Search Results

Fetal & Maternal Monitor (Model: F15A, F15A Air) is intended for providing Non-Stress testing or fetal monitoring for pregnant women from the 28th week of gestation. It is intended to be used only by trained and qualified personnel in antepartum examination rooms, labor and delivery rooms.

Fetal & Maternal Monitor (Model: F15A, F15A Air) is intended for real time monitoring of fetal and maternal physiological parameters, including non-invasive monitoring and invasive monitoring:

Non-invasive physiological parameters:

• Maternal heart rates (MHR)
• Maternal ECG (MECG)
• Maternal temperature (TEMP)
• Maternal oxygen saturation (SpO2) and pulse rates (PR)
• Fetal heart rates (FHR)
• Fetal movements (FM)
• FTS-3

Note: SpO2 and PR are not available in F15A Air.

Invasive physiological parameters:

• Uterine activity
• Direct ECG (DECG)

The F15A series fetal and maternal monitor can monitor multiple physiological parameters of the fetus/mother in real time. F15A series can display, store, and print patient information and parameters, provide alarms of fetal and maternal parameters, and transmit patient data and parameters to Central Monitoring System.

F15A series fetal and maternal monitors mainly provide following primary feature:

Non-invasive physiological parameters:

• Maternal heart rates (MHR)
• Maternal ECG (MECG)
• Maternal temperature (TEMP)
• Maternal oxygen saturation (SpO2) and pulse rates (PR)
• Fetal heart rates (FHR)
• Fetal movements (FM)
• FTS-3

Note: SpO2 and PR are not available in F15A Air.

Invasive physiological parameters:

• Uterine activity
• Direct ECG (DECG)

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter and summary for the Fetal & Maternal Monitor (F15A, F15A Air) do not contain the detailed information necessary to fully answer all aspects of your request regarding acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them.

The document focuses primarily on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device (Edan Instruments, Inc., F9 Express Fetal & Maternal Monitor, K173042) through comparison of intended use, technological characteristics, and conformance to various safety and performance standards. It mentions "functional and system level testing to validate the performance of the devices" and "results of the bench testing show that the subject device meets relevant consensus standards," but it does not specify quantitative acceptance criteria for each individual physiological parameter (e.g., FHR accuracy, SpO2 accuracy) nor the specific results of those tests beyond stating that they comply with standards.

Specifically, the document does not include information on:

• A table of acceptance criteria with specific quantitative targets for each parameter and the reported device performance values against those targets. It only states compliance with standards.
• Sample sizes used for a "test set" in the context of clinical performance evaluation (it mentions "bench testing," but this is typically laboratory-based and doesn't involve patient data in a "test set" sense for AI/algorithm performance validation).
• Data provenance for such a test set (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective).
• Number or qualifications of experts used to establish ground truth.
• Adjudication methods.
• Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) studies or human reader improvement data with AI assistance.
• Standalone (algorithm-only) performance, as this is a monitoring device, not a diagnostic AI algorithm.
• Type of ground truth (beyond "bench testing" which implies engineered signals or controlled environments).
• Sample size for a training set or how ground truth for a training set was established. This device is a traditional medical device, not an AI/ML-driven diagnostic or interpretative algorithm in the way your request implies.

Therefore, based solely on the provided text, I can only address what is present or infer what is missing.

Here's a breakdown based on the available information:

Analysis of Acceptance Criteria and Performance Testing based on Provided Document

The provided 510(k) summary focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device (F9 Express Fetal & Maternal Monitor, K173042) by showing that the new device (F15A, F15A Air) has the same intended use and fundamentally similar technological characteristics, with any differences not raising new safety or effectiveness concerns.

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

The document does not provide a specific table with quantitative acceptance criteria for each physiological parameter (e.g., FHR accuracy, SpO2 accuracy) and the corresponding reported performance values obtained in testing. Instead, it states that the device was assessed for conformity with relevant consensus standards. For example, it lists:

• IEC 60601-2-37:2015: Particular requirements for the basic safety and essential performance of ultrasonic medical diagnostic and monitoring equipment (relevant for FHR).
• ISO 80601-2-61:2017+A1:2018: Particular requirements for basic safety and essential performance of pulse oximeter equipment (relevant for SpO2).
• ISO 80601-2-56:2017+A1:2018: Particular requirements for basic safety and essential performance of clinical thermometers for body temperature measurement (relevant for TEMP).
• IEC 60601-2-27:2011: Particular requirements for the basic safety and essential performance of electrocardiographic monitoring equipment (relevant for MECG/DECG).

Acceptance Criteria (Inferred from standards compliance): The acceptance criteria are implicitly the performance requirements specified within these listed consensus standards. These standards set limits for accuracy, precision, response time, and other performance metrics for each type of measurement.

Reported Device Performance: The document states: "The results of the bench testing show that the subject device meets relevant consensus standards." This implies that the measured performance statistics (e.g., accuracy, bias, precision) for each parameter fell within the acceptable limits defined by the respective standards. However, the specific measured values are not provided in this summary.

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

The document mentions "Bench Testing" which implies laboratory-based testing using simulators, controlled signals, or phantoms, rather than a "test set" involving patient data. There is no information provided regarding:

• Sample size (e.g., number of recordings, duration of recordings, number of simulated cases) for the bench tests for each parameter.
• Data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective or prospective) as this is not a study involving patient data collection for performance validation.

