

Ask a specific question about this device

The indications for use of the Hypervisor IX Monitoring System include:

• · Real time viewing of patient clinical data and alarms
• · Storage and Historical review of patient clinical data and alarms
• · Printing of real time and historical patient data
• · Configuration of local settings as well as synchronizing settings across the network to a remote device
• · Transfer of patient clinical data and settings between several CentralStations

The Hypervisor IX Monitoring System is a networked patient monitoring system intended for use in a fixed location, installed in a hospital or clinical environment to provide clinicians remote patient monitoring. The network connections between the various devices can be any combination of Ethernet (Wireless WiFi (WLAN), and Wireless WMTS. The Hypervisor IX Monitoring System supports one or more Mindray compatible physiological monitors and will display, store, print, and transfer information received from the compatible monitors; The Hypervisor IX Monitoring System supports bi-directional configuration of the compatible monitors. No data processing is done by the Hypervisor IX Monitoring System for data received from compatible monitors.

The Hypervisor IX Monitoring System includes several Telemetry monitoring subsystems all of which operate in the 608M WMTS frequency range within a defined coverage area. All of the supported telemetry systems transmit data to the CentralStation for processing, display, and alarm.

· The TMS-6016 transmitter is intended for use on Adult and Pediatric patients to monitor ECG and SpO2 physiological data. The CentralStation will support ECG, Heart Rate, Arrhythmia analysis, QT monitoring, and ST Segment Analysis for the TMS-6016.

• The Panorama Telepack-608 transmitter is intended for use on Adult patients to monitor ECG and SpO2 physiological data. The Centralstation will support ECG, Heart Rate, Arrhythmia analysis, QT monitoring, and ST Segment Analysis for the Panorama Telepack-608.

· The TMS60 transmitter is intended for use on Adult and Pediatric patients to monitor ECG and SpO2 physiological data. The physiological data can be reviewed locally on the transmitter. The CentralStation will support ECG, Heart Rate, SpO2, Pulse Rate, Arrhythmia analysis, QT monitoring, and ST Segment Analysis for the TMS60.

The Hypervisor IX Monitoring System is intended for use in a hospital or other clinical environment under the direct supervision of a licensed healthcare practitioner.

The Hypervisor IX Monitoring System is a networked patient monitoring system intended for use in a fixed location, installed in a hospital or clinical environment to provide clinicians remote patient monitoring. The network connections between the various devices can be any combination of Ethernet (Wired), Wireless WiFi (WLAN), and Wireless WMTS.

The Hypervisor IX Monitoring System supports one or more Mindray compatible physiological monitors and will display, store, print, and transfer information received from the compatible monitors; The Hypervisor IX Monitoring System supports bi-directional configuration of the compatible monitors. No data processing is done by the Hypervisor IX Monitoring System for data received from compatible monitors.

The Hypervisor IX Monitoring System includes three telemetry monitoring systems all of which operate in the 608M WMTS frequency range within a defined coverage area. All of the supported telemetry systems transmit data to the CentralStation for processing, display, and alarm.

The Hypervisor IX Monitoring System consists the following components:

• 1. Central Station
• 2. View Station
• 3. Work Station
• 4. Telemetry Systems (TMS 6016, Telepak-608, TMS60)

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and study for the Hypervisor IX Monitoring System, structured according to your request:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state acceptance criteria in a quantifiable manner (e.g., target accuracy, sensitivity, specificity). Instead, it describes general claims of meeting specifications and equivalence to a predicate device. The performance data section focuses on types of testing performed rather than specific quantitative results against pre-defined criteria.

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

The document does not provide information regarding:

• The specific sample size (number of patients, records, or tests) used for performance testing (test set).
• The country of origin of the data.
• Whether the data was retrospective or prospective.

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

The document does not provide information on:

• The number of experts, if any, used to establish ground truth for the test set.
• The qualifications of such experts.

The testing described (functional, system-level, wireless) appears to be primarily engineering verification against specifications rather than clinical validation requiring expert ground truth on patient data. The statement regarding QT monitoring references a predicate device (Philips ST/AR ST and Arrhythmia Software K101521) for establishing the safety/effectiveness of that function, implying reliance on that previous clearance rather than new clinical ground truthing on this specific device.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not provide information on any adjudication method used for the test set. Given the nature of the described testing, formal adjudication by experts is unlikely to have been part of these specific tests.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done, and Effect Size

The document does not indicate that an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was done. This type of study is more relevant for diagnostic AI devices where human reader performance is a key metric. The Hypervisor IX Monitoring System is described as a networked patient monitoring system that displays, stores, prints, and transfers data; it explicitly states "No data processing is done by the Hypervisor IX Monitoring System for data received from compatible monitors." This implies the system's role is data management and display, not AI-driven interpretation or diagnosis that would typically warrant an MRMC study.

6. If a Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Was Done

The document does not describe the device as incorporating an AI algorithm that would typically require standalone performance evaluation. The statement "No data processing is done by the Hypervisor IX Monitoring System for data received from compatible monitors" suggests its function is passive.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

Based on the description of testing (functional, system-level, wireless compliance, and comparison to predicate specifications), the "ground truth" for the tests performed would likely be:

• Engineering Specifications: For functional and system-level tests.
• Regulatory Standards: For compliance with consensus standards.
• Predicate Device Performance/Clearance: For demonstrating equivalence and justification for new features like QT monitoring.

There is no mention of ground truth derived from expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not mention a training set. This is consistent with the description of the device as not performing data processing or incorporating AI that would require machine learning training.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

Since no training set is mentioned or implied, there is no information on how ground truth for a training set would have been established.

Ask a specific question about this device