Search Results

The Red Light is intended to treat full face wrinkles.
The Blue Light is intended to treat mild to moderate inflammatory acne.
The Yellow Light is intended to treat wrinkles.

The GLAM LED light therapy mask is a home use wearable light emitting diode phototherapy device whose purpose is to produce an even, cool, narrow band of light for the treatment of full face wrinkles and mild to moderate acne of the face. The outer shell of the mask is manufactured from Polyethylene terephthalate (PET). The inner shell is a clear Polycarbonate (PC). The Light emitting diodes are mounted behind the clear Polycarbonate. The LEDs generate the light. The ear hooks are made of Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) and the silicone goggle protect the eyes from LED lights. Unfold the ear hooks and place the mask on your face, the mask will automatically activate the light therapy mode. The LEDs produce blue, red and yellow light in the visible spectrum (Blue:415nm +/- 10nm, Yellow: 590nm +/-10nm, Red: 625nm +/-10nm.). The device works by emitting the specified wavelengths to treat full face of wrinkles or to treat mild to moderate inflammatory acne. Press the touch switch on the right ear hook twice to select the light therapy mode you want to use. Each mode operates in a 15-minute cycle. After 15 minutes, the device automatically deactivates the light mode and enters the standby mode.

This FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the GLAM LED Facial Mask (TB-2386F) does not include any information regarding clinical testing, acceptance criteria for device performance related to efficacy (e.g., wrinkle reduction or acne treatment), or studies comparing the device's performance against such criteria.

The letter focuses on the substantial equivalence based on:

• Technological Comparison: Comparing light wavelengths, power density, and treatment time to predicates.
• Safety Standards Compliance: Verification through non-clinical tests (electrical safety, EMC, biocompatibility, photobiological safety, software verification).

Therefore, I cannot provide details on the specific acceptance criteria for efficacy or a study proving the device meets those criteria from the provided document. The 510(k) summary explicitly states: "No animal or clinical study is included in this submission."

However, if we were to hypothesize what acceptance criteria and a study might look like for a device with these indications, and then illustrate what would be missing from this document:

Hypothetical Acceptance Criteria and Performance Study (Not Found in Provided Document):

Since the provided document explicitly states no clinical study was included, the following tables and sections represent what would typically be expected for a device claiming therapeutic efficacy, but none of this information is present in the provided 510(k) clearance letter.

Hypothetical Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (If Clinical Data Existed)

Ask a specific question about this device

The Heager Medical Laser Family device is intended for delivery of laser light to soft tissue in the contact and non contact mode during surgical procedures. The device's 980nm laser is generally indicated for use in incision, excision, vaporization, ablation, hemostasis or coagulation of soft tissue in ear, nose and throat and oral surgery (otolaryngology), dental procedures, gastroenterology, general surgery, dermatology, plastic surgery, podiatry, urology, gynecology. The device is further indicated for laser assisted lipolysis. The device's 1470nm laser is intended for delivery of laser light to soft tissue in non-contact mode during general surgery procedures, indicated for the treatment of reflux of the saphenous veins associated with varicose veins and varicosities.

The Heager Medical Laser Family generates a 980nm wavelength laser to act on a target tissue to achieve hemostasis, ablation, and coagulation of the target tissue. The Heager Medical Laser Family generates a 1470 nm wavelength laser that acts on the water molecules of the target tissue to achieve the function of treatment of reflux of the saphenous veins associated with varicose veins and varicosities.

The Heager Medical Laser Family has following characteristics:

• Dual wavelengths
• Temperature monitoring system

This document is a 510(k) clearance letter for a medical laser device, not a study report. Therefore, it does not contain the specific details about acceptance criteria and study results you requested in the format typically found in a clinical or performance study.

Based on the provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the Heager Medical Laser Family, here's what can be extracted and what information is not available within this document:

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

The document does not explicitly state acceptance criteria in a quantitative, measurable way for device performance in terms of clinical outcomes or diagnostic accuracy. Instead, it demonstrates substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on technical specifications and adherence to recognized electrical and safety standards.

The "reported device performance" is primarily presented as technical specifications and compliance with safety standards rather than clinical performance metrics.

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

This information is not available in the provided document. As this is a 510(k) for a laser surgical instrument, the primary "test set" would be the device itself tested against engineering and safety standards, not a clinical data set in the way an AI/diagnostic device would have. The document explicitly states: "No clinical study implemented for the Diode laser therapy device."

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)

This information is not available. Given that "No clinical study implemented," there would be no ground truth established by experts in a clinical context for the purpose of a study demonstrating effectiveness. The "ground truth" here is the adherence to engineering standards and technical specifications.

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

This information is not available. Adjudication methods are typically associated with clinical studies involving human observers or raters, which were not conducted for this 510(k) submission.