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 is not applicable and not provided. For a traditional physiological monitor, ground truth for bench testing is typically established using:

• Calibrated reference equipment/simulators: e.g., ECG simulators to generate known heart rates, SpO2 simulators to generate known oxygen saturation levels.
• Physical standards/phantoms: e.g., temperature baths at known temperatures.
• Known physical properties: e.g., precise weights for pressure transducers.

Clinical experts are not involved in establishing ground truth for bench performance of these types of physiological measurements.

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

This is not applicable and not provided. Adjudication methods are relevant for human expert review of complex clinical data (e.g., medical images for AI validation) to establish a consensus ground truth. For bench testing of physiological monitors, ground truth is objectively determined by calibrated instruments or defined physical parameters.

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 is not applicable and not provided. An MRMC study is typically performed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of AI-assisted human interpretations versus unassisted human interpretations for AI-driven diagnostic devices. The Fetal & Maternal Monitor is a physiological monitoring device, not an AI-assisted diagnostic imaging or interpretation system. It measures and displays physiological parameters; it does not provide AI-driven assistance for human "readers" to interpret complex clinical information.

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

The device is a monitor that directly measures physiological parameters. It is not an "algorithm only" device in the sense of an AI model providing a diagnostic output. Its performance (e.g., FHR accuracy) is its standalone performance, as it directly measures these parameters. The document states "functional and system level testing to validate the performance of the devices," which would represent this type of standalone performance for the measurement functionalities. However, specific quantitative results are not given, only compliance with standards.

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

As explained in point 3, the ground truth for bench testing of physiological monitors is established using calibrated reference equipment/simulators and physical standards.

8. The sample size for the training set

This is not applicable and not provided. This device is a traditional physiological monitor, not a machine learning model that requires a "training set." Its algorithms for parameter measurement are based on established physiological principles and signal processing techniques, not on statistical learning from large datasets.

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

This is not applicable and not provided for the same reasons as point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device

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

• HemoSphere Advanced Monitor with HemoSphere Swan-Ganz Module: The HemoSphere advanced monitor when used with the HemoSphere Swan-Ganz module and Edwards Swan-Ganz catheters is indicated for use in adult and pediatric critical care patients requiring monitoring of cardiac output (continuous [CO] and intermittent [iCO]) and derived hemodynamic parameters in a hospital environment. Pulmonary artery blood temperature monitoring is used to compute continuous and intermittent CO with thermodilution technologies. It may also be used for monitoring hemodynamic parameters in conjunction with a perioperative goal directed therapy protocol in a hospital environment. Refer to the Edwards Swan-Ganz catheter and Swan-Ganz Jr catheter indications for use statements for information on target patient population specific to the catheter being used. Refer to the Intended Use statement for a complete list of measured and derived parameters available for each patient population.

• HemoSphere Advanced Monitor with HemoSphere Oximetry Cable: The HemoSphere Advanced Monitor when used with the HemoSphere Oximetry Cable and Edwards oximetry catheters is indicated for use in adult and pediatric critical care patients requiring monitoring of venous oxygen saturation (SvO2 and ScvO2) and derived hemodynamic parameters in a hospital environment. Refer to the Edwards oximetry catheter indications for use statement for information on target patient population specific to the catheter being used. Refer to the Intended Use statement for a complete list of measured and derived parameters available for each patient population.

• HemoSphere Advanced Monitor with HemoSphere Pressure Cable: The HemoSphere advanced monitor when used with the HemoSphere pressure cable is indicated for use in adult and pediatric critical care patients in which the balance between cardiac function, fluid status, vascular resistance and pressure needs continuous assessment. It may be used for monitoring of hemodynamic parameters in conjunction with a perioperative goal directed therapy protocol in a hospital environment. Refer to the Edwards FloTrac sensor, FloTrac Jr sensor, Acumen IQ sensor, and TruWave disposable pressure transducer indications for use statements for information on target patient populations specific to the sensor/transducer being used. The Edwards Acumen Hypotension Prediction Index software feature provides the clinician with physiological insight into a patient's likelihood of future hypotensive events and the associated hemodynamics. The Acumen HPI feature is intended for use in surgical or non-surgical patients receiving advanced hemodynamic monitoring. The Acumen HPI feature is considered to be additional quantitative information regarding the patient's physiological condition for reference only and no therapeutic decisions should be made based solely on the Acumen Hypotension Prediction Index (HPI) parameter. Refer to the Intended Use statement for a complete list of measured and derived parameters available for each patient population.

• HemoSphere Advanced Monitor with Acumen Assisted Fluid Management Feature and Acumen IQ Sensor: The Acumen Assisted Fluid Management (AFM) software feature provides the clinician with physiological insight into a patient's estimated response to fluid therapy and the associated hemodynamics. The Acumen AFM software feature is intended for use in surgical patients >=18 years of age, that require advanced hemodynamic monitoring. The Acumen AFM software feature offers suggestions regarding the patient's physiological condition and estimated response to fluid therapy. Acumen AFM fluid administration suggestions are offered to the clinician; the decision to administer a fluid bolus is made by the clinician, based upon review of the patient's hemodynamics. No therapeutic decisions should be made based solely on the Assisted Fluid Management suggestions. The Acumen Assisted Fluid Management software feature may be used with the Acumen AFM Cable and Acumen IQ fluid meter.

