Search Results

The monitors are intended to be used for monitoring, storing, recording, and reviewing of, and to generate alarms for, multiple physiological parameters of adults and pediatrics (including neonates). The monitors are intended for use by trained healthcare professionals in hospital environments.

The monitored physiological parameters include: ECG, respiration (RESP), temperature (TEMP), functional oxygen saturation of arterial hemoglobin (SpO₂), pulse rate (PR), non-invasive blood pressure (NIBP), invasive blood pressure (IBP), carbon dioxide (CO2), and cardiac output (C.O.).

The arrhythmia detection and ST Segment analysis are intended for adult patients.

The NIBP monitoring supports iCUFS algorithm and iFAST algorithm. The iCUFS algorithm is intended for adult, pediatric and neonatal patients. The iFAST algorithm is intended for adult and pediatric patients (≥3 years of age). Both measurement algorithms are also intended for use with pregnant women, including pre-eclamptic patients. NIBP MAP is not applicable to pregnant women.

The Spot Temp with T2A module can only measure temperature of adult and pediatric (> 1 year of age) patients.

The monitors are not intended for MRI environments.

The cardiac output (C.O.) is only intended for adult patients.

The CX&UX series Patient Monitor including CX10/CX12/CX15/UX10/UX12/UX15 can perform long-time continuous monitoring of multiple physiological parameters. Also, it is capable of storing, displaying, analyzing and controlling measurements, and it will indicate alarms in case of abnormalities so that doctors and nurses can respond to the patient's situation as appropriate.

Minor differences from the predicate device are limited to some modifications of monitoring parameter specifications. These updates do not change the fundamental scientific technology of the cleared predicate device and thus do not raise any questions about the safety and effectiveness of the subject device.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter details the device's technical specifications and comparisons to predicate devices, along with the non-clinical performance data and adherence to various IEC and ISO standards. However, it explicitly states: "Clinical data: The subject device did not require new clinical studies to support substantial equivalence."

This means that the submission for this Patient Monitor device (CX10, CX12, CX15, UX10, UX12, UX15) relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device (Edan Instruments, Inc., Patient Monitor Model iX10, iX12, iX15, K232962) through non-clinical performance testing and software verification/validation, rather than new clinical trials or studies involving human patients.

Therefore, the requested information regarding acceptance criteria and studies that prove the device meets acceptance criteria through clinical performance (e.g., sample size for test set, expert involvement, MRMC studies, ground truth establishment for test/training sets, effect size of human reader improvement with AI) cannot be extracted from this document, as such clinical studies were explicitly not required for this 510(k) submission.

The document focuses on demonstrating that the new device's technical specifications and performance are similar to the predicate device, and that it complies with relevant safety and performance standards through bench testing.

Here's what can be extracted from the provided text regarding acceptance criteria and the type of study performed, specifically focusing on the non-clinical aspects:

Device: Patient Monitor (CX10, CX12, CX15, UX10, UX12, UX15)

The acceptance criteria for this device are implicitly tied to its performance meeting the standards and accuracy specifications of the predicate device and relevant international standards. Since no new clinical studies were conducted, the "proof" comes from non-clinical bench testing and software validation.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (Non-Clinical/Bench Testing)

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

• Sample Size: Not applicable in terms of human subjects or patient data test sets, as "new clinical studies" were not required. The "test set" refers to bench testing and functional system-level validation. The specific number of test cycles or a detailed breakdown of test cases for bench testing is not provided in this summary.
• Data Provenance: The data primarily originates from Edan Instruments Inc. (Shenzhen, Guangdong, China) through internal engineering and quality assurance processes for non-clinical bench testing and software validation. It is not patient data, so concepts like "retrospective or prospective" do not apply.

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

• Not applicable for clinical ground truth: Since no clinical studies were performed requiring human interpretation or diagnosis for a test set, no medical experts (e.g., radiologists) were used to establish ground truth in this context.
• Internal experts: Bench testing and software validation would have involved engineers and quality assurance professionals, whose qualifications are implicit in the quality system (21 CFR Part 820) but not specified in detail here.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

• Not applicable: Adjudication methods (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) are relevant for clinical studies involving multiple readers. This was not a clinical study. Bench testing relies on established technical specifications and standard compliance.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was Done:

• No: No MRMC study was performed as no new clinical studies were required or conducted. Therefore, there's no effect size of human readers improving with AI assistance. The device is a patient monitor, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.

6. If a Standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was Done:

• Yes (for the technical components): The "performance testing-Bench" effectively represents a standalone evaluation of the device's functional components (ECG, NIBP, SpO2, etc.) and software against defined technical specifications and standards. The "software verification and validation testing" also represents a standalone evaluation of the algorithm and software functions. The specific algorithms (e.g., iCUFS, iFAST for NIBP, arrhythmia analysis logic) are tested independently for their accuracy against known inputs or reference standards as part of bench testing.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

• Technical/Reference Standards: For the bench testing, the "ground truth" would be derived from:
  • Reference standards/simulators: Calibrated medical equipment, physiological simulators, and test signals (e.g., known ECG waveforms, simulated blood pressure readings, temperature standards) are used to provide the "true" values against which the device's measurements are compared.
  • Defined specifications: The device's internal design specifications and the requirements of the referenced IEC/ISO standards serve as the "ground truth" for compliance testing.
• Not clinical ground truth: No expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data from real patients were used for establishing ground truth for this submission.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

• Not applicable: The device is a patient monitor, not a machine learning/AI algorithm that typically undergoes a distinct "training" phase with a large dataset. Its functionality is based on established physiological measurement principles and programmed algorithms. Any internal calibration or algorithm refinement would be part of the product development process, not a dedicated "training set" in the AI/ML sense.

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

• Not applicable: As there was no "training set" in the context of an AI/ML model, the concept of establishing ground truth for it does not apply to this 510(k) submission.

In summary, this 510(k) clearance relies on demonstrating that the new Patient Monitor is substantially equivalent to a previously cleared predicate device, primarily through robust non-clinical bench testing and software validation, proving compliance with established medical device standards and functional specifications. No new clinical studies with patient data were required or conducted for this specific submission.

Ask a specific question about this device

The monitor B105M, B125M, B155M, B105P and B125P are portable multi-parameter patient monitors intended to be used for monitoring, recording, and to generate alarms for multiple physiological parameters of adult, pediatric, and neonatal patients in a hospital environment and during intra-hospital transport.

The monitor B105M, B125M, B155M, B105P and B125P are intended for use under the direct supervision of a licensed health care practitioner.

The monitor B105M, B125M, B155M, B105P and B125P are not Apnea monitors (i.e., do not rely on the device for detection or alarm for the cessation of breathing). These devices should not be used for life sustaining/supporting purposes.

The monitor B105M, B125M, B155M, B105P and B125P are not intended for use during MRI.

The monitor B105M, B125M, B155M, B105P and B125P can be stand-alone monitors or interfaced to other devices via network.

The monitor B105M, B125M, B155M, B105P and B125P monitor and display: ECG (including ST segment, arrhythmia detection, ECG diagnostic analysis and measurement), invasive blood pressure, heart/pulse rate, oscillometric non-invasive blood pressure (systolic, diastolic and mean arterial pressure), functional oxygen saturation (SpO2) and pulse rate via continuous monitoring (including monitoring during conditions of clinical patient motion or low perfusion), temperature with a reusable or disposable electronic thermometer for continual monitoring Esophageal/Nasopharyngeal/Tympanic/Rectal/Bladder/Axillary/Skin/Airway/Room/Myocardial/Core/Surface temperature, impedance respiration, respiration rate, airway gases (CO2, O2, N2O, anesthetic agents, anesthetic agent identification and respiratory rate), Cardiac Output (C.O.), Entropy, neuromuscular transmission (NMT) and Bispectral Index (BIS).

The monitor B105M, B125M, B155M, B105P and B125P are able to detect and generate alarms for ECG arrhythmias: Asystole, Ventricular tachycardia, VT>2, Ventricular Bradycardia, Accelerated Ventricular Rhythm, Ventricular Couplet, Bigeminy, Trigeminy, "R on T", Tachycardia, Bradycardia, Pause, Atrial Fibrillation, Irregular, Multifocal PVCs, Missing Beat, SV Tachy, Premature Ventricular Contraction (PVC), Supra Ventricular Contraction (SVC) and Ventricular fibrillation.