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

This information is not applicable and not available. This is a laser surgical instrument, not an AI software/diagnostic device that would involve human readers or AI assistance in interpretation.

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

This information is not applicable and not available. This is not an algorithm or AI device.

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

The "ground truth" in this 510(k) context is primarily compliance with recognized electrical, safety, and performance standards (e.g., IEC standards) and technical specifications of the device, demonstrated through non-clinical testing.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not applicable and not available. There is no "training set" in the context of an AI/machine learning model for this type of laser device 510(k) submission.

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

This information is not applicable and not available for the same reason as point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device

The LED Light Therapy Mask (Model: FCM902, FCM905, FCM906, FCM908, 11-001-RBMASK, FCM910) is an Over-the-Counter (OTC) device intended for treatment of wrinkles and mild to moderate inflammatory acne.

FCM902, FCM905, FCM906, FCM908:
a.Red light: Treatment of full-face wrinkles.
b.Blue+Infrared light: Treatment of mild to moderate inflammatory acne.
c.Yellow+Infrared light: Treatment of full-face wrinkles.

11-001-RBMASK:
a.Red+Infrared light: Treatment of full-face wrinkles.
b.Blue light: Treatment of mild to moderate inflammatory acne.

FCM910:
a.Red+Infrared light: Treatment of full-face wrinkles.
b.Blue light: Treatment of mild to moderate inflammatory acne.
c.Yellow+Infrared light: Treatment of full-face wrinkles.

The LED Light Therapy Mask (FCM902, FCM905, FCM906, FCM908, 11-001-RBMASK, FCM910) adopts light emitting diodes (LED) in the red (630nm ±5nm) , infrared (880nm±5nm) and blue (415±5nm) spectrum to irradiate on the face to realize its therapeutic effect.

For FCM902, FCM905, FCM906, FCM908 and FCM910, it also contain yellow (590±5nm) spectrum and green (520±5nm) spectrum.

The LED Light Therapy Mask adopts the form of a mask that contains LEDs on the inner surface of the main unit. A controller is connected to the main unit to control the device, such as turn on/off the device, switch mode (LED color). To use the device, user should place the mask over the face and use the controller to operate. The device will automatically turn off after each treatment. To prevent irradiation of LED lights to eyes during the treatment, LED Light Therapy Mask has incorporated protective eye-shield which blocks light energy from LEDs.

a. Red light: Treatment of full-face wrinkles.
b. Blue+Infrared light: Treatment of mild to moderate inflammatory acne.
c. Yellow+Infrared light: Treatment of full-face wrinkles.
d. Green Light: light in wavelength 520nm(±5nm). Green light makes users feel like they are outside in a green world, which may make users relax, which has no medical therapeutic effect.
e. Red+Infrared light: Treatment of full-face wrinkles.
f. Blue light: Treatment of mild to moderate inflammatory acne.

The provided FDA 510(k) Clearance Letter concerns an LED Light Therapy Mask for treating wrinkles and mild to moderate inflammatory acne. However, this document is a clearance letter and a 510(k) summary, not a clinical study report. It primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on technological characteristics and non-clinical testing.

Therefore, the document does NOT contain the details required to answer many of the specific questions about acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets those criteria, particularly those related to clinical performance, human reader studies, or expert ground truth.

The information provided is mostly about device specifications, comparison to predicates, and compliance with non-clinical safety standards (electrical safety, biocompatibility, photobiological safety). It states that "Non-clinical testings have been conducted to verify that the LED Light Therapy Mask meets all design specifications which supports the conclusion that it's Substantially Equivalent (SE) to the predicate device."

Based on the provided text, I can only address what is explicitly mentioned or can be reasonably inferred. Most of the questions below would require a separate clinical study report, which is not part of this 510(k) summary.

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance (Based only on the provided 510(k) Summary):

The acceptance criteria for this device, as inferred from the 510(k) summary, are primarily centered around Substantial Equivalence (SE) to legally marketed predicate devices for the specified indications for use, and compliance with relevant safety and performance standards for an OTC device. The "performance" reported is largely in terms of meeting these technical and safety standards, rather than clinical efficacy metrics from a new human study.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Regarding the study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria:

Based solely on the provided 510(k) summary, the "study" proving the device meets acceptance criteria appears to be a non-clinical testing program focused on product safety and performance standards for substantial equivalence. There is no mention of a human clinical study, an AI component requiring a test set for diagnostic accuracy, or experts establishing ground truth in a clinical context within this document.

Therefore, I cannot provide answers for many of the following questions as the requested information is not present in the provided text.

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

• Not applicable / Not provided. The document describes non-clinical testing of the device itself (electrical, photobiological, biocompatibility, software V&V), not a clinical test set from patients.