• HemoSphere Advanced Monitor with HemoSphere Technology Module and ForeSight Oximeter Cable: The non-invasive ForeSight oximeter cable is intended for use as an adjunct monitor of absolute regional hemoglobin oxygen saturation of blood under the sensors in individuals at risk for reduced-flow or no flow ischemic states. The ForeSight Oximeter Cable is also intended to monitor relative changes of total hemoglobin of blood under the sensors. The ForeSight Oximeter Cable is intended to allow for the display of StO2 and relative change in total hemoglobin on the HemoSphere advanced monitor.

  • When used with large sensors, the ForeSight Oximeter Cable is indicated for use on adults and transitional adolescents >=40 kg.
  • When used with medium sensors, the ForeSight Oximeter Cable is indicated for use on pediatric subjects >=3 kg.
  • When used with small sensors, the ForeSight Oximeter Cable is indicated for cerebral use on pediatric subjects

The HemoSphere Advanced Monitor was designed to simplify the customer experience by providing one platform with modular solutions for all hemodynamic monitoring needs. The user can choose from available optional sub-system modules or use multiple sub-system modules at the same time. This modular approach provides the customer with the choice of purchasing and/or using specific monitoring applications based on their needs. Users are not required to have all of the modules installed at the same time for the platform to function.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter and summary for the Edwards Lifesciences HemoSphere Advanced Monitor (HEM1) and associated components outlines the device's indications for use and the testing performed to demonstrate substantial equivalence to predicate devices. However, it does not contain the detailed acceptance criteria or the specific study results (performance data) in the format typically required to answer your request fully, especially for acceptance criteria and performance of an AI/algorithm-based feature like the Hypotension Prediction Index (HPI) or Assisted Fluid Management (AFM).

The document states:

• "Completion of all verification and validation activities demonstrated that the subject devices meet their predetermined design and performance specifications."
• "Measured and derived parameters were tested using a bench simulation. Additionally, system integration and mechanical testing was successfully conducted to verify the safety and effectiveness of the device. All tests passed."
• "Software verification testing was conducted, and documentation was provided per FDA's Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff, "Guidance for the Content of Premarket Submissions for Software Contained in Medical Devices". All tests passed."

This indicates that internal performance specifications were met, but the specific metrics, thresholds, and study designs for achieving those specifications are not detailed in this public summary.

Therefore, I cannot populate the table with specific numerical performance data against acceptance criteria for the HPI or AFM features, nor can I provide details on sample size, expert ground truth establishment, or MRMC studies, as this information is not present in the provided text.

The text primarily focuses on:

• Substantial equivalence to predicate devices.
• Indications for Use for various HemoSphere configurations and modules.
• Description of software and hardware modifications (e.g., integration of HPI algorithm, new finger cuffs).
• General categories of testing performed (Usability, System Verification, Electrical Safety/EMC, Software Verification) with a blanket statement that "All tests passed."

Based on the provided document, here's what can and cannot be stated:

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

Cannot be provided with specific numerical data or thresholds from the given text. The document only states that "all verification and validation activities demonstrated that the subject devices meet their predetermined design and performance specifications." No specific acceptance criteria values (e.g., "Accuracy > X%", "Sensitivity > Y%", "Mean Absolute Error

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 Ear Thermometer is intended to measure human body temperature of people over three months from surface of eardrum. It applies to both professional use and home use.

The ear thermometer is a handheld device that displays the temperature of the measured patient by measuring the thermal radiation of the eardrum. Measurement unit: °C or °F. The results can be displayed on LCD. The thermometers are powered by 1.5V×2 (AAA or AA) alkaline batteries, which can be used for people over three months. A thermopile sensor is employed to detect or monitor the infrared thermal energy emitted from the eardrum, which is converted into temperature measurement with the unit of °C or °F. All the models share the same critical components, intended use, working principle and similar product design, and compose of a sensor, PCB, buttons, LCD display and housing. Functions include temperature measurement, memory reading recall, unit switch, low battery detection and high temperature indicator.

The FDA 510(k) clearance letter and accompanying 510(k) Summary for the Ear Thermometers (EAR-E101, EAR-E102, EAR-E103) provide information on acceptance criteria and supporting studies.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device (Jiangsu Yuyue Medical Equipment & Supply Co., Ltd, Infrared Ear Thermometers YHT101 and YHT200, K203583). Thus, the "acceptance criteria" are largely framed as demonstrating equivalence or adherence to relevant standards. The performance data is presented in comparison to the predicate and overall compliance with standards.

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

• Non-clinical Data (Bench Testing): The document does not specify a "sample size" in terms of number of devices for bench testing. It states that "The device has been tested according to the following standards," implying tests were performed on representative samples to ensure compliance.
• Clinical Data: The summary states, "The clinical testing has been conducted per ISO 80601-2-56 Medical electrical equipment—Part 2-56: Particular requirements for basic safety and essential performance of clinical thermometers for body temperature measurement." However, the specific sample size (number of patients/measurements) and data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective) for this clinical study are NOT provided in the given document.

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

• Clinical Data: The document does not specify the number of experts or their qualifications for establishing ground truth in the clinical study. As it's an ear thermometer, the "ground truth" would typically come from a reference temperature measurement method (e.g., rectal thermometry) rather than expert interpretation of an image or signal.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

• Clinical Data: Given that the device measures a quantitative value (temperature), an adjudication method in the context of expert consensus (like multiple readers for an image) is generally not applicable. The comparison would be between the device's reading and the reference method's reading. The document does not describe any specific adjudication method for the clinical test set.