The proposed monitors B105M, B125M, B155M, B105P and B125P are new version of multi-parameter patient monitors developed based on the predicate monitors B105M, B125M, B155M, B105P and B125P (K213490) to provide additional monitored parameter Bispectral Index (BIS) by supporting the additional optional E-BIS module (K052145) which used in conjunction with Covidien BISx module (K072286).

In addition to the added parameter, the proposed monitors also offer below several enhancements:

• Provided data connection with GE HealthCare anesthesia devices to display the parameters measured from anesthesia devices (Applicable for B105M, B125M and B155M).
• Modified Early Warning Score calculation provided.
• Separated low priority alarms user configurable settings from the combined High/Medium/Low priority options.
• Provided additional customized notification tool to allow clinician to configure the specific notification condition of one or more physiological parameters measured by the monitor. (Applicable for B105M, B125M and B155M).
• Enhanced User Interface in Neuromuscular Transmission (NMT), Respiration Rate and alarm overview.
• Provided Venous Stasis to assist venous catheterization with NIBP cuff inflation.
• Supported alarm light brightness adjustment.
• Supported alarm audio pause by gesture (Not applicable for B105M and B105P).
• Supported automatic screen brightness adjustment.
• Supported network laser printing.
• Continuous improvements in cybersecurity

The proposed monitors B105M, B125M, B155M, B105P and B125P retain equivalent hardware design based on the predicate monitors and removal of the device Trim-knob to better support cleaning and disinfecting while maintaining the same primary function and operation.

Same as the predicate device, the five models (B105M, B125M, B155M, B105P and B125P) share the same hardware platform and software platform to support the data acquisition and algorithm modules. The differences between them are the LCD screen size and configuration options. There is no change from the predicate in the display size.

As with the predicate monitors B105M, B125M, B155M, B105P and B125P (K213490), the proposed monitors B105M, B125M, B155M, B105P and B125P are multi-parameter patient monitors, utilizing an LCD display and pre-configuration basic parameters: ECG, RESP, NIBP, IBP, TEMP, SpO2, and optional parameters which include CO2 and Gas parameters provided by the E-MiniC module (K052582), CARESCAPE Respiratory modules E-sCO and E-sCAiO (K171028), Airway Gas Option module N-CAiO (K151063), Entropy parameter provided by the E-Entropy module (K150298), Cardiac Output parameter provided by the E-COP module (K052976), Neuromuscular Transmission (NMT) parameter provided by E-NMT module (K051635) and thermal recorder B1X5-REC.

The proposed monitors B105M, B125M, B155M, B105P and B125P are not Apnea monitors (i.e., do not rely on the device for detection or alarm for the cessation of breathing). These devices should not be used for life sustaining/supporting purposes. Do not attempt to use these devices to detect sleep apnea.

As with the predicate monitors B105M, B125M, B155M, B105P and B125P (K213490), the proposed monitors B105M, B125M, B155M, B105P and B125P also can interface with a variety of existing central station systems via a cabled or wireless network which implemented with identical integrated WiFi module. (WiFi feature is disabled in B125P/B105P).

Moreover, same as the predicate monitors B105M, B125M, B155M, B105P and B125P (K213490), the proposed monitors B105M, B125M, B155M, B105P and B125P include features and subsystems that are optional or configurable, and it can be mounted in a variety of ways (e.g., shelf, countertop, table, wall, pole, or head/foot board) using existing mounting accessories.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter and summary for K242562 (Monitor B105M, Monitor B125M, Monitor B155M, Monitor B105P, Monitor B125P) do not contain information about specific acceptance criteria, reported device performance metrics, or details of a study meeting those criteria for any of the listed physiological parameters or functionalities (e.g., ECG or arrhythmia detection).

Instead, the documentation primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device (K213490) by comparing features, technology, and compliance with various recognized standards and guidance documents for safety, EMC, software, human factors, and cybersecurity.

The summary explicitly states: "The subject of this premarket submission, the proposed monitors B105M/B125M/B155M/B105P/B125P did not require clinical studies to support substantial equivalence." This implies that the changes introduced in the new device versions were not considered significant enough to warrant new clinical performance studies or specific quantitative efficacy/accuracy acceptance criteria beyond what is covered by the referenced consensus standards.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information from the given text:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: This information is not present. The document lists numerous standards and tests performed, but not specific performance metrics or acceptance thresholds.
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not explicitly stated for performance evaluation, as clinical studies were not required. The usability testing mentioned a sample size of 16 US clinical users, but this is for human factors, not device performance.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable, as detailed performance studies requiring expert ground truth are not described.
4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable.
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. This device is a patient monitor, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool that would typically involve human readers.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done: The document describes "Bench testing related to software, hardware and performance including applicable consensus standards," which implies standalone testing against known specifications or simulated data. However, specific results or detailed methodologies for this type of testing are not provided beyond the list of standards.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): Not explicitly stated for performance assessment. For the various parameters (ECG, NIBP, SpO2, etc.), it would typically involve reference equipment or validated methods as per the relevant IEC/ISO standards mentioned.
8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable, as this is not an AI/ML device that would require explicit training data in the context of this submission.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

In summary, the provided document focuses on demonstrating that the new monitors are substantially equivalent to their predicate through feature comparison, adherence to recognized standards, and various non-clinical bench tests (e.g., hardware, alarms, EMC, environmental, reprocessing, human factors, software, cybersecurity). It does not contain the detailed performance study results and acceptance criteria typically found for novel diagnostic algorithms or AI-driven devices.

Ask a specific question about this device

The RespArray™ patient monitor is intended to be used for monitoring, storing, reviewing of, and to generate alarms for, multiple physiological parameters of adults, pediatrics and neonates. The monitors are intended for use by trained healthcare professionals in hospital environments. The monitor is for prescription use only.

The monitored physiological parameters include: ECG, respiration (RESP), temperature (TEMP), oxygen saturation of arterial blood (SpO2), pulse rate (PR), non-invasive blood pressure (NIBP), and carbon dioxide (CO2).

The arrhythmia detection and ST Segment analysis are intended for adult patients.

The SpO2 (Nellcor™) module is intended to be used for spot-check or continuous non-invasive monitoring of functional oxygen saturation of arterial hemoglobin (SpO2) and pulse rate (PR), in motion and no motion conditions, and in patients who are well or poorly perfused.

The Microstream™ capnography module is intended for continuous non-invasive monitoring of carbon dioxide concentration of the expired and inspired breath (etCO2) and respiration rate (RR). The monitor also provides the clinician with integrated pulmonary index (IPI), apnea per hour (A/hr) and oxygen desaturation index (ODI) values. IPI is not intended for patients up to the age of one year. A/hr and ODI are intended for ages 22 and up.

The monitors are not intended for MRI environments.

The RespArray patient monitor (hereinafter called RespArray) can perform long-time continuous monitoring of multiple physiological parameters. Also, it is capable of storing, displaying, analyzing and controlling measurements, and it will indicate alarms in case of abnormity so that doctors and nurses can deal with them in time.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the Edan Instruments Patient Monitor (RespArray). It focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to a predicate device, primarily through non-clinical performance and software verification/validation.

Crucially, the document explicitly states: "Clinical data: Not applicable." This means there was no clinical study conducted to prove the device meets specific acceptance criteria in a human-use setting, particularly relating to diagnostic accuracy where AI assistance or expert consensus would be relevant.

Therefore, many of the requested items, such as multi-reader multi-case studies, ground truth establishment for a test set, and sample sizes for clinical test sets, are not applicable to this submission as per the document's contents.

Here's a breakdown based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria discussed are primarily related to electrical safety, electromagnetic compatibility (EMC), and general performance of the physiological parameter measurements (ECG, RESP, NIBP, TEMP, SpO2, CO2). The document states that the device was found to comply with relevant standards and that bench testing shows it meets its accuracy specification and relevant consensus standards.

Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (as inferred from the text):

Study Proving Device Meets Acceptance Criteria:

The study proving the device meets the acceptance criteria is described as "Non-clinical data" including:

• Electrical safety and electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) assessments.
• Performance testing-Bench
• Software Verification and Validation Testing.

Detailed Information on the Study:

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

   • Sample Size: Not explicitly quantified in terms of number of patients or physiological measurements. The testing was "bench" testing, meaning laboratory-based tests on the device's functionality and accuracy against reference standards, rather than patient-derived data.
   • Data Provenance: Not applicable in the context of clinical data. For testing against standards, it implies standardized test setups and simulated physiological signals/conditions.

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

   • Not applicable. No experts were used for ground truth establishment as it was non-clinical bench testing against established engineering and medical device performance standards. There's no "ground truth" of a diagnostic nature being established by human experts in this context.

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

   • Not applicable. Adjudication is relevant for human-interpreted diagnostic data. This study relies on objective measurements against engineering specifications and international 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:

   • No, not applicable. The device is a patient monitor, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool that interprets medical images/signals for improved human reader performance. The submission explicitly states "Clinical data: Not applicable."

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

   • Yes, in essence. The "Performance testing-Bench" and "Software Verification and Validation Testing" evaluate the device's inherent algorithms and functionality in a standalone manner (without a human in the loop for diagnostic interpretation, but rather for operational functionality and accuracy of physiological measurements). However, this is not in the context of a diagnostic AI algorithm.

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

   • Reference standards and engineering specifications. The "ground truth" for the non-clinical tests is derived from established international and national standards for medical electrical equipment, specific performance criteria for various physiological measurement modules, and the device's own accuracy specifications validated through bench testing.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable for a clinical training set. This is not an AI/ML device in the sense of learning from a large dataset of patient cases. The device's algorithms are designed and verified, not "trained" on patient data in a machine learning sense.

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

   • Not applicable. As above, no clinical training set or associated ground truth establishment process is described or relevant for this type of device submission.

In summary, the provided 510(k) focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence through adherence to recognized performance and safety standards via non-clinical bench testing and software validation, rather than clinical studies involving human patients or complex AI diagnostic algorithms requiring expert review and adjudication.

Ask a specific question about this device

The iX series Patient Monitors including iX10, iX12, iX15 are intended to be used for monitoring, storing, and reviewing of, and to generate alarms for, multiple physiological parameters of adults and pediatics (including neonates). The monitors are intended for use by trained healthcare professionals in hospital environments.

The monitored physiological parameters include: ECG, respiration (RESP), temperature (TEMP), functional oxygen saturation of arterial hemoglobin (SpO2), pulse rate (PR), non-invasive blood pressure (NIBP), invasive blood pressure (IBP), carbon dioxide (CO2), cardiac output (C.O.), and Anaesthesia gas (AG).

The arrhythmia detection and ST Segment analysis are intended for adult patients.

The NIBP monitoring supports iCUFS algorithm and iFAST algorithm is intended for adult, pediatric and neonatal patients. The iFAST algorithm is intended for adult and pediatic patients (≥3 years of age). Both measurement algorithms are also intended for use with pregnant women, including pre-eclamptic patients. NIBP MAP is not applicable to pregnant women.

The Spot Temp with T2A module can only measure temperature of adult and pediatric (> 1 year of age) patients. The monitors are not intended for MRI environments.

The cardiac output (C.O.) is only intended for adult patients.

The iX series Patient Monitors including iX10, iX12, iX15 can perform long-time continuous monitoring of multiple physiological parameters. Also, it is capable of storing, displaying, analyzing and controlling measurements, and it will indicate alarms in case of abnormalities so that doctors and nurses can respond to the patient's situation as appropriate.

This document describes the premarket notification (510(k)) for the Edan Instruments, Inc. Patient Monitor (iX10, iX12, iX15) and its equivalence to a predicate device.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria for the new device were generally established by compliance with various international standards for medical electrical equipment and specific performance characteristics. The reported device performance indicates that the device meets these standards and its specified accuracy.

For the Quick Temp Module (T2A), the provided text details specific clinical study results. Other parameters were tested for compliance with relevant standards through non-clinical testing.

2. Sample Size for Test Set and Data Provenance

For the Quick Temp Module (T2A) Predict Mode clinical accuracy study:

• Sample Size: 142 valid cases for sublingual and axillary temperature measurements.
• Data Provenance: Clinical investigation (prospective study). No country of origin is explicitly stated, but the company is based in China.

For other parameters, specific sample sizes for non-clinical (bench) testing are not provided, but the document states "Edan has conducted functional and system level testing to validate the performance of the results of the bench testing show that the subject device meets its accuracy specification and meet relevant consensus standards."

3. Number of Experts and their Qualifications for Ground Truth

The document does not specify the number or qualifications of experts used to establish ground truth for the clinical study of the Quick Temp Module (T2A). It only mentions that the study compared the new module against the "direct mode of F3000 Temp Module of M3A Vital signs monitor," implying the predicate device served as a reference for accuracy.

For other non-clinical tests, the ground truth is implicitly defined by the specifications and performance requirements outlined in the referenced international standards.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not describe a specific adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) for the clinical study or any other test sets.

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

No multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study is mentioned in the provided text. The device is a patient monitor, and its performance evaluation typically focuses on the accuracy and reliability of its physiological parameter measurements, not on improving human reader performance with AI assistance.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance Study

Yes, standalone performance was evaluated for the components of the device. The non-clinical data section describes extensive functional and system-level testing to validate the performance against relevant consensus standards. This includes specific tests for algorithms like cardiac rhythm and ST segment measurement. The clinical study for the Quick Temp Module (T2A) also assesses the standalone performance of that specific module.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• For the Quick Temp Module (T2A) clinical study: The ground truth was established by comparison to a reference device's direct temperature measurement mode ("direct mode of F3000 Temp Module of M3A Vital signs monitor"). This is a form of reference standard comparison (using a predicate device as the reference).
• For other parameters (e.g., ECG, NIBP, SpO2, CO2, AG): The ground truth for non-clinical testing is implicitly based on the specifications and performance requirements outlined in the referenced international consensus standards (e.g., IEC 60601 series, ISO 80601 series, AAMI standards).

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not provide information about a training set since this is a patient monitoring device and not a machine learning algorithm as typically understood in the context of large-scale image-based diagnostics. The "algorithms" mentioned (e.g., arrhythmia detection, NIBP algorithms) are likely engineered signal processing algorithms rather than deep learning models requiring large training datasets.

9. How Ground Truth for Training Set was Established

Not applicable, as no training set for a machine learning model is described in the provided text. The algorithms for the patient monitor's functions are developed and validated against established physiological principles and engineering standards.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Endophys Blood Pressure Monitor Model BPM-30 is intended to continuously provide systolic, diastolic and mean blood pressure based on the output of the Endophys PSS3 Pressure Sensing Sheath in patients undergoing therapeutic and/or diagnostic procedures involving percutaneous vascular access. The Endophys Blood Pressure Monitor Model BPM-30 monitor is additionally intended for use in transport situations within hospital environments.

The Endophys BPM-30 Blood Pressure Monitor is an electronic device that provides compatibility between a physiological fiber optic blood pressure sensor (transducer) and conventional invasive arterial blood pressure inputs to a standard physiological patient monitor. The device converts the optical transducer data to electrical signals that are interpreted by a conventional patient monitor and/or are displayed directly on the BPM-30. The BPM-30 accurately emulates a fluidic arterial blood pressure transducer and supplies electrical signals to its output that are indistinguishable from a conventional fluidic blood pressure transducer.

The BPM-30 is implemented as a self-contained unit that has a fiber optic transducer connection as an input source and communicates with a patient monitor as its output. The BPM acts to directly emulate the electrical interface characteristics of conventional fluidic blood pressure transducers (that patient monitors are compatible with) while providing much more precise blood pressure data derived from a fiber optic transducer placed within an artery. Electrically emulating a conventional fluidic transducer uniquely allows a fiber optic pressure sensor to be used with a wide variety of existing physiological patient monitors without modification of those monitors. Systolic, diastolic, and mean blood pressure values are also displayed directly on the BPM-30 every four seconds.