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

• Not applicable / Not provided. There is no mention of a test set requiring expert-established ground truth for performance evaluation in this 510(k) summary. This typically applies to AI/CADe devices or clinical efficacy studies, neither of which are detailed here.

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

• Not applicable / Not provided. Since no clinical test set or expert ground truth process is described, an adjudication method is irrelevant.

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, not done / Not applicable. This device is an LED light therapy mask, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool. An MRMC study is completely irrelevant to this type of device and its 510(k) clearance.

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

• Not applicable. There is no "algorithm only" performance study as this is a physical light therapy device, not a diagnostic algorithm.

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

• Not applicable / Not provided for clinical efficacy. For the non-clinical tests, the "ground truth" would be the specified parameters and limits of the IEC/ISO standards (e.g., maximum allowable leakage current, certified photobiological safety levels, biocompatibility thresholds). There is no mention of a clinical ground truth (e.g., for wrinkle reduction or acne treatment) from a study in this document.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable / Not provided. This device is cleared based on substantial equivalence and compliance with non-clinical performance standards. It implies a known or existing mechanism of action (light therapy) rather than a newly developed AI algorithm that requires a training set of data.

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

• Not applicable / Not provided. As no training set for an algorithm is mentioned, the method for establishing its ground truth is also not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

The FEATHER 01 02 03 04 (Model: 01) is an Over the-Counter (OTC) device intended for the use in treating wrinkles on the face.

FEATHER 01 02 03 04 (Models: 01) is an over-the-counter light emitting diode (LED) device that emits energy for use in dermatology for the treatment of wrinkles. The device works by simultaneously emitting 630nm±10nm, 660nm±10nm, 850nm±10nm wavelengths for the treatment of wrinkles. There is only one power/control key on the device, press and hold it for 1.5s to turn on or off the device. Short press the button to adjust the intensity, the white indicator light means the device is running, the flash quickly indicator light means the device is low on power, the slow flashes indicator light means the device is charging.

Based on the provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the FEATHER 01 02 03 04 (Model:01) device, here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them.

It's important to note that the provided document is a 510(k) summary, which generally focuses on substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than detailed clinical trial results for effectiveness when non-clinical tests are deemed sufficient. For this specific device, the submission explicitly states that "Clinical testing was not needed for this 510(k). The non-clinical performance testing described above is sufficient to support that the device can be used safely and effectively." Therefore, the "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" refers to the non-clinical testing, not a clinical trial demonstrating efficacy.

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Since no clinical efficacy study was conducted for this 510(k) submission, the "acceptance criteria" primarily relate to safety and performance characteristics that demonstrate substantial equivalence to predicate devices. The performance is assessed through non-clinical testing against recognized standards.

Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Study Details (Non-Clinical Performance Testing)

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

   • Sample Size: Not specified in terms of number of devices tested. For non-clinical performance and safety testing against standards (e.g., IEC 60601 series), usually a sample of devices is tested to demonstrate consistent performance and compliance. The document does not provide specific numbers of units tested.
   • Data Provenance: The testing appears to be conducted by the manufacturer or a third-party testing facility, as indicated by compliance reports against international standards (IEC).
   • Retrospective or Prospective: This type of non-clinical testing is inherently prospective, as it involves newly manufactured devices undergoing specific tests to demonstrate compliance.

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

   • Not applicable in the typical sense for this submission. Ground truth for non-clinical performance testing is established by compliance with objective, measurable engineering and safety standards (e.g., electrical parameters, light output, battery performance). These are verified by accredited testing labs or qualified in-house engineers, not typically "experts" in the clinical interpretation sense.

3. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

   • Not applicable. Results are based on objective measurements against predefined thresholds specified in the engineering and safety standards. There's no subjective interpretation requiring adjudication.

4. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study:

   • No. The document explicitly states: "Clinical testing was not needed for this 510(k). The non-clinical performance testing described above is sufficient to support that the device can be used safely and effectively." Therefore, no MRMC study, AI assistance, or human reader improvement data is presented.

5. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance:

   • This is not an AI/algorithm-driven diagnostic or treatment device in the context of typical standalone performance studies. It is a light-emitting medical device. The "software" mentioned is for device operation (e.g., power control, intensity adjustment), and its validation ensures the proper functioning of the device, not an algorithm's performance in interpreting data or making clinical decisions.

6. Type of Ground Truth Used:

   • For safety and performance testing, the "ground truth" is defined by the requirements of the international consensus standards (e.g., IEC 60601-1, IEC 62471, IEC 62133-2) and the specifications of the predicate devices. The device is deemed "effective" (in the context of a 510(k) for this type of device) if it meets these safety and performance benchmarks and is substantially equivalent to legally marketed devices for its intended use. There is no pathology or outcomes data presented from a clinical study.