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 comparative effectiveness study was NOT done. This type of study (MRMC) is relevant for diagnostic imaging devices where human interpretation plays a significant role, sometimes aided by AI. This document is for an ear thermometer, a direct measurement device, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.

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

• Yes, a standalone performance was done for the ear thermometer. The device itself is designed to provide temperature readings directly, without requiring human interpretation or input to calculate the core measurement. The bench and clinical testing described aim to quantify this standalone performance in terms of accuracy and adherence to standards.

7. The type of ground truth used:

• Clinical Data: While not explicitly stated, for a clinical thermometer, the ground truth for performance testing is typically established by comparison against a standardized, highly accurate reference thermometer (e.g., a rectal thermometer or an oral thermometer with known accuracy) or a specialized blackbody calibrator in a controlled environment as specified by standards like ISO 80601-2-56. The document mentions "clinical accuracy test" and "performance test," strongly implying such a comparative methodology.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable / Not provided. The device is an ear thermometer, which is a sensor-based measurement tool, not an AI/machine learning algorithm that requires a "training set" in the conventional sense. The device's performance is determined by its design, calibration, and adherence to physical principles and engineering specifications, which are validated through bench and clinical testing.

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

• Not applicable. As noted above, the concept of a "training set" and its associated ground truth establishment is not relevant for this type of medical device submission.

Ask a specific question about this device

Temperature Probes are intended to be used for monitoring temperature. The temperature probes are reusable or for single patient use and designed for use with Mindray monitor Model PM-8000 and other monitors compatible with YSI 400 series temperature probes.
These devices are used by qualified medical professional only.

The subject devices are used for patient temperature measurement. The probes are reusable or disposable depending on models. These probes consist of a connector on the monitor end and a thermistor on the patient end. The working principle is resistance based on the metal conductor increases with temperature decrease, and the linear changes to the characteristics of the temperature measurement. The subject devices are designed to be used in healthcare facilities like hospital and compatible with a monitor of Mindray Model PM-8000 and other monitors compatible with YSI 400 series temperature probes.

The six models have two types of structure designs corresponding to reusable and disposable use which consists of different materials. The NTC of the six models are identical. Reusable models T1306, T2306, T3306, T4306 have a similar structure design with two different sensor shapes for different measure sites and consist of the same materials. Disposable models T5106 and T6106 have a similar structure design with two different sensor shapes for different measure sites and consist of the same materials.

Model: T1306, Description: Skin contact Temperature Probe, adult, reusable
Model: T2306, Description: Body cavity Temperature Probe, Esophageal/Rectal, adult, reusable
Model: T3306, Description: Skin contact Temperature Probe, pediatric, reusable
Model: T4306, Description: Body cavity Temperature Probe, Esophageal/Rectal, pediatric, reusable
Model: T5106, Description: Skin contact Temperature Probe, adult/ pediatric, disposable
Model: T6106, Description: Body cavity Temperature Probe, Esophageal/Rectal, adult/ pediatric, disposable

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter describes a medical device, the Reusable and Disposable Temperature Probes, but does not include information about AI/ML performance. Therefore, I will respond to the prompt by extracting the acceptance criteria and study information pertinent to this medical device, which focuses on traditional medical device performance rather than AI/ML.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them, based on the provided document:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Note: The document presents "Accuracy" and "Measurement Range" as inherent characteristics of the device and states that bench testing was conducted to verify that design specifications were met, which implies these values are the acceptance criteria.

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

The document does not explicitly state the sample sizes used for the test sets (e.g., number of units tested, number of temperature measurements, or specific test configurations) for the bench testing or biocompatibility testing.

The document also does not provide information about the provenance of data in terms of country of origin or whether studies were retrospective or prospective. The testing described appears to be laboratory-based verification and validation.

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

This information is not applicable and not provided in the document. The device is a clinical electronic thermometer, and its performance is assessed against technical specifications and international standards, not against human expert interpretation of medical images or data. Ground truth for temperature measurement is typically established by reference standards or calibrated equipment.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not applicable and not provided in the document. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are typically used in studies involving subjective assessment (e.g., image interpretation by multiple readers), which is not relevant for the objective performance testing of a temperature probe.

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

No. An MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not conducted as this is a medical device for objective temperature measurement, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool requiring human-in-the-loop performance evaluation. The document does not mention any AI assistance.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Study

No. This device is an electronic temperature probe, not an algorithm or software. Its performance is inherent to its physical and electrical properties, evaluated through bench testing against established standards.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth for the performance evaluations (accuracy, measurement range, electrical safety, etc.) would be established by:

• Reference Standards/Calibrated Equipment: For accuracy and measurement range, the device's readings would be compared against highly accurate and calibrated reference thermometers in controlled temperature environments.
• International Standards: Compliance with electrical safety (IEC 60601-1), EMC (IEC 60601-1-2), and thermometer-specific performance (ISO 80601-2-56) serves as the ground truth for safety and performance.
• Laboratory Analysis: For biocompatibility, laboratory tests (cytotoxicity, sensitization, irritation) are conducted to assess the biological response to the device materials according to ISO 10993 standards.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not applicable and not provided. This device is a hardware medical device with no mention of machine learning or algorithms that would require a "training set."