The BPM-30 is powered by a standard AC power adapter. The BPM-30 also has an internal battery supply that will automatically recharge and maintain operation during brief (up to 30 minutes) power interruptions. The BPM-30 is used outside of the sterile environment and has standard alerts and alarms.

The BPM-30 has an operating pressure range of -30 to 300 mmHg with an accuracy of ±1 mmHg plus ±1% of reading for pressures ≤ 50 mmHg and within ±3% of reading for pressures ≥ 50 mmHg

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the Endophys Blood Pressure Monitor Model BPM-30. It outlines the device's description, intended use, and a comparison to a predicate device (Endophys Blood Pressure Monitor model BPM-20). While it mentions "Performance Data" and lists several types of testing conducted, it does not provide specific acceptance criteria or the reported device performance in terms of accuracy metrics against a ground truth as typically expected for proving the device meets those criteria.

Instead, the performance data section states: "The modified Endophys Blood Pressure Monitor met all specified criteria and did not raise new safety or performance questions. Based on the design verification performance the modified Endophys Blood Pressure Monitor was found to have the safety and effectiveness profile that is similar to the predicate device." This indicates that the device was tested to meet internal design specifications and regulatory standards, and its performance was deemed similar to the previously cleared predicate.

Given the information provided, I cannot construct a table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance with specific numerical accuracy values. The document focuses on regulatory compliance and substantial equivalence to a predicate device, rather than a detailed clinical performance study with defined ground truth and expert evaluation.

However, I can extract the accuracy specification for the device, which would likely form part of its inherent design acceptance criteria.

Here's an attempt to answer the request based only on the provided text, highlighting what is implicitly or explicitly stated and what is missing:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance for Endophys Blood Pressure Monitor Model BPM-30

The provided 510(k) summary focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device (Endophys Blood Pressure Monitor Model BPM-20) rather than presenting a detailed clinical study for novel performance claims. Therefore, specific numerical acceptance criteria and a detailed breakdown of reported device performance in a clinical setting against a robust ground truth (e.g., expert consensus, pathology) are not explicitly provided in the document.

The document does state the performance specifications of the device, which implicitly serve as acceptance criteria for its design and manufacturing.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and the Reported Device Performance

Based on the "Summary of Technical Characteristics as Compared to the Predicate Device" and "Device Description" sections, the key performance specification mentioned is accuracy:

It is important to note that the document does not provide raw data, statistical analyses, or specific clinical study results to demonstrate how these accuracy figures were met in a performance study with a test set. It merely states that the "modified Endophys Blood Pressure Monitor met all specified criteria." The "Performance Data" section lists types of testing (Software Verification, Electrical Safety, EMC, Packaging, Functional Testing) but does not detail the results of these tests in terms of the accuracy specifications.

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not specified. The document lists types of performance data (e.g., functional testing, electrical safety) but does not mention the sample size of a patient-based test set or a clinical study.
• Data Provenance (e.g., country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective): Not specified. There is no mention of the origin or nature of data for any performance testing.

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

Not applicable/Not specified. The document does not describe a study involving expert readers or the establishment of ground truth in a clinical context (e.g., for interpretation of medical images). The testing appears to be primarily engineering verification and validation against technical specifications rather than a comparative clinical performance study.

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

Not applicable/None specified. Since there's no mention of a clinical test set requiring expert interpretation or adjudication, this information is not relevant to the provided text.

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 described (Blood Pressure Monitor) is not an AI-assisted diagnostic device that would typically undergo an MRMC study. It is a measurement device.

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

Yes, implicitly. The accuracy specifications (±1 mmHg plus ±1% of reading for pressures ≤ 50 mmHg, and within ±3% of reading for pressures ≥ 50 mmHg) are for the device itself, implying its standalone measurement performance. This is typically established through bench testing and calibration, which aligns with "Functional Testing" mentioned in the "Performance Data" section.

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

For a blood pressure monitor, the ground truth would typically be established by a highly accurate reference blood pressure measurement device (e.g., a calibrated pressure transducer or manometer) or a standardized pressure source in a laboratory setting. The document does not explicitly state the type of ground truth, but it would align with calibrated reference measurements used during functional and design verification testing.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable/Not specified. This device is a traditional medical device, not an AI/ML device that requires a training set.

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

Not applicable. This device is not an AI/ML device that requires a training set.

Ask a specific question about this device

The IVUS modality of the System is intended for ultrasound examinations of intravascular pathology. Intravascular ultrasound is indicated in patients who are candidates for transluminal procedures such as angioplasty and atherectomy.

FFR and DFR™ are intended for use in catheterization and related cardiovascular specialty laboratories to compute, and display various physiological parameters based on the output from one or more electrodes, transducers, or measuring devices. FFR and DFR are indicated to provide hemodynamic information for use in the diagnosis and treatment of patients that undergo measurement of physiological parameters.

Refer to the Catheter Instructions for Use provided with all Boston Scientific Ultrasound Imaging Catheters to determine compatibility with the System. All Ultrasound Imaging Catheters will be referred to as Imaging Catheters throughout the remainder of this User Guide.

The Imaging Catheters generate ultrasound images and are intended for ultrasound examination of vascular and cardiac pathology. Boston Scientific manufactures a wide variety of catheters for different applications. The recommended use of each of these catheters may vary depending on the size and type of the catheter. Please refer to the Imaging Catheter Instructions for Use, packaged with each catheter.

Indications for Auto Pullback Use (IVUS Only) Automatic Pullback is indicated when the following occurs:

• The physician/operator wants to standardize the method in which intravascular ultrasound images are obtained and documented: procedure-to-procedure, operator-to-operator.
• · The physician/operator wants to make linear determinations post-procedurally, which requires the imaging core of a catheter to be pulled back at a known uniform speed.

· Two-dimensional, longitudinal reconstruction of the anatomy is desired.

The AVVIGO™+ Multi-Modality Guidance System is used by physicians to obtain physiologic, intravascular, and/or intracardiac anatomical information. The system utilizes an interactive display that displays information and allows the physician to:

• Perform intravascular physiology assessment by making measurements with a pressure ● wire that invasively obtains pressure readings from the vessels, and an FFR Link that retrieves the information from the pressure wire and transfers the information wirelessly to the interactive display, and/or
• Perform intravascular or intracardiac ultrasound imaging using a specially designed . catheter with a miniaturized ultrasound probe attached to the distal end and a Motor Drive. A PC is used for data acquisition and processing to visualize ultrasound images of selected anatomical structures.

The AVVIGO™+ Multi-Modality Guidance System hardware has been modified to include a V4 Acquisition PC for IVUS image processing, updates to the mobile pole, and a Table Side Controller user interface for user control access near the patient bedside.

The AVVIGO™+ Multi-Modality Guidance System software includes updated vessel and lumen border trace functionality to improve ease of use. Additionally, the AVVIGO+ Multi-Modality Guidance System GUI includes visual display of frame markers as well as graphical display of DFR with pullback support.

The AVVIGO™+ Multi-Modality Guidance System underlying fundamental principles and technology supporting IVUS and Physiology modalities are unmodified from that of the predicate. IVUS and FFR/DFR remain identical to that of the predicate device, AVVIGO Guidance System II.

AVVIGO™ + Multi-Modality Guidance System modifications do not raise any new issues of safety and effectiveness.

The user is asking for specific details about the acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets these criteria. However, the provided document (FDA 510(k) clearance letter and summary for the AVVIGO+ Multi-Modality Guidance System) explicitly states:

"Clinical Performance Data: Not applicable; determination of substantial equivalence is not based on clinical performance data. Substantial equivalence is based on an assessment of non-clinical performance data."

This means that a clinical study with human patients, including elements like a test set, expert readers, ground truth establishment, MRMC studies, or standalone performance, was not performed or at least not required for the 510(k) clearance of this device. The modifications to the AVVIGO+ system were deemed substantially equivalent to its predicate (AVVIGO Guidance System II) based on non-clinical performance data (hardware, software, electrical safety, packaging verification and validation against recognized standards).

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information for acceptance criteria related to a clinical study because the document states no clinical performance data was used for this clearance.

