Search Results

A patient examination glove is a disposable device intended for medical purposes that is worn on the hand of healthcare and similar personnel to prevent contamination between healthcare personnel and the patient's body, fluids, waste or environment.

A patient examination glove is disposable device intended for medical purpose that is worn on the examiner's hand or finger to prevent contamination between patient and examiner.

Classified by FDA's General and Plastic Surgery Device panel as Class I, 21 CFR 880.6250, Powered Vinyl Patient Examination Gloves, 80 LYZ, and meets all requirements of ASTM standard D-5250-00€4.

While the provided text describes a medical device (Powdered Vinyl Patient Examination Gloves) and its regulatory approval process, it is not an AI/ML device. Therefore, many of the requested fields related to AI/ML device testing (e.g., ground truth, MRMC study, training set) are not applicable.

Here's the information that can be extracted or deduced from the provided text, adapted for a non-AI device:

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

2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance

• ASTM D-5250-00€4 (Physical and Dimensions Testing): "Inspection level S-2, AQL 4.0." (This specifies a sampling plan for quality control rather than a fixed "test set" size.)
• FDA 1000 ml. Water Fill Test: "samplings of AQL 2.5, inspection level 1." (Again, a sampling plan.)
• Primary Skin Irritation and Skin Sensitization: The number of subjects is not specified, but it's a "testing" conducted.
• Residual Powder Test: Not specified beyond being "conducted."

Data Provenance: The tests were conducted by the manufacturer, Shijiazhuang Lianhe Shunda Plastic Products Co., Ltd. (China), based on specified ASTM standards and FDA requirements. The data is retrospective for the purpose of this 510(k) submission, as it describes tests already performed to demonstrate substantial equivalence.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts

Not applicable, as this is a physical medical device. The "ground truth" for its performance is determined by established physical and biological testing methods (e.g., water leak test, tensile strength tests, irritation tests) as per industry standards (ASTM) and regulatory requirements (FDA). There is no "ground truth" established by human experts in the way an AI diagnostic device would require.

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

Not applicable. Testing is based on objective measurements and established pass/fail criteria from standards. There is no human adjudication process involved in determining device performance against these physical and biological criteria.

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, as this is a physical medical device, not an AI/ML diagnostic or assistive device.

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

Not applicable, as this is a physical medical device.

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

The "ground truth" for this device is based on objective measurement standards defined by ASTM (e.g., D-5250-00€4 for physical properties like dimensions, tensile strength, elongation, and D-6124-06 for residual powder) and regulatory compliance tests (e.g., FDA 1000 ml Water Fill Test for pinholes, biocompatibility testing for irritation/sensitization). There isn't "ground truth" in the diagnostic sense; rather, it's about meeting pre-defined performance specifications.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable, as this is not an AI/ML device.

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

Not applicable, as this is not an AI/ML device.

Ask a specific question about this device

A patient examination glove is a disposable device intended for medical purposes that is worn on the hand of healthcare and similar personnel to prevent contamination between healthcare personnel and the patient's body, fluids, waste or environment.
A patient examination glove is disposable device intended for medical purpose that is worn on the examiner's hand or finger to prevent contamination between patient and examiner.

Classified by FDA's General and Plastic Surgery Device panel as Class I, 21 CFR 880.6250, Powered Vinyl Patient Examination Gloves. 80 LYZ. and meets all requirements of ASTM standard D-5250-00E4.

The document is a 510(k) Pre-market Notification for a medical device: Ever Light Plastic Products Co., Ltd. Synthetic Vinyl Patient Examination Gloves-Powdered. It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, rather than a clinical study evaluating AI performance. Therefore, many of the requested categories related to AI studies, multi-reader multi-case studies, and ground truth for AI training and testing are not applicable.

Here's the information that can be extracted from the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Study Details

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

   • For ASTM D-5250-00E4 compliance and FDA Water Fill Test, inspection levels, and AQL (Acceptable Quality Level) are mentioned:
     • ASTM testing: Inspection level S-2, AQL 4.0
     • Water Fill Test: AQL 2.5, inspection level I
   • Specific raw sample sizes (number of gloves) are not explicitly stated, but these AQL and inspection levels define the sampling plan used.
   • Data Provenance: The device is manufactured by Ever Light Products Co., Ltd. in Hebei, China. The testing was performed by them or on their behalf. The data is retrospective in the sense that it's performed on manufactured batches of gloves.

2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:

   • Not applicable. This is a physical device testing, not an AI evaluation requiring human expert ground truth.

3. Adjudication method for the test set:

   • Not applicable. Results are based on objective physical and chemical tests against defined standards.

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 document describes a physical medical device (gloves), not an AI-powered diagnostic or assistive technology.

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

   • Not applicable. This document describes a physical medical device (gloves), not an AI algorithm.

6. The type of ground truth used:

   • Objective physical and chemical standards: The "ground truth" for the performance of the gloves is established by predefined standardized tests and limits (e.g., ASTM D-5250-00E4, FDA 1000 ml. Water Fill Test requirements, ASTM D-6124-01 for residual powder, and biocompatibility standards measured by irritation/sensitization tests).

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable. This is not an AI study requiring a training set. The "training" in a manufacturing context would refer to process parameters and quality control, not data used to train an algorithm.

8. How the ground truth for the training set was established:

   • Not applicable. See point 7.

Ask a specific question about this device