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

This information is not applicable. As there is no training set for an AI/ML algorithm involved, no ground truth was established for a training set.

Ask a specific question about this device

Celsi Warmer is intended for use in hospitals under a clinician's supervision or at their direction to assist nurses in continuous temperature monitoring and thermal treatment of neonates.

a. Maintain pre-set body temperature as determined by the physician.
b. Celsi Warmer is appropriate for neonates greater than 28 weeks gestational age who weigh between 1-4 kg.
c. Monitoring and controlling patient temperature.

The Celsi Warmer is a portable, non-invasive thermal regulating system, indicated for continuous temperature monitoring and thermal treatment of neonates that require extra warmth to maintain normal body temperature. It uses a non-invasive thermometer (using direct mode) that measures the temperature of an infant's skin via a temperature probe placed on their abdomen to provide input into a physiological control loop that controls the mattress temperature. The Celsi Warmer is intended for use in hospitals under a clinician's supervision and is appropriate for neonates greater than 28 weeks gestational age who weigh between 1-4 kg. The Celsi Warmer is comprised of the following components:

• Warming Mattress
• Controller Tower
• Celsi Temperature Probe and Celsi Belt
• Power Supply and Cables

I apologize, but the provided text from the FDA 510(k) Clearance Letter for the Celsi Warmer does not contain the detailed information necessary to answer your specific questions regarding acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets those criteria.

The document focuses on:

• Formal FDA clearance: Confirmation of the 510(k) submission, product classification, and general regulatory requirements.
• Device description and indications for use: What the Celsi Warmer is and what it's intended for.
• Comparison to a predicate device: Highlighting similarities in intent, technology, and use environment.
• Summary of non-clinical testing: A list of standards and types of testing performed (Biocompatibility, Software V&V, EMC/Electrical Safety, Usability).

However, it does not include:

1. A table of specific acceptance criteria and reported device performance: While it mentions testing, it doesn't provide the quantifiable metrics or the results of those tests.
2. Sample sizes for a test set, data provenance, ground truth establishment, or expert details for performance studies.
3. Details about MRMC comparative effectiveness studies or standalone algorithm performance.
4. Information on training set sample sizes or ground truth for training data.

The 510(k) summary typically provides a high-level overview. Detailed performance data, acceptance criteria, and study methodologies (like those involving expert human readers or specific statistical analyses) are usually found in the full 510(k) submission document, which is not publicly available in this format from the clearance letter.

Therefore, I cannot populate the table or provide answers to the specific questions based solely on the provided text.

Ask a specific question about this device

EpiMonitor is a prescription only medical device system composed of a wearable device "EmbracePlus" and paired mobile software application "EpiMonitor" intended as an adjunct to seizure monitoring in adults and children aged 6 and up in a home environment or healthcare facilities. The device is worn on the wrist and senses Electrodermal Activity (EDA) and motion data to detect patterns that may be associated with either primary or secondary generalized tonic clonic seizures in patients with epilepsy or at risk of having epilepsy. When a seizure event is detected, the wearable device component of EpiMonitor sends a command to a paired mobile device where the EpiMonitor App is programmed to initiate an alert to a designated caregiver. The EpiMonitor app incorporates additional detection sensitivity modes, "high" for use during periods of rest or sleeping or "low" for use during periods of low-intensity activity, in order to reduce false alarm incidents.

EpiMonitor records, stores and transmits accelerometer, EDA, peripheral skin temperature and activity data for subsequent retrospective review by a trained healthcare professional via a cloud-based software.

The EpiMonitor system consists of a wearable device and mobile application:

• A wearable medical device called EmbracePlus,
• A mobile application running on smartphones called "EpiMonitor"

The EmbracePlus is worn on the user's wrist and continuously collects raw data via specific sensors, these data are continuously analyzed by an on-board algorithm (EpiAlgo 2.1), which assesses the physiological data and determines if the user may be undergoing a generalized tonic-clonic seizure (GTCS). The EpiAlgo has been validated through testing, using the gold-standard video-Electroencephalogram (EEG) methodology designed by a group of epileptologists at a top level 4 epilepsy center, from epilepsy patients experiencing GTCSs in hospital Epilepsy Monitoring Units.

When a likely GTCS is detected, EmbracePlus sends, via Bluetooth Low Energy, a message to the EpiMonitor app. The EpiMonitor app communicates to the Empatica Cloud which initiates, through the external provider a voice call and SMS text message is sent to summon the attention of user-designated caregiver(s).

In addition to initiating alerts, the EpiMonitor app also continuously receives all the raw sensor data collected by the EmbracePlus. These data are analyzed by one of the EpiMonitor app software modules, EmpaDSP (paragraph 2.3.2), which computes the additional physiological parameters, such as activity during sleep and peripheral skin temperature.

The EpiMonitor App is also responsible for transmitting, over a cellular data plan or Wi-Fi connection the sensors' raw data, device information, and computed physiological parameters to the Empatica Cloud. On the Empatica Cloud, these data are stored, and made available to healthcare providers via a specific cloud-based software called Care Monitoring Portal.

Here's a summary of the acceptance criteria and study details for EpiMonitor, based on the provided FDA clearance letter:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance for EpiMonitor

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document doesn't explicitly state "acceptance criteria" for PPA and FAR in a table format. Instead, it presents the device's performance for these metrics, implying that these results were deemed acceptable by the FDA for clearance. For the purpose of this response, I'm interpreting the "reported device performance" as the achieved PPA and FAR values and will frame the "acceptance criteria" as the expectation for these metrics to be within reasonable clinical utility.