7. Sample Size for the Training Set:

   • Not applicable. This is not a machine learning or AI device that requires a "training set" of data for algorithm development. The testing described is for hardware and embedded software compliance.

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

   • Not applicable, as there is no training set for an AI/ML algorithm.

Ask a specific question about this device

The IPL Hair Removal Device is an over-the-counter device indicated for the removal of unwanted hair such as but not limited to small areas such as underarm and facial hair below the chin line and large areas such as legs.

The device is also indicated for the permanent reduction in hair regrowth, defined as the long term, stable reduction in the amount of hair regrowing when measured at 6, 9 and 12 months after the completion of a treatment regime.

The IPL Hair Removal Device is a personal, light-based, hair reduction device intended to be sold over-the-counter directly to the end user.

The device provides hair reduction using Intense Pulsed Light technology(suitable for model T21A, T21B and T22A, T22B). The device provides hair reduction using Intense Pulsed Light technology and cooling technology (suitable for model T14B, T16B, T19B, T15B, T17C, T18B, T21C, T21D, T25B, T25C).

The Intense Pulsed Light technology works below the skin's surface and does not involve any cutting or pulling, reducing hair growth with minimal pain. The device is only powered by the external power adapter and its IPL emission activation is by finger switch. The device contains a Quartz glass Xenon lamp and a skin sensor to detect appropriate skin contact. If the device is not properly and fully applied to the skin of the treatment area, the device will not emit light pulses; If the device is properly and fully applied to the skin of the treatment area, the device can emit light pulses in as quickly as 0.5 seconds. In automatic mode, it supports continuous flashing and automatic light emission.

In auto-recognition skin color mode, the skin tone sensor can detect and identify the color of skin, and determine the required intensity based on the recognized skin color. Make sure the skin tone sensor is in full contact with the skin. If a valid skin color is detected, the corresponding energy level is displayed. If it is not in full contact with the skin, the energy level is 0 and no light pulses are emitted.

The cooling technology based on the temperature difference electrical phenomenon through the semiconductor cooling chip inside the IPL main device and uses the principle of the Peltier effect to achieve the purpose of cooling function. The cooling panel is located around the light-emitting window (suitable for model T14B, T16B, T19B) and does not affect the irradiated area (spot size) of the light outlet; The cooling panel is constructed with sapphire, (suitable for model T15B, T17C, T18B, T21C, T21D, T25B, T25CB) and does not affect the irradiated area (spot size) of the light outlet.

The device is available in two designs: straight-panel and gun-shaped, both featuring a compact and lightweight form factor. Moreover, The enterprise has reserved an ample quantity of lamp heads to ensure maintenance accessibility and end-user convenience.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter and summary contain information about the IPL Hair Removal Device. However, they do not include any specific details about acceptance criteria or a clinical study proving the device meets those criteria for hair reduction efficacy and safety on human subjects.

The document primarily focuses on technical comparisons to predicate devices and adherence to various electrical, photobiological, and biocompatibility safety standards. It mentions "Performance data supports that the device is safe and as effective as the predicate device for its intended use" (Page 7), but it does not describe what this performance data entails in terms of clinical efficacy trials.

Therefore, I cannot provide a detailed response to your request for acceptance criteria and a study that proves the device meets them, as the necessary information is not present in the provided text.

Specifically, the following information is missing from the provided document:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance for clinical efficacy: The document states the device is indicated for "permanent reduction in hair regrowth," but no quantitative acceptance criteria (e.g., "X% hair reduction in Y% of subjects") or corresponding performance results from a clinical study are provided.
2. Sample size used for the test set and data provenance: No clinical study data involving human subjects is described, so sample size and data provenance are not available.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth and qualifications: This would be relevant for clinical efficacy studies (e.g., expert assessment of hair counts or density). Such information is not present.
4. Adjudication method for the test set: Not applicable as no clinical efficacy study details are provided.
5. MRMC comparative effectiveness study: Not mentioned, as no clinical efficacy study is described.
6. Standalone (algorithm only) performance: Not applicable for a hair removal device, as its performance is inherently human-applied.
7. Type of ground truth used: For hair removal, ground truth would typically be objective measurements of hair count/density or expert photographic assessment. No such details are given.
8. Sample size for the training set: Not applicable, as this device is not an AI/ML algorithm that requires a "training set" in the context of clinical efficacy demonstration.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

The "Performance Data" section (Page 16) only lists compliance with:

• Biocompatibility Testing: ISO 10993 standards for cytotoxicity, irritation, and skin sensitization.
• Electrical Safety and EMC Safety: IEC 60601 series standards.
• Eye Safety: IEC 62471 standard.
• Software Verification and Validation: Stating "all software requirement specifications are met and all software hazards have been mitigated."