I can, however, extract information about the non-clinical performance data and the type of evaluation performed.

Here's a summary based on the provided document, addressing what information is available and indicating what is not:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance Study (as per provided document)

The provided documentation states that no clinical performance data was used for the determination of substantial equivalence for the AVVIGO+ Multi-Modality Guidance System. Therefore, the device performance was assessed through non-clinical performance data, focusing on compliance with recognized safety and performance standards.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

As no clinical study was performed for this clearance, there isn't a table of clinical performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or accuracy derived from a test set. Instead, the acceptance criteria are based on compliance with various engineering, safety, and quality standards for medical devices.

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

• Not Applicable. No clinical test set data was used for this 510(k) clearance determination. The evaluation was based on non-clinical performance testing and compliance with recognized standards.

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 and thus no ground truth established by experts was used for this 510(k) clearance.

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

• Not Applicable. No clinical test set was used for this 510(k) clearance.

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:

• No. An MRMC study was not stated as being performed for this 510(k) clearance.

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

• Not Applicable / No. The document focuses on the system's compliance with safety and performance standards for its intended functions (IVUS imaging and FFR/DFR physiological parameters), not on an "algorithm only" performance study in a clinical context.

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

• Not Applicable. No clinical ground truth was used for this 510(k) clearance. The "ground truth" for the non-clinical evaluation was adherence to the specifications defined by recognized medical device standards and the device's own design documentation.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not Applicable. This 510(k) clearance is for a medical device that includes imaging and physiological measurement capabilities, but the document does not describe it as an AI/ML device requiring a distinct "training set" in the context of learned models. The software updates mentioned are for "vessel and lumen border trace functionality" and GUI improvements, but no details of an AI/ML model's training process are provided or implied to be part of the substantial equivalence determination.

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

• Not Applicable. (See point 8).

Ask a specific question about this device

Indications for Use for CARESCAPE Canvas 1000:

CARESCAPE Canvas 1000 is a multi-parameter patient monitor intended for use in multiple areas within a professional healthcare facility.

CARESCAPE Canvas 1000 is intended for use on adult, pediatric, and neonatal patients one patient at a time.

CARESCAPE Canvas 1000 is indicated for monitoring of:

· hemodynamic (including ECG, ST segment, arrhythmia detection, ECG diagnostic analysis and measurement, invasive pressure, non-invasive blood pressure, pulse oximetry, regional oxygen saturation, total hemoglobin concentration, cardiac output (thermodilution and pulse contour), temperature, mixed venous oxygen saturation, and central venous oxygen saturation),

· respiratory (impedance respiration, airway gases (CO2, O2, N2O, and anesthetic agents), spirometry, gas exchange), and

· neurophysiological status (including electroencephalography, Entropy, Bispectral Index (BIS), and neuromuscular transmission).

CARESCAPE Canvas 1000 is able to detect and generate alarms for ECG arrhythmias: atrial fibrillation, accelerated ventricular rhythm, asystole, bigeminy, bradycardia, ventricular couplet, irregular, missing beat, multifocal premature ventricular contractions (PVCs), pause, R on T, supra ventricular tachycardia, trigeminy, ventricular bradycardia, ventricular fibrillation/ ventricular tachycardia, ventricular tachycardia, and VT>2. CARESCAPE Canvas 1000 also shows alarms from other ECG sources.

CARESCAPE Canvas 1000 also provides other alarms, trends, snapshots and events, and calculations and can be connected to displays, printers and recording devices.

CARESCAPE Canvas 1000 can interface to other devices. It can also be connected to other monitors for remote viewing and to data management software devices via a network.

CARESCAPE Canvas 1000 is intended for use under the direct supervision of a licensed healthcare practitioner, or by personnel trained in proper use of the equipment in a professional healthcare facility.

CARESCAPE Canvas 1000 is not intended for use in an MRI environment.

Indications for Use for CARESCAPE Canvas Smart Display:

CARESCAPE Canvas Smart Display is a multi-parameter patient monitor intended for use in multiple areas within a professional healthcare facility.

CARESCAPE Canvas Smart Display is intended for use on adult, pediatric, and neonatal patients one patient at a time.

CARESCAPE Canvas Smart Display is indicated for monitoring of:

· hemodynamic (including ECG, ST segment, arrhythmia detection, ECG diagnostic analysis and measurement, invasive pressure, non-invasive blood pressure, pulse oximetry, regional oxygen saturation, total hemoglobin concentration, cardiac output (thermodilution), and temperature, and · respiratory (impedance respiration, airway gases (CO2)

CARESCAPE Canvas Smart Display is able to detect and generate alarms for ECG arrhythmias: atrial fibrillation, accelerated ventricular rhythm, asystole, bigeminy, bradycardia, ventricular couplet, irregular, missing beat, multifocal premature ventricular contractions (PVCs), pause, R on T, supra ventricular tachycardia, trigeminy, ventricular bradycardia, ventricular fibrillation/ ventricular tachycardia, ventricular tachycardia, and VT>2. CARESCAPE Canvas Smart Display also shows alarms from other ECG sources.

CARESCAPE Canvas Smart Display also provides other alarms, trends, snapshots and events. CARESCAPE Canvas Smart Display can use CARESCAPE ONE or CARESCAPE Patient Data Module (PDM) as patient data acquisition devices. It can also be connected to other monitors for remote viewing and to data management software devices via a network.

CARESCAPE Canvas Smart Display is intended for use under the direct supervision of a licensed healthcare practitioner, or by personnel trained in proper use of the equipment in a professional healthcare facility.

CARESCAPE Canvas Smart Display is not intended for use in an MRI environment.

Indications for Use for CARESCAPE Canvas D19:

CARESCAPE Canvas D19 is intended for use as a secondary display with a compatible host device. It is intended for displaying measurement and parametric data from the host device and providing visual and audible alarms generated by the host device.

CARESCAPE Canvas D19 enables controlling the host device, including starting and discharging a patient case, changing parametric measurement settings, changing alarm limits and disabling alarms.

Using CARESCAPE Canvas D19 with a compatible host device enables real-time multi-parameter patient monitoring and continuous evaluation of the patient's ventilation, oxygenation, hemodynamic, circulation, temperature, and neurophysiological status.

Indications for Use for F2 Frame; F2-01:

The F2 Frame, module frame with two slots, is intended to be used with compatible GE multiparameter patient monitors to interface with two single width parameter modules, CARESCAPE ONE with a slide mount, and recorder.

The F2 Frame is intended for use in multiple areas within a professional healthcare facility. The F2 Frame is intended for use under the direct supervision of a licensed healthcare practitioner, or by person trained in proper use of the equipment in a professional healthcare facility.

The F2 Frame is intended for use on adult, pediatric, and neonatal patients and on one patient at a time.

Hardware and software modifications carried out on the legally marketed predicate device CARESCAPE B850 V3.2, resulted in new products CARESCAPE Canvas 1000 and CARESCAPE Canvas Smart Display, along with the CARESCAPE Canvas D19 and F2 Frame (F2-01) all of which are the subject of this submission.

CARESCAPE Canvas 1000 and CARESCAPE Canvas Smart Display are new modular multi-parameter patient monitoring systems. In addition, the new devices CARESCAPE Canvas D19 and F2 Frame (F2-01) are a new secondary display and new module frame respectively.

The CARESCAPE Canvas 1000 and CARESCAPE Canvas Smart Display patient monitors incorporates a 19-inch display with a capacitive touch screen and the screen content is user-configurable. They have an integrated alarm light and USB connectivity for other user input devices. The user interface is touchscreen-based and can be used also with a mouse and a keyboard or a remote controller. The system also includes the medical application software (CARESCAPE Software version 3.3). The CARESCAPE Canvas 1000 and CARESCAPE Canvas Smart Display include features and subsystems that are optional or configurable.

The CARESCAPE Canvas 1000 and CARESCAPE Canvas Smart Display are compatible with the CARESCAPE Patient Data Module and CARESCAPE ONE acquisition device via F0 docking station (cleared separately).

