Search Results

Electrotherapy Electrodes are intended for use as the disposable, conductive adhesive interface between the patient's skin and the Electrical Stimulator. Electrotherapy Electrodes are intended to be used with marketed Electrical Stimulators, (i.e. TENS (Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation), EMS (Electrical Muscular Stimulation), IF (Interferential) or PGF (Pulsed Galvanic Stimulation)) for transmitting electrical current. The electrodes are for OTC (Over-The-Counter) or Prescription use.

Electrotherapy Electrodes provide a means for establishing electrical contact between the lead connected to a TENS, EMS or NMES stimulation device and the skin, and are multi-layer, flexible structures composed of laminated materials commonly used in the application:

1st layer: Insulation material: Tan fabric
2nd layer: Double sides adhesive tape
3rd layer: Conductive film (Carbon Film)
4th layer: Self-adhesive conductive hydrogel
5th layer: Plastic release film
Connection: Leadwire/Snap button

The electrodes are designed for single-patient & single application use. Because of the adhesive nature of the conductive hydrogel, no securing materials are required to secure the device to the patient's skin.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter and summary for the Electrotherapy Electrodes (K250841) does not describe a study involving AI or human reader performance. Instead, it focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device through non-clinical performance and biocompatibility testing.

Therefore, many of the requested details about acceptance criteria for AI and human performance studies, expert involvement, adjudication, MRMC studies, standalone AI performance, and ground truth establishment cannot be found in this document.

However, I can extract the acceptance criteria and performance data related to the non-clinical tests that were performed to demonstrate substantial equivalence for this device.

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance (Non-Clinical)

The device, Electrotherapy Electrodes (K250841), is a Class II cutaneous electrode. The study described focuses on demonstrating its substantial equivalence to a predicate device (ZMI Self-Adhesive Electrodes, K180865) primarily through non-clinical performance and biocompatibility testing. No AI component or human reader study is discussed.

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

Ask a specific question about this device

The TeleRehab® Aermos Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation System is intended to acquire and condition the ECG signal from a patient so that it can be transmitted wirelessly from a radiofrequency transmitter to a workstation in a hospital or a clinical setting where the data is displayed and analyzed. This device also measures heart rate and provides visual and audible alarms if the patient's heart rate goes out of a prescribed range. This device is for use with ambulatory adult patients who need monitoring while undergoing cardiovascular and/or pulmonary rehabilitation. The physiological data from monitoring and other patient information (such as patient demographics, exercise protocol and medical information) is stored in a database for tracking and reporting of the patients' progress through rehabilitation.

The TeleRehab® Aermos Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation System ("Aermos") provides the ECG monitoring functionality required for performing rehabilitation of cardiovascular and/or pulmonary patients. Patients' ECG may be monitored using the Aermos system during exercise under clinical supervision. During monitoring, Aermos provides both visual and audible alarms if the patient's heart rate goes out of a prescribed range. The heart rate alarm indication is one of multiple inputs a clinician may use to modify and adjust rehabilitation activities such as decreasing the patient's level of physical exertion or halting the exercise entirely.

Aermos also provides the ability to plan a patient's rehabilitation program and document the patient's progress through the creation of various types of reports. The report types supported in Aermos include individual treatment plan reports, daily exercise session reports and various patient information reports. Additionally, the Aermos system provides the ability to transfer various report types to the hospital Electronic Medical Records system.

The main components of Aermos are Argus ECG transmitters, the Aermos Workstation and associated networking equipment.

This FDA 510(k) clearance letter pertains to the TeleRehab Aermos Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation System, which is a device for monitoring ECG signals and heart rate during patient rehabilitation. The provided documentation (the 510(k) Summary) details non-clinical bench testing for performance and safety but explicitly states that clinical testing was not applicable.

Therefore, based on the provided document, the following information regarding acceptance criteria and a study that proves the device meets those criteria, specifically concerning an AI/algorithm-driven component with clinical performance metrics, cannot be fully extracted or is explicitly stated as not performed:

Here's an analysis of the provided information relative to your request:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance (Based on Non-Clinical Bench Testing)

Since no clinical study was performed, the "reported device performance" would pertain to the results of non-clinical bench testing against established performance standards. The document does not provide specific quantitative acceptance criteria or reported numerical performance results for the device. Instead, it states that the device's specifications were "verified through internal verification testing" and its usability "evaluated through internal validation testing," and that it complies with various international standards.

Study Details (Based on the provided 510(k) Summary)

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

   • See the table above. Specific quantitative acceptance criteria beyond "compliance with standard" are not provided in this regulatory summary.

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

   • The document explicitly states "Clinical Testing: Not applicable."
   • For the non-clinical bench testing, specific sample sizes (e.g., number of devices tested, number of test cases) are not detailed in this 510(k) summary.
   • Data provenance for non-clinical testing would typically be internal laboratory data generated during device development and verification. There is no mention of geographical origin or retrospective/prospective nature as this was not clinical data.

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 with human interpretation/ground truth was performed. The "ground truth" for bench testing would be defined by validated test equipment and reference standards.

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

   • Not applicable, as there was no study involving human readers or interpretation requiring adjudication.

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 study was done, as clinical testing was "Not applicable." The device is a physiological signal monitor, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool that interprets images or signals requiring human reader comparison.

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

   • The core functionality of the device (ECG acquisition, heart rate measurement, alarms) is algorithmic. The performance of these algorithms would have been assessed during the non-clinical bench testing, which is essentially "standalone algorithm" testing against known inputs and expected outputs. Specific quantitative results (e.g., algorithm accuracy for heart rate) are not provided in this summary beyond "compliance with IEC 60601-2-27" and "ANSI/AAMI EC57: 2012, Testing and Reporting Performance Results of Cardiac Rhythm and ST-Segment Measure Algorithms."

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

   • For non-clinical bench testing, the "ground truth" is typically established by:
     • Reference standards and calibrated test equipment: For electrical performance, signal acquisition accuracy, frequency response, etc.
     • Simulated physiological signals: For testing heart rate calculation and alarm thresholds.
     • Design specifications and established engineering principles: For software functionality and cybersecurity.

8. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable. The device is a monitoring system and not primarily driven by a deep learning or machine learning algorithm that requires a "training set" in the sense of a large dataset for model development. The algorithms for heart rate calculation, etc., are likely traditional signal processing algorithms.

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

   • Not applicable, as there was no training set for a machine learning model.

Summary of Device Nature and Regulatory Pathway:

The TeleRehab Aermos Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation System is a Class II device (Product Codes DRG, DRT) which functions as a physiological signal transmitter and receiver. It monitors ECG and heart rate and provides alarms. Its 510(k) clearance relied on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices primarily through non-clinical bench testing against recognized industry standards (e.g., IEC 60601 series, ANSI/AAMI, ISO standards) and adherence to FDA guidance documents (e.g., for software, cybersecurity, reprocessing). The explicit statement "