These are all technical and safety performance data points, not clinical efficacy data to support the "permanent reduction in hair regrowth" claim. The FDA clearance is based on substantial equivalence, implying that the device's technical specifications and safety profile are similar enough to previously cleared devices, which would have had their own supporting clinical data. However, the details of this device's specific clinical performance data are not included in this summary.

Ask a specific question about this device

TRUDERMAL Pro (Model: ZLD-390) is an over-the-counter(OTC) device that delivering targeted phototherapy using three wavelengths(blue:415nm, red:630nm, Infrared(IR):850nm):

Red light: Reduces full-face wrinkles.
Blue light: Treats mild to moderate inflammatory acne.
IR light: Provides topical heating for the purpose of elevating tissue temperature, temporarily relieving minor muscle and joint pain, arthritis and muscle spasms; relieving stiffness; promoting relaxation of muscle tissues and temporarily increasing local blood circulation.

Mixed lights:
Red+IR light: Reduces full-face wrinkles.
Blue+Red light:Treats mild to moderate inflammatory acne.

The TRUDERMAL Pro is an over-the-counter LED light therapy medical device. The device emits specific wavelengths of low level, narrow band light for the treatment of certain dermatological and musculoskeletal indications. The wavelengths used in the TRUDERMAL Pro system are Blue 415nm, Red 630nm and Near Infrared 850nm.

The device consists of a TRUDERMAL Pro (with LED flexible silicone panel, Controller and AC/DC adapter), power cable, and 2 base seats, a pair of eye protectors. The TRUDERMAL Pro enables treatment of the face and the body via a LED flexible silicone panel.The system is operated by a controller and treatments can be performed by selecting different wavelengths. The light is generated by Light Emitting Diodes(LED's) that are contained within the LED flexible silicone panel. The LED panel can be placed into the Base, holding in the appropriate position to administer a facial treatment. For use on the body,the LED panel is removed from the Base unit and placed over the appropriate body part.

The device is not used to make measurements of any sort, or to draw any conclusions regarding the indication to treat. The device does not require checks on the light output as the LEDs do not dim with age to any practical extent.

I apologize, but I cannot fulfill your request to create a table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance, nor can I describe a study that proves the device meets specific acceptance criteria based solely on the provided FDA 510(k) Clearance Letter for TRUDERMAL Pro (ZLD-390).

Here's why:

• No Performance Data or Acceptance Criteria in the Document: The provided 510(k) clearance letter and its associated summary (510(k) Summary) do not contain any information about specific performance acceptance criteria or the results of clinical performance studies that demonstrate the device meets such criteria.
  • The document states, "Clinical testing was not needed for this 510(k). The non-clinical performance testing described above is sufficient to support that the device can be used safely and effectively." This explicitly indicates that no clinical performance data (which would typically include performance against acceptance criteria) was provided or evaluated for this 510(k) submission.
  • The non-clinical tests mentioned (electrical safety, EMC, biocompatibility, software V&V) are regulatory compliance tests, not performance studies assessing the therapeutic efficacy against specific clinical endpoints or acceptance criteria.

Therefore, I cannot extract or infer the following information from the provided text:

1. Table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance: This data is not present. The document explicitly states clinical testing was not needed.
2. Sample size used for the test set and data provenance: Since no clinical performance study was conducted or reported, there is no test set, sample size, or data provenance information.
3. Number of experts used to establish ground truth & qualifications: Not applicable, as no clinical performance study data relying on expert ground truth is provided.
4. Adjudication method for the test set: Not applicable.
5. MRMC comparative effectiveness study: Not conducted or reported. The device is a phototherapy device, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool, so an MRMC study is generally not relevant.
6. Standalone (algorithm only) performance study: Not applicable. This is a physical phototherapy device, not an algorithm.
7. Type of ground truth used: Not applicable.
8. Sample size for the training set: Not applicable, as this is a phototherapy device, not an AI model that would have a "training set" in the traditional sense.
9. How ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

What the document does provide regarding "performance" is:

• Comparison to Predicate Devices: The submission argues for substantial equivalence by comparing the TRUDERMAL Pro's technical characteristics (wavelengths, irradiance, treatment time) to legally marketed predicate devices. The claim is that "The subject device's wavelengths, treatment time, irradiance and radiation dose are similar and close to those of the predicate devices," and this, combined with non-clinical tests, "supports that the subject device is safe and as effective as the predicate devices for its intended use."
• Non-Clinical Test Summary: This section lists the electrical safety, electromagnetic compatibility, biocompatibility, and software verification/validation tests performed, demonstrating compliance with relevant industry standards (IEC, ISO). These tests ensure the device is safe and functions as designed electrically and mechanically, but they do not prove clinical efficacy against specific performance metrics related to wrinkle reduction, acne treatment, or pain relief.