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

• Epilepsy Monitoring Unit (EMU) Data (Retrospective Analysis):

  • Patients for PPA: 12 patients (6-21 years old) and 12 patients (>21 years old).
  • GTCS events for PPA: 19 GTCS events (6-21 years old) and 17 GTCS events (>21 years old).
  • Patients for FAR: 80 patients (6-21 years old) and 61 patients (>21 years old).
  • Data Provenance: Retrospective analysis of previously collected clinical data from patients observed in Epilepsy Monitoring Units. The document mentions data from "epilepsy patients experiencing GTCSs in hospital Epilepsy Monitoring Units" for the validation of the algorithm (EpiAlgo 2.1).

• Real-World Data (Longitudinal Analysis) for Low-Sensitivity Mode:

  • Patients for PPA/FAR: 601 patients (6-21 years old) and 843 patients (>21 years old).
  • GTCS events for PPA: 1157 GTCS events (6-21 years old) and 3625 GTCS events (>21 years old).
  • Observation days for FAR: 37594.2 days (6-21 years old) and 56389.1 days (>21 years old).
  • Data Provenance: Longitudinal analysis of real-world data, based on sensor data captured using the Embrace2 wearable device. This suggests the data was collected prospectively in a real-world setting, but its analysis for this specific submission was retrospective.

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

• For the initial validation of EpiAlgo 2.1 (which supports the predicate device and is used in the subject device), the ground truth was "designed by a group of epileptologists at a top level 4 epilepsy center." The exact number of epileptologists and their specific years of experience are not provided. The method mentioned is "gold-standard video-Electroencephalogram (EEG) methodology."
• For the retrospective analyses presented, "adjudicated tonic-clonic seizure data" was used, implying expert review to establish the ground truth of GTCS events. The number and qualifications of the experts performing this adjudication for the analyses presented in Tables 1-4 are not explicitly stated.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

• The document implies clinical adjudication was performed to establish "adjudicated tonic-clonic seizure data" and the "gold-standard video-Electroencephalogram (EEG) methodology." However, it does not specify a particular adjudication method such as 2+1 or 3+1 for the test set data used in these retrospective analyses. It only mentions that the data was "adjudicated."

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

• No MRMC comparative effectiveness study was done.
• The document describes a standalone algorithm performance without human assistance for seizure detection.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance:

• Yes, a standalone performance evaluation of the algorithm (EpiAlgo ver 2.1) was conducted. The PPA and FAR metrics presented (Tables 1-4) reflect the performance of the algorithm without human-in-the-loop assistance for seizure detection and alerting.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used:

• Expert Consensus / Clinical Diagnosis (Video-EEG): For the initial validation of EpiAlgo 2.1, the ground truth was established using "gold-standard video-Electroencephalogram (EEG) methodology designed by a group of epileptologists." This indicates a high standard of clinical diagnosis and expert consensus.
• Adjudicated Data: For the retrospective analyses of EMU and real-world data, "adjudicated tonic-clonic seizure data" were used, implying expert review and decision-making on seizure events.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set:

• The document does not explicitly state the sample size for the training set of EpiAlgo ver 2.1. It mentions that EpiAlgo 2.1 was validated using data from epilepsy patients in EMUs, but this typically refers to validation/test sets, not specifically the training data.

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

• The method for establishing the ground truth for the training set is not detailed in this document. It only states that the EpiAlgo "has been validated through testing, using the gold-standard video-Electroencephalogram (EEG) methodology designed by a group of epileptologists at a top level 4 epilepsy center, from epilepsy patients experiencing GTCSs in hospital Epilepsy Monitoring Units." This description primarily refers to the validation data, not the data used for initial training.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Empatica Health Monitoring Platform is a wearable device and paired mobile and cloud-based software platform intended to be used by trained healthcare professionals or researchers for retrospective remote monitoring of physiologic parameters in ambulatory individuals 18 years of age and older in home-healthcare environments. As the platform does not provide real-time alerts related to variation of physiologic parameters, users should use professional judgment in assessing patient clinical stability and the appropriateness of using a monitoring platform designed for retrospective review.

The device is intended for continuous data collection supporting intermittent retrospective review of the following physiological parameters:

• Pulse Rate,
• Blood Oxygen Saturation under no-motion conditions,
• Respiratory Rate under no motion conditions,
• Peripheral Skin Temperature,
• Electrodermal Activity,
• Activity associated with movement during sleep

The Empatica Health Monitoring Platform can be used to analyze circadian rhythms and assess activity in any instance where quantifiable analysis of physical motion is desirable.

The Empatica Health Monitoring Platform is not intended for SpO2 monitoring in conditions of motion or low perfusion.

The Empatica Health Monitoring Platform is intended for peripheral skin temperature monitoring, where monitoring temperature at the wrist is clinically indicated.

The Empatica Health Monitoring Platform is not intended for Respiratory Rate monitoring in motion conditions. This device does not detect apnea and should not be used for detecting or monitoring cessation of breathing.

The Empatica Health Monitoring Platform is not intended for Pulse Rate monitoring in patients with chronic cardiac arrhythmias, including atrial fibrillation and atrial/ventricular bigeminy and trigeminy, and is not intended to diagnose or analyze cardiac arrhythmias. The Empatica Health Monitoring Platform is not a substitute for an ECG monitor, and should not be used as the sole basis for clinical decision-making.

The Empatica Health Monitoring Platform is a wearable device and software platform composed by:

• A wearable medical device called EmbracePlus,
• A mobile application running on smartphones called "Care App",
• A cloud-based software platform named "Care Portal".

The EmbracePlus is worn on the user's wrist and continuously collects raw data via specific sensors. These data are wirelessly transmitted via Bluetooth Low Energy to a paired mobile device where the Care App is up and running. The data received are analyzed by one of the Care App software modules, EmpaDSP, which computes the user physiological parameters. Based on the version of the Care App installed, the user can visualize a subset of these physiological parameters. The Care App is also responsible for transmitting, over cellular or WiFi connection sensors' raw data, device information, Care App-specific information, and computed physiological parameters to the Empatica Cloud. On the Empatica Cloud, these data are stored, further analyzed, and accessible by healthcare providers or researchers via a specific cloud-based software called Care Portal.

The Empatica Health Monitoring Platform is intended for retrospective remote monitoring of physiological parameters in ambulatory adults in home-healthcare environments. It is designed to continuously collect data to support intermittent monitoring of the following physiological parameters and digital biomarkers by trained healthcare professionals or researchers: Pulse Rate (PR), Respiratory Rate (RR), blood oxygen saturation (SpO2), peripheral skin temperature (TEMP), and electrodermal activity (EDA). Activity sensors are used to detect sleep periods and to monitor the activity associated with movement during sleep.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter and its attachments describe the acceptance criteria and study that proves the Empatica Health Monitoring Platform (EHMP) meets those criteria, specifically concerning a new Predetermined Change Control Plan (PCCP) for the SpO2 quality indicator (QI) algorithm.

1. Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are outlined for the proposed modification to the SpO2 Quality Indicator (QI) algorithm. The reported device performance is presented as a statement of equivalence to the predicate device, implying that the acceptance criteria are met, as the 510(k) was cleared.

Note: For the pre-existing functionalities (Pulse Rate, Respiratory Rate, Peripheral Skin Temperature, Electrodermal Activity, Activity and Sleep), the document states that "no changes to the computation... compared with the cleared version" have been introduced, implying their previous acceptance criteria were met and remain valid.

2. Sample Sizes and Data Provenance

• Test Set Sample Size: Not explicitly stated for the SpO2 algorithm modification. The document only mentions "enhancing the development dataset with new samples" for the ML-based algorithm and clinical testing was "conducted in accordance with ISO 80601-2-61... and ... FDA Guidelines for Pulse Oximeters." These standards typically require a certain number of subjects and data points, but the exact numbers are not provided in this public summary.
• Data Provenance: Not specified in the provided document. It does not mention the country of origin, nor whether the data was retrospective or prospective.

3. Number and Qualifications of Experts for Ground Truth

• Number of Experts: Not specified.
• Qualifications of Experts: Not specified. The document states the platform is "intended to be used by trained healthcare professionals or researchers," and later discusses "professional users" and "clinical interpretation," implying that the ground truth for clinical studies would likely involve such experts, but their specific roles, numbers, and qualifications for establishing ground truth are not detailed.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The adjudication method for establishing ground truth for the test set is not explicitly mentioned in the provided document.

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

There is no mention of a Multi Reader Multi Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study being conducted, nor any effect size regarding human readers improving with AI vs. without AI assistance. The device is for "retrospective remote monitoring" by healthcare professionals, implying an AI-driven data collection/analysis with human review, but not necessarily human-AI collaboration in real-time diagnostic interpretation that an MRMC study would evaluate.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance

The acceptance criteria for the SpO2 QI algorithm include "Bench testing conducted using a functional tester to simulate a range of representative signal quality issues." This falls under standalone performance, as it tests the algorithm's ability to discriminate data quality without direct human input. Clinical testing also evaluates the algorithm's accuracy (Arms error) in comparison to an established standard, which is also a standalone performance measure.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• For the SpO2 QI ML algorithm: The ground truth for low-quality and high-quality data discrimination seems to be an internal standard/reference based on the "FDA-cleared SpO2 algorithm" and potentially expert labeling of data quality during the "enhancing the development dataset."
• For the SpO2 Accuracy (Arms Error): The ground truth for SpO2 values would be established in accordance with ISO 80601-2-61, which typically involves comparing the device's readings against a laboratory co-oximeter or a reference pulse oximeter for arterial oxygen saturation.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

The document mentions "enhancing the development dataset with new samples" for the ML-based algorithm but does not specify the sample size for the training set.

9. How Ground Truth for Training Set was Established

The ground truth for training the ML-based SpO2 QI algorithm was established by "enhancing the development dataset with new samples." It also mentions performing "feature extraction and engineering on window lengths spanning a 10-30-second range." While it doesn't explicitly state the methodology, given the context of a "binary output" (high/low quality), it implies a labeling process, likely by human experts or based on predefined criteria derived from the previous FDA-cleared algorithm's performance on various data types. For the SpO2 accuracy, the ground truth would typically be established by a reference method consistent with the mentioned ISO standard and FDA guidance.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Radius VSM and accessories are intended to be used as both a wearable multi-parameter patient monitor and an accessory to a multi-parameter patient monitor that is intended for multi-parameter physiological patient monitoring in hospital and healthcare facilities.