For the CARESCAPE Canvas 1000 patient monitor, the other type of acquisition modules, E-modules (cleared separately) can be chosen based on care requirements and patient needs. Interfacing subsystems that can be used to connect the E-modules to the CARESCAPE Canvas 1000 include a new two-slot parameter module F2 frame (F2-01), a five-slot parameter module F5 frame (F5-01), and a seven-slot parameter module F7 frame (F7-01).

The CARESCAPE Canvas 1000 can also be used together with the new secondary CARESCAPE Canvas D19 display. The CARESCAPE Canvas D19 display provides a capacitive touch screen, and the screen content is user configurable. The CARESCAPE Canvas D19 display integrates audible and visual alarms and provides USB connectivity for other user input devices.

Please note that the provided text is a 510(k) summary for a medical device and primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device through non-clinical bench testing and adherence to various standards. It explicitly states that clinical studies were not required to support substantial equivalence. Therefore, some of the requested information regarding clinical studies, human expert involvement, and ground truth establishment from patient data will likely not be present.

Based on the provided text, here's the information regarding acceptance criteria and device performance:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not present a formal table of specific, quantifiable acceptance criteria alongside reported performance data. Instead, it states that various tests were conducted to demonstrate that the design meets specifications and complies with consensus standards. The performance is generally reported as "meets the specifications," "meets the EMC requirements," "meets the electrical safety requirements," and "fulfilled through compliance."

However, we can infer some "acceptance criteria" based on the standards and tests mentioned:

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

• Test Set Sample Size: The document implies that the "test set" for performance evaluation was the device itself and its components as described ("CARESCAPE Canvas 1000, CARESCAPE Canvas Smart Display, CARESCAPE Canvas D19 and F2 Frame (F2-01)").
  • For usability testing, "16 US Clinical, 16 US Technical and 15 US Cleaning users" were involved.
• Data Provenance: The testing described is non-clinical bench testing.
  • For usability testing, the users were located in the US.
  • No direct patient data or retrospective/prospective study data is mentioned beyond the device's inherent functional characteristics being tested according to standards.

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

• Number of Experts: Not applicable in the context of establishing "ground truth" for patient data, as no clinical studies with patient data requiring expert adjudication were conducted or reported to establish substantial equivalence.
• For usability testing, "16 US Clinical, 16 US Technical and 15 US Cleaning users" participated. Their specific qualifications (e.g., years of experience, types of healthcare professionals) are not detailed in this summary.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not applicable, as no clinical studies with patient data requiring adjudication were conducted or reported.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done, and the Effect Size of How Much Human Readers Improve with AI vs. Without AI Assistance

• No MRMC study was done, as the document explicitly states: "The subjects of this premarket submission... did not require clinical studies to support substantial equivalence." The device is a patient monitor, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool for image interpretation or similar.

6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Was Done

• The performance evaluations mentioned (e.g., for general device functionality, electrical safety, EMC, specific parameter measurements like ECG/arrhythmia detection) represent the device's standalone performance in a bench setting, demonstrating its adherence to established standards and specifications. There is no separate "algorithm only" performance study reported distinctly from integrated device testing. The EK-Pro V14 algorithm, which is part of the device, is noted as "identical" to the predicate, implying its performance characteristics are maintained.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• For the non-clinical bench testing, the "ground truth" was established by conformance to internationally recognized performance and safety standards (e.g., IEC, ISO, AAMI/ANSI) and the engineering specifications of the device/predicate. These standards define the acceptable range of performance for various parameters.
• For usability testing, the "ground truth" was the successful completion of tasks and overall user feedback/satisfaction as assessed by human factors evaluation methods.
• No ground truth from expert consensus on patient data, pathology, or outcomes data was used, as clinical studies were not required.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not applicable. This document describes a 510(k) submission for a patient monitor, not a machine learning or AI model trained on a dataset. The device contains "Platform Software that has been updated from version 3.2 to version 3.3," but this refers to traditional software development and not a machine learning model requiring a "training set" in the AI sense.

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

• Not applicable, as there is no mention of a "training set" in the context of machine learning. The software development likely followed conventional software engineering practices, with ground truth established through design specifications, requirements, and verification/validation testing.

Ask a specific question about this device

The NC10 and NC12 patient monitors are intended to be used for monitoring, displaying, alarming and storing of multiple physiological parameters These parameters include ECG (3-lead or 12-lead selectable, arrhythmia detection, heart rate (HR)), Respiration rate (RR), temperature (Temp), SpO2, pulse rate (PR), non-invasive blood pressure (NIBP), invasive blood pressure (IBP), cardiac output (C.O.), carbon dioxide (CO2), anesthetic gas (AG), and Bispectral index (BIS) for a single patient.

All parameters can be monitored on single adult, pediatric, and neonatal patients except:

• · BIS monitoring is intended for adult and pediatric patients only;
• · C.O. monitoring is restricted to adult patients only;
  · Arrhythmia analysis is intended to use on adult patients only and is not intended and shall not be used on pediatric and neonatal population.
• · When using COMEM SpO2, the monitor is intended to be used on adult patients only.
• · NIBP measurement continual mode is not applicable to neonates.

The monitors are to be used in general healthes by clinical physicians or appropriate medical staff under the direction of physicians.

The monitors are not intended for helicopter transport, hospital ambulance, or home use.

The monitors do not measure, display, or trend changes in the ST segment.

The monitors do not intend for use as apnea monitors.

The monitors are not intended for use in MRI or CT environments.

The monitors are not used on patients who have a demonstrated need for cardiac monitoring known arrhythmias of VT, Accelerated Idioventricular rhythm and Torsades de Pointes.

The NC10 and NC12 patient monitors are intended to be used for monitoring, displaying, reviewing, alarming and storing multiple physiological parameters. These parameters include ECG (3-lead, 5-lead or 12-lead selectable, arrhythmia detection, heart rate (HR)), Respiration rate (RR), temperature (Temp), SpO2, pulse rate (PR), non-invasive blood pressure (NIBP), invasive blood pressure (IBP), cardiac output (C.O.), carbon dioxide (CO2), anesthetic gas (AG), and Bispectral index (BIS) for a single patient.
All parameters can be monitored on single adult, pediatric, and neonatal patients except:
BIS monitoring is intended for adult patients only; C.O. monitoring is restricted to adult patients only; Arrhythmia analysis is intended for use with adult patients only and is not intended and shall not be used on pediatric and neonatal population. When using COMEM SpO2, the monitor is intended to be used on adult patients only. NIBP measurement continual mode is not applicable to neonates. Both models are designed with:
Same system framework and components
Same hardware design principle
Same software platform
Same parameters measurement subsystems (including parameters modules and accessories)
The only difference between NC10 and NC12 is the display size.

The acceptance criteria and supporting study details for the Multi-Parameter Patient Monitor (NC10 and NC12) are provided below, based on the given FDA 510(k) summary.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly present specific "acceptance criteria" for each physiological parameter in a tabular format with corresponding "reported device performance." Instead, it compares the subject device's specifications to those of the predicate device, stating that the subject device's performance aligns with or is a subset of the predicate's performance, and that the device meets relevant consensus standards. The "Comparison" column in the provided tables indicates "Same" for most parameters, implying that the subject device's performance is equivalent to the established performance of the predicate device. For the "Comen SpO2" feature, where there's a difference, the document states, "The SpO2 accuracy met ISO 80601-2-61 and was validated by the clinical study," indicating that its performance meets the standard.

Here's a condensed representation of the key performance specifications for the subject device (NC10 and NC12), which also serve as implied acceptance criteria given the "Same" comparison to the predicate:

The document implies that the "reported device performance" for the subject device meets or is equivalent to these specified ranges and accuracies through bench testing and clinical studies, confirming compliance with relevant standards.