In summary, the provided FDA document is a clearance letter and 510(k) summary that emphasizes substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices based on design, intended use, and non-clinical safety testing, rather than presenting a performance study with defined acceptance criteria and clinical results.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Diode laser device is intended for hair removal, permanent hair reduction on all skin types (Fitzpatrick skin type I-VI),including tanned skin. Permanent hair reduction is defined as the long-term, stable reduction in the number of hairs regrowing when measured at 6, 9, and 12 months after the completion of a treatment regime.

Diode laser device consists of a main unit, a handheld, a foot switch and a power cord.

Device composition and handle characteristics: The device includes a handle with a single-band 808nm semiconductor laser, and the semiconductor lasers of the handle are powered by the laser power supply in the host to emit the laser of the corresponding wavelength.

Working principle of semiconductor laser: Semiconductor laser uses semiconductor materials of different doping types as laser working substance, uses natural cleavage surface to form resonant cavity for laser oscillation and amplification, and adds forward voltage to PN junction area of semiconductor laser to form particle number inversion of non-equilibrium carrier between conduction band and valence band of semiconductor substance. When a large number of electrons and holes in particle number inversion state are recombined, excess energy will be released, and these energies will be expressed in the form of photons, that is, laser is formed. Due to resonance amplification of cleavage surface resonant cavity, stimulated feedback is realized, so that laser can be directionally emitted and output from semiconductor laser.

This 510(k) clearance letter and summary primarily focus on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, which is typical for Class II medical devices. The information provided does not contain a detailed study report with specific acceptance criteria related to a performance study for the device's efficacy (hair removal/reduction). Instead, it relies on comparison to a predicate device and adherence to recognized standards for safety and performance.

Here's an analysis based on the provided text:

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

The document does not explicitly state "acceptance criteria" in the context of a clinical or performance study with numerical targets for efficacy (e.g., a certain percentage of hair reduction). Instead, it relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device that is already legally marketed for the same indication. The "performance" assessment is based on the similarity of technical specifications and the successful completion of non-clinical tests to applicable standards, ensuring safety and basic functionality.

• Spot Size: Different, but argued not to affect safety and effectiveness, only treatment area.
• Fluence: Different from the primary predicate but similar to a reference device (K241642), ensuring effectiveness is "not affected." Safety argued to be no problem due to lower max fluence than the predicate.
• Dimension/Weight: Different but argued not to affect safety/effectiveness and comply with mechanical performance standards. |
  | Safety Testing | Compliance with recognized safety standards. | The device passed non-clinical tests verifying compliance with IEC 60601-1, IEC 60825-1, IEC 60601-2-22, ISO 10993-10, ISO 10993-23, ISO 10993-5, and IEC 60601-1-2. These standards cover general safety, laser safety, specific laser equipment safety, biocompatibility (skin sensitization, irritation, cytotoxicity), and electromagnetic compatibility. |

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

The document explicitly states: "No clinical study is included in this submission."

Therefore:

• Sample size for the test set: Not applicable (no clinical test set was used for this submission).
• Data provenance: Not applicable.

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

Not applicable, as no clinical study or test set with expert-established ground truth was part of this submission. The "ground truth" for clearance in this context is established by the FDA's acceptance of substantial equivalence to an already cleared device, which presumably had clinical data at the time of its own clearance.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

Not applicable, as no clinical test set requiring adjudication was used.

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 laser for hair removal, not an AI-assisted diagnostic or imaging device that would typically involve human readers or MRMC studies.

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

Not applicable. This is a physical medical device (diode laser), not a software algorithm.

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

For the purpose of this 510(k) submission, the "ground truth" for the device's indications for use and general safety/effectiveness is implicitly the regulatory clearance and established performance of the predicate devices. The applicant is demonstrating that their device is sufficiently similar to these predicates to be considered equally safe and effective.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable, as no clinical study was conducted. There is no "training set" in the context of this 510(k) submission for efficacy.

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

Not applicable, as no clinical study or training set was used.

Ask a specific question about this device

M01, M02, M06, M07, M08:

• Red light: Treatment of full-face wrinkles.
• Red+Infrared Light: Treatment of full-face wrinkles.
• Amber light: Treatment of full-face wrinkles.
• Blue light: Treatment of mild to moderate inflammatory acne.

M09:

• Red+Infrared Light: Treatment of full-face wrinkles.
• Amber light: Treatment of full-face wrinkles.
• Mixed light: Treatment of mild to moderate inflammatory acne.