The Radius VSM and accessories are indicated for the monitoring of hemodynamic (including ECG, arrhythmia detection, non-invasive blood pressure, SpO2, Pulse Rate, PVi, heart rate, and temperature), and respiratory (e.g., impedance, acoustic, and pleth-based respiration rate) physiological parameters along with the orientation and activity of adults.

The Radius VSM and accessories are indicated for the non-invasive continuous monitoring of functional oxygen saturation of arterial hemoglobin (SpO2) and Pulse Rate (PR) of well or poorly perfused adults during both no motion and motion conditions.

The Radius VSM and accessories are indicated for continuous monitoring of skin temperature of adults.

The Radius VSM and accessories are indicated for monitoring of the orientation and activity of patients including those susceptible to pressure ulcers.

The Radius VSM and accessories are indicated for the continuous non-invasive monitoring of PVi as a measure of relative variability of the photoplethysmograph (pleth) of adults during no motion conditions. PVi may be used as a noninvasive dynamic indicator of fluid responsiveness in select populations of mechanically ventilated adult patients. Accuracy of PVi in predicting fluid responsiveness is variable and influenced by numerous patient, procedure and device related factors. PVi measures the variation in the plethysmography amplitude but does not provide measurements of stroke volume or cardiac output. Fluid management decisions should be based on a complete assessment of the patient's condition and should not be based solely on PVi.

Devices with Masimo technology are only indicated for use with Masimo accessories.

Radius VSM Accessories:

Radius VSM ECG Electrodes are disposable, single-patient use ECG electrodes intended to acquire ECG signals from the surface of the body. They are indicated for use on adults for up to 3 days of skin surface contact.

Radius VSM Blood Pressure Cuffs are accessories intended to be used with a noninvasive blood pressure measurement system to measure blood pressure. They are indicated for use on adults during no motion conditions.

The Radius VSM and accessories are an FDA cleared (K223498), wearable, battery-operated, multi-modular patient monitoring platform that allows for the ability to scale and tailor the use of different monitoring technologies based upon the hospital and clinician's assessment of what technologies are appropriate.

As part of this submission, a MAP feature is being added to the Radius VSM. The feature is a software feature that uses the previously cleared systolic and diastolic measurement capabilities to automate the calculation of MAP using the following formula: MAP = 1/3* Systolic + 2/3*Diastolic.

The MAP is calculated by the Radius VSM NIBP Module and displayed on the Radius VSM Wearable Monitor. There were no other features added as part of this submission.

The provided 510(k) clearance letter and summary discuss the addition of a Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP) feature to the previously cleared Radius VSM and Accessories device. The primary focus of the performance data section is on validating this new MAP feature.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets them, based on the provided document:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document states that the acceptance criterion for Blood Pressure (including MAP) is:

"Meets ISO 81060-2 (Mean difference of ≤5 mmHg with a standard deviation of ≤8 mmHg)"

The document directly states that the results of the clinical testing supported the clinical performance of the MAP in accordance with ISO 81060-2. While specific numerical results (e.g., the exact mean difference and standard deviation achieved) are not explicitly provided in the summary table, the clearance implies that these metrics fell within the specified ISO 81060-2 limits for the MAP feature.

Table 1: Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance for MAP Feature (as inferred from the document)

Study Details for MAP Feature Validation

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

   • Sample Size: The document does not explicitly state the numerical sample size (number of subjects/patients) used for the clinical test set. It only mentions "clinical study data."
   • Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin. It indicates it was a "clinical study" and implies it was prospective ("clinical testing is provided to support its performance" for the added feature).

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

   • Not applicable as the ground truth was established by an objective reference device, not human experts.

3. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

   • Not applicable, as the method for ground truth establishment was comparison to a reference device.

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

   • No, an MRMC study was not done. The study was a comparison of the device's calculated MAP to invasively measured MAP from a reference device. This is a technical performance validation, not a study assessing human reader improvement with AI assistance.

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

   • Yes, this was a standalone performance study. The Radius VSM automatically calculates the MAP based on the NIBP measurements (Systolic and Diastolic Pressure). The clinical testing validated the accuracy of this calculation against a reference standard, without human intervention in the MAP calculation or interpretation for the test itself.

6. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

   • Reference Ground Truth: Invasively measured MAP values from a 510(k) cleared reference device (K171801). This reference device is identified as "IntelliVue Multi-Measurement Module X3." This constitutes a device-based reference standard or instrument-based ground truth.

7. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

   • The document does not provide information about a training set since the MAP feature appears to be a direct calculation using a standard formula (MAP = 1/3* Systolic + 2/3*Diastolic) rather than a machine learning model that requires a training phase. While the device as a whole (Radius VSM) likely had training and validation phases for its other parameters, the specific "addition of a Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP) feature" is described as a software feature that "automates the calculation" using a known formula. Therefore, a separate training set for this specific MAP feature is unlikely to have been required or used in the conventional machine learning sense.

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

   • As inferred above, a specific training set and ground truth establishment for this isolated MAP calculation feature are not described, given its nature as a direct formulaic calculation.

Summary of Key Information:

The core of this submission revolves around adding a simple, formula-based calculation for MAP. The primary study presented is a clinical validation confirming that the device's computed MAP aligns with a known industry standard (ISO 81060-2) when compared against an invasive reference device. This is a technical performance validation rather than a complex AI-driven diagnostic study.

Ask a specific question about this device