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: The document does not specify exact numerical sample sizes for each clinical test. It mentions that clinical accuracy of NIBP, SpO2, and respiratory rate were validated for the intended patient population.
  • For SpO2 accuracy, it states the validation was done "using the method outlined in ISO 80601-2-61:2017 and the FDA guidance Pulse Oximeters - Premarket Notification Submissions [510(k)s]: Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff, March 2013." These standards typically require a certain number of subjects (often healthy volunteers) with induced hypoxemia for desaturation studies to demonstrate accuracy across the specified range. However, the exact number is not provided in this summary.
  • For NIBP accuracy, it states validation was "according to ISO 81060-2 which contains the requirements for clinical accuracy and the protocols for investigating the NIBP determination clinical accuracy." This standard also prescribes specific subject enrollment criteria and measurement methods.
  • For Respiratory Rate (RR) accuracy, it was validated "by clinical testing to compare the measurement of the subject device and that of a clinician-scored capnography device, manually scored end-tidal CO2 (EtCO2) capnography." The sample size for this is not detailed.
• Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin of the data. It also does not explicitly state whether the studies were retrospective or prospective, though clinical validation studies for device clearance are typically prospective. It does say "All clinical accuracy validation studies were conducted in accordance with standard ISO 14155:2020," which governs clinical investigation of medical devices, generally implying prospective collection.

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

The document does not provide details on the number or qualifications of experts used for establishing ground truth, as it is a multi-parameter patient monitor.

• For SpO2, the ground truth would typically be established by a CO-oximeter reading during a controlled desaturation study, as per ISO 80601-2-61. This is a highly objective measurement.
• For NIBP, ground truth is typically established by direct intra-arterial blood pressure measurements, not by expert consensus.
• For Respiratory Rate, the ground truth was "clinician-scored capnography device, manually scored end-tidal CO2 (EtCO2) capnography." This implies clinically trained personnel, but their specific qualifications or number are not provided.
• For Arrhythmia Analysis, and other subjective physiological monitoring parameters, the ground truth source is not explicitly mentioned but typically relies on expert interpretation of ECG waveforms or other data.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not detail any adjudication methods (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) for the test set, as most of the parameters are quantitative measurements compared against an objective reference standard rather than subjective interpretations requiring adjudication.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done

This document describes a multi-parameter patient monitor, which is a measurement device, not an AI-assisted diagnostic imaging tool. Therefore, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study comparing human readers with and without AI assistance is not applicable to this type of device and was not conducted. The study aims to demonstrate that the device's measurements are accurate and equivalent to predicate devices, not to show an improvement in human reader performance.

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

The entire device, including its algorithms for parameter measurement and arrhythmia detection, operates in a "standalone" fashion to generate the values and alarms displayed to the clinician. The performance validated (e.g., accuracy of SpO2, NIBP, RR, arrhythmia detection) is the inherent performance of the device's algorithms and hardware. While a human uses the device and interprets its output, the core measurements are algorithm-driven.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• SpO2: CO-oximetry in a controlled desaturation study (objective, gold-standard reference for SpO2 saturation).
• NIBP: Direct intra-arterial blood pressure measurements (objective, gold-standard).
• Respiratory Rate: Clinician-scored capnography device, manually scored end-tidal CO2 (EtCO2) capnography. (This suggests an expert-derived observation from an objective measurement, or comparison to another well-established measurement device).
• ECG/Arrhythmia Detection and other parameters: The document implies comparison to established methods and compliance with relevant ISO standards, which would typically involve highly accurate reference measurements and possibly expert review of waveforms for specific event detection.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not provide information about a training set or its sample size. This is common for device clearances that focus on performance validation rather than machine learning algorithm development where distinct training and test sets are crucial. The device's algorithms are likely based on established physiological principles and signal processing, rather than deep learning from a massive training dataset.

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

As no specific training set is mentioned in the filing summary for this device, information regarding the establishment of its ground truth is not applicable or provided. The device's performance is demonstrated through its adherence to established international standards and clinical testing against reference methods.

Ask a specific question about this device

The RespArray™ patient monitor is intended to be used for monitoring, storing, of, and to generate alarms for, multiple physiological parameters of adults, pediatrics and neonates. The monitors are intended for use by trained healthcare professionals in hospital environments.
The monitor is for prescription use only.
The monitored physiological parameters include: ECG, respiration (RESP), temperature (TEMP), oxygen saturation of arterial blood (SpO2), pulse rate (PR), non-invasive blood pressure (NIBP), and carbon dioxide (CO2).
The arrhythmia detection and ST Segment analysis are intended for adult patients.
The SpO2 (NellcorTM) module is intended to be used for spot-check or continuous non-invasive monitoring of functional oxygen saturation of arterial hemoglobin (SpO2) and pulse rate (PR), in motion conditions, and in patients who are well or poorly perfused.
The MicrostreamTM capnography module is intended for continuous non-invasive monitoring of carbon dioxide concentration of the expired and inspired breath (etCO2) and respiration rate (RR).
The monitor also provides the clinician with integrated pulmonary index (IPI), apnea per hour (A/hr) and oxygen desaturation index (ODI) values. IPI is not intended for patients up to the age of one year. Allr and ODI are intended for ages 22 and up.
The monitors are not intended for MRI environments.

The RespArray patient monitor (hereinafter called RespArray) can perform long-time continuous monitoring of multiple physiological parameters. Also, it is capable of storing, displaying, analyzing and controlling measurements, and it will indicate alarms in case of abnormity so that doctors and nurses can deal with them in time.

The provided text is a 510(k) Premarket Notification summary for the "Patient Monitor: RespArray" device. This type of submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices, rather than conducting new clinical trials for de novo clearance or PMA approval. Therefore, the details requested about acceptance criteria, specific study design (like MRMC studies, sample sizes, expert ground truth establishment for AI/algorithm performance), and training set information are not typically found in these types of submissions, as the FDA review here centers on comparing the new device's specifications and performance to an existing, already cleared device.

The document primarily highlights the device's technical specifications and how they compare to a predicate device (Edan Instruments, Inc, Patient Monitor Model X8, X10, X12 - K192514), along with compliance with relevant electrical safety, EMC, and performance standards. It explicitly states "Clinical data: Not applicable."

Given this, I will extract the information that is present in the document and indicate where the requested information is not applicable or not provided within the scope of a 510(k) submission focused on substantial equivalence.

Analysis of the Provided Document for Device Acceptance Criteria and Study Proof

The provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification. For devices cleared via a 510(k), the primary "acceptance criterion" is often substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, demonstrated through comparative testing and adherence to recognized standards. Direct, explicit "acceptance criteria" presented as quantitative performance targets with a detailed study to prove they are met (as might be seen in AI/ML clearances for algorithms with novel functionalities) are typically not included in this type of submission for a patient monitor.

The "study" that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria is primarily non-clinical performance testing (bench testing) and software verification/validation to show that the device performs as intended and is as safe and effective as its predicate.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the provided document:

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

The document does not provide a table of explicit acceptance criteria/performance targets with quantitative results in the way one might expect for a new AI/ML algorithm. Instead, it demonstrates performance by stating compliance with recognized consensus standards and by comparing the subject device's specifications to those of its predicate device, showing "similar design features and performance specifications."

The closest representation of "performance" and "acceptance" is the "Predicate Device Comparison" table (pages 5-6). This table implicitly acts as the performance comparison against the predicate device that serves as the "acceptance" benchmark for substantial equivalence.

The document concludes that "the subject and predicate devices have similar design features and performance specifications. The technological differences between the subject and predicate devices do not raise different questions of safety or effectiveness."

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

The document states "Clinical data: Not applicable." Therefore, there isn't a "test set" in the sense of patient data used for clinical validation of, for example, an AI algorithm's performance. The "testing" primarily refers to non-clinical bench testing.

• Sample size: Not applicable for patient data test set. For bench testing, samples would be physical devices, components, or simulated signals, but a "sample size" in terms of patient numbers is not provided.
• Data provenance (e.g., country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective): Not applicable, as no clinical data test set was used/provided.

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

Not applicable. Since no clinical data test set was described and "Clinical data: Not applicable" is stated, there was no need for expert ground truth establishment for a test set. This type of information would be relevant for AI/ML device clearances where human expert annotation is part of the ground truth creation.

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

Not applicable, as no clinical test set requiring adjudication of ground truth was 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

No. The document explicitly states "Clinical data: Not applicable." MRMC studies are typically for evaluating the impact of AI algorithms on human reader performance, which is not the scope of this 510(k) submission for a patient monitor.