LED Light Therapy Mask is a home use wearable LED phototherapy device which can help reduce facial wrinkles and mild to moderate inflammatory acne. LED Light Therapy Mask is consisting of main unit (mask), controller, Type-C charging cable and so on. There are 4 kinds of light, including Red light (wavelength 630nm), Blue light (wavelength 415nm), Amber light (wavelength 605nm), Infrared light (wavelength 850nm).

The M01, M02, M06, M07, M08 output 4 kinds of treatment modes: red+infrared, red, amber, blue. The M09 outputs 3 kinds of treatment modes: red+infrared, amber, blue+red+infrared.

This FDA 510(k) clearance letter does not describe a study that proves the device meets acceptance criteria. Rather, it indicates clearance due to substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on non-clinical testing.

Here's a breakdown of why the requested information cannot be provided from the given document:

• No Clinical Study Details: The document explicitly states "Non-Clinical and/or Clinical Tests Summary & Conclusions (21 CFR 807.92(b))" and then lists only non-clinical tests (ISO 10993-1, IEC 60601-1, IEC 60601-1-2, IEC 60601-1-11, IEC 60601-2-83, IEC 62471). There is no mention of any clinical study, patient data, ground truth establishment, or expert reviews.

Therefore, for your subsequent requests regarding acceptance criteria and a study that proves the device meets them, the following answers are based on the absence of such information in the provided document:

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

• Acceptance Criteria: Not explicitly stated in the document. The clearance is based on substantial equivalence to predicate devices, implying performance comparable to those devices rather than specific quantitative acceptance criteria for clinical efficacy.
• Reported Device Performance: Not reported in clinical terms. The document only references non-clinical testing for safety and electrical performance.

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

• Not applicable as no clinical study test set is described. The non-clinical tests would have involved specific samples (e.g., device units, materials for biocompatibility) but these are not "test sets" in the context of clinical performance evaluation.

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 applicable as no clinical study with a test set requiring ground truth establishment is described.

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

• Not applicable as no clinical study with a test set requiring adjudication is 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 MRMC comparative effectiveness study was done, nor is there any mention of AI in this device. This is an LED light therapy mask, not an AI diagnostic tool.

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

• Not applicable as this is an LED light therapy mask, not an algorithm or AI device.

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

• Not applicable as no clinical study requiring ground truth is described.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable as this is an LED light therapy mask; there is no mention of machine learning or an algorithm requiring a training set.

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

• Not applicable as this is an LED light therapy mask; there is no mention of machine learning or an algorithm requiring a training set with established ground truth.

Summary of what is contained in the document regarding "proof" of meeting criteria:

The FDA clearance for the LED Light Therapy Mask (K251667) is based on substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices, not on a new clinical study demonstrating specific efficacy or performance criteria. The "proof" provided in the 510(k) summary focuses on non-clinical testing and technological comparisons:

• Non-Clinical Testing:

  • Biological evaluation (ISO 10993-1:2018)
  • Electrical safety (IEC 60601-1:2020)
  • Electromagnetic compatibility (IEC 60601-1-2:2020)
  • Home healthcare environment requirements (IEC 60601-1-11:2020)
  • Specific requirements for home light therapy equipment (IEC 60601-2-83:2022)
  • Photobiological safety (IEC 62471:2006)

• Technological Comparison (Substantial Equivalence): The device's indications for use, power supply (lithium batteries tested per IEC 62133-2), LED wavelengths (red: 630nm, amber: 605nm, blue: 415nm, infrared: 850nm), irradiance levels, and safety features (Type BF applied part) were found to be similar or within the acceptable range of the predicate and reference devices.

Ask a specific question about this device

Olo is intended for vaporization and photocoagulation of benign vascular and benign pigmented lesions in soft tissues.

Olo is a device which emits laser radiation with a wavelength of 532 nm, which is delivered to the tissue through a transfer fiber and a handpiece or a scanner.

The Olo device electrical specifications are: 100-240V~, 50/60Hz, 600VA.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the El.En. S.p.A. Olo Laser Device does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a study proving that the device meets specific performance acceptance criteria for a diagnostic AI/ML device.

The document describes a laser surgical instrument, and its clearance is based on substantial equivalence to an existing predicate device (QuadroStar PRO). The "performance data" section explicitly states "Clinical Performance Data: None" and "Non-Clinical Performance Data" which refers to electrical safety, EMC, and software validation for the device's operational functions, not its diagnostic or an AI/ML component's performance.

Therefore, I cannot extract the requested information concerning acceptance criteria, study details, sample sizes, expert ground truth, MRMC studies, or training set specifics from the provided text. The device described appears to be a physical medical device (laser) and not a software as a medical device (SaMD) or an AI/ML-powered diagnostic tool as indicated by the nature of the questions.

If the "Olo Laser Device" does incorporate AI/ML for diagnostic purposes, the provided FDA clearance letter is insufficient to detail how its performance was evaluated against specific diagnostic acceptance criteria. This type of information would typically be found in a separate Premarket Submission for AI/ML-enabled Medical Devices Guidance document or within the full submission details, which are not provided here.

Ask a specific question about this device

IPL Hair Removal Device is an over-the-counter device intended for removal of unwanted body hair.

The IPL Hair Removal Device is a personal, light-based, hair reduction device intended to be sold over-the-counter directly to the end user. The device provides hair reduction using Intense Pulsed Light (IPL) technology, and it works below the skin's surface and does not involve any cutting or pulling, reducing hair growth with minimal pain. The IPL Hair Removal Device is only powered by the external power adapter and its IPL emission activation is by finger switch. The device contains a Xenon lamp and its built-in skin sensor to detect appropriate skin contact. If the device is not properly and fully applied to the treated skin, the device will not emit the light pulse. There are HCT-1208/HCT-1208B/HCT-1208L 3 models in this application. Their work principle, intended use, structure, appearance，size，and operation are the same, with differences being product function are slight differences, but these parameters are within the predicate device and do not affect or change the intended use of the device.

This document is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter for an IPL Hair Removal Device (HCT-1208/HCT-1208B/HCT-1208L). The request asks to describe the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets those criteria, specifically concerning performance beyond basic safety and electrical testing.

However, the provided 510(k) clearance letter and summary primarily focus on establishing substantial equivalence to predicate devices through comparisons of technical specifications and robust safety testing (biocompatibility, electrical safety, eye safety, and software verification).

There is no detailed information provided in this document regarding a clinical performance study (e.g., patient trials, or studies that measure the actual effectiveness of hair removal) beyond the statement that "Performance data supports that the device is safe and as effective as the predicate device for its intended use." The "Performance Data" section specifically lists only safety and software V&V, not clinical efficacy.

Therefore, I cannot fully complete all sections of your request as the provided text does not contain the specific clinical performance study details you are asking for. The clearance is based on the device being "substantially equivalent" to predicate devices that are already cleared for the specified indications for use, and a demonstration that the new device meets relevant safety standards and its software functions as intended.

Here's what can be extracted and inferred based on the provided document:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance (Based on Provided Document)

While the document doesn't detail specific clinical efficacy acceptance criteria for the hair removal function, it does outline acceptance criteria for safety and technical performance, which are crucial for FDA clearance. The "study" proving these are met refers to the various engineering and safety tests performed.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• Clinical Performance Test Set: Not applicable / Not specified in this document for a clinical efficacy study. The document focuses on bench testing and safety compliance.
• Safety Testing (Biocompatibility, Electrical, Eye): The "sample size" for these tests would typically refer to the number of devices or material samples tested. This information is not detailed in the provided 510(k) summary (e.g., how many units underwent electrical safety testing).
• Data Provenance: Implied to be from the manufacturer's own testing conducted in China (where the manufacturer is located). The nature of these tests (e.g., bench testing) makes the "retrospective or prospective" classification less applicable than for clinical data.

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

• Not applicable for this type of submission. This 510(k) relies on standardized engineering and safety tests, and establishing "ground truth" for these types of tests is typically based on adherence to the specified international standards (e.g., IEC, ISO) and laboratory procedures, rather than expert consensus on observational data.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not applicable for this type of submission. Adjudication methods (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) are typically used in clinical studies where expert readers or evaluators independently assess data (e.g., medical images). The tests described here are compliance tests against predefined standards.

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

• No. An MRMC study is a specific type of clinical study used primarily for medical imaging devices to evaluate human reader performance with and without an AI algorithm. This document describes a physical hair removal device, not an imaging device, and does not mention any clinical comparative effectiveness study, especially not one involving human readers.

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

• Not applicable for this type of device. This device is a direct-use consumer product. While it has "Software Verification and Validation," this refers to the embedded software controlling the device's functions (e.g., light emission, skin sensor), not a standalone diagnostic algorithm whose performance would be measured independently.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• For safety and electrical performance: Ground truth is established by the requirements and methodologies outlined in the referenced international standards (e.g., ISO 10993 for biocompatibility, IEC 60601 series for electrical safety). The device's performance is measured against the specifications and limits defined by these standards.
• For substantial equivalence: The ground truth is the performance and safety data of the legally marketed predicate devices, against which the subject device is compared. The argument is that the subject device's technical characteristics and tested safety performance are "substantially equivalent" to these predicates.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not applicable. This document describes the clearance of a physical medical device, not a machine learning or AI model that requires a "training set" of data. The software verification mentioned refers to traditional software testing methodologies.

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

• Not applicable. (See point 8).

Ask a specific question about this device