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

The device is a patient monitor with various physiological parameter measurements and alarms. Its "performance" is inherent in its ability to accurately measure these parameters and detect events like arrhythmias. The non-clinical bench testing demonstrated its standalone performance by showing compliance with relevant standards (e.g., IEC 60601-2-27 for ECG, IEC 80601-2-30 for NIBP, ISO 80601-2-61 for pulse oximeter).

While not explicitly called "standalone algorithm performance" in the AI/ML sense, the "Performance testing-Bench" section (page 8) confirms that "Edan has conducted functional and system level testing to validate the performance of the results of the bench testing show that the subject device meets its accuracy specification and meet relevant consensus standards." This demonstrates the device's functional performance in isolation.

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

For the non-clinical bench testing, the "ground truth" would be established by:

• Reference instruments or calibrated signals (e.g., precise electrical signals for ECG, known pressure values for NIBP, calibrated gas mixtures for CO2).
• Standardized measurement protocols defined by the cited IEC/ISO standards.
• Accuracy specifications found within those standards or the device's own specifications.

There's no mention of expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data as "ground truth" because this is a measurement and alarm device, not a diagnostic imaging AI algorithm, and no clinical data was used for validation in this submission.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This device is a patient monitor, not an AI/ML algorithm that undergoes a distinct training phase on a dataset. The underlying algorithms for parameter measurement (e.g., NIBP oscillometric algorithm, arrhythmia detection) are established engineering designs, not typically "trained" in the machine learning sense with large datasets.

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

Not applicable, as there is no specific "training set" for an AI/ML algorithm described. The "ground truth" for the development and calibration of the monitor's measurement algorithms would have been established through engineering principles, laboratory testing with calibrated instruments, and referencing physiological models and data, but this is part of the device's fundamental design and not a separate "training set" as understood in current AI/ML contexts.

Ask a specific question about this device

The monitors are intended to be used for monitoring, storing, and to generate alarms for, multiple physiological parameters of adults and pediatrics. The monitors are intended for use by trained healthcare professionals in hospital environments.

The LM-8 monitor monitors parameters such as ECG (3-lead, 12-lead selectable), Respiration (RESP), Functional arterial oxygen saturation (SpO2), Invasive or noninvasive blood pressure (dual-IBP, NIBP), Temperature (dual-TEMP), Expired CO2 and Quick Temperature (Quick TEMP).

The LM-10 monitor monitors parameters such as ECG (3-lead, 12-lead selectable), Respiration (RESP), Functional arterial oxygen saturation (SpO2), Invasive or noninvasive blood pressure (2/4 channels IBP, NIBP), Cardiac Output (C.O.), Temperature (dual-TEMP) and Expired CO2.

The LM-12 monitor monitors parameters such as ECG (3-lead, 12-lead selectable), Respiration (RESP), Functional arterial oxygen saturation (SpO2), Invasive or noninvasive blood pressure (2/4 chamels IBP, NIBP), Cardiac Output (C.O.), Temperature (dual-TEMP), Expired CO2 and Anesthetic gas (AG).

The LM-15 monitors parameters such as ECG (3-lead, 5-lead, 12-lead selectable), Respiration (RESP), Functional arterial oxygen saturation (SpO2), Invasive or noninvasive blood pressure (2/4 channels IBP, NIBP), Cardiac Output (C.O.), Temperature (dual-TEMP), Expired CO2 and Anesthetic gas (AG).

The arrhythmia detection and ST Segment analysis are intended for adult and pediatric patients.

The monitors are not intended for MRI environments.

LM-8, LM-10, LM-12 and LM-15, patient monitor integrates parameter measuring modules, display and recorder in one device, featuring in compactness, lightweight and portability. Replaceable built-in battery facilitates patient transport. Large high-resolution display provides clear view of 10 waveforms and full monitoring parameters. Patient Monitor can monitor vital signal such as ECG, respiration (RESP), non-invasive blood pressure (NIBP), oxygen saturation of the blood (SpO2), temperature (TEMP), invasive blood pressure (IBP), cardiac output (C.O.), CO2 and anesthetic gas (AG). Those signals are digitized, processed and examined for alarm conditions, after that presents all those information on the color TFT display. The monitor also provides advantageous operating control for the user.

The provided text is an FDA 510(k) summary for a Patient Monitor (models LM-8, LM-10, LM-12, LM-15). It primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices through technical comparisons and compliance with general performance standards.

However, the document does not contain the detailed information necessary to answer all aspects of your request regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving the device meets those criteria in the context of an AI/algorithm-driven medical device performance study.

Specifically, the document lacks:

• A explicit table of acceptance criteria for algorithm performance (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, F1-score for arrhythmia detection).
• Detailed results of a study demonstrating the device meets specific performance criteria for arrhythmia detection or ST-segment analysis (beyond basic functional checks).
• Information on sample size for test sets directly related to algorithm performance (as opposed to overall device safety/functionality).
• Data provenance, number of experts for ground truth, adjudication methods, or MRMC studies, which are typical for AI/ML device evaluations.
• Training set details for any AI/ML components.

The "Performance data" section refers to "Clinical data" for validation, but these appear to be general functional validation tests on physiological parameters (ECG, RESP, SpO2, NIBP, etc.) to ensure the monitors function as intended, rather than a specific study to validate the performance of the arrhythmia detection and ST Segment analysis algorithm against clinical ground truth. The statement "The clinical data demonstrate that the subject devices perform comparably to the predicate device that is currently marketed for the same intended use" is a high-level conclusion without supporting details beyond the comparative features table.

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

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

The document doesn't provide a specific table of quantitative acceptance criteria for the arrhythmia detection and ST segment analysis algorithm (e.g., sensitivity, specificity thresholds) and corresponding reported performance metrics. It lists general parameters and their measurement ranges, which are functional specifications, not performance criteria for an arrhythmia detection algorithm.

General device functional specifications (from comparison table, not acceptance criteria for algorithm):

The document notes that "The arrhythmia detection and ST Segment analysis are intended for adult and pediatric patients" and that "Clinical tests were performed on the LM-8, LM-12 and LM-15 monitors to validate their performance in terms of ECG...". However, it does not specify what constituted "validation" for these particular algorithmic features or what the performance metrics were. The "Conclusion" states: "The clinical data demonstrate that the subject devices perform comparably to the predicate device that is currently marketed for the same intended use." This is the reported device performance for these features: "comparable to predicate."

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not specified for the "Clinical data" related to ECG/arrhythmia/ST validation. The statement is general: "Clinical tests were performed on the LM-8, LM-12 and LM-15 monitors..."
• Data Provenance: Not specified (e.g., country of origin, retrospective or prospective).

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 specified. The document does not describe how ground truth for arrhythmia or ST segment analysis was established for clinical testing.

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

• Not specified.

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:

• No, an MRMC study is not mentioned. This device is a monitor, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool for interpretation by a human reader in the typical sense of an MRMC study for imaging. It provides "arrhythmia detection and ST Segment analysis" algorithms directly to the user.

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

• The "Clinical data" statement indicates the monitors' performance was validated. Given the nature of a patient monitor, the arrhythmia and ST segment analysis would inherently be "standalone" algorithmic functions integrated into the device, providing automated analysis. However, specific performance metrics (like sensitivity/specificity of the algorithm itself) from this standalone evaluation are not presented.

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

• Not specified. It is generally implied that such devices are validated against accepted physiological measurement standards and potentially manually confirmed ECG interpretations, but the document does not detail this for the arrhythmia/ST segment analysis.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable/Not specified. The document does not indicate that the arrhythmia detection or ST segment analysis algorithms utilize machine learning or require a "training set" in the sense of AI/ML development. It's likely these are based on established rule-based or signal processing algorithms, not learned from data.

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

• Not applicable. (See #8)

In summary, this 510(k) submission successfully demonstrates substantial equivalence through technical specifications, comparisons to predicate devices, and compliance with general safety and performance standards (e.g., electrical safety, EMC, biocompatibility, software verification/validation). However, it does not detail a specific performance study for its arrhythmia detection and ST segment analysis algorithms in a way that typically applies to AI/ML clearance, which would include explicit acceptance criteria, detailed test set characteristics, and ground truth methodologies. The "clinical data" section is very high-level and only states comparability to predicate devices.

Ask a specific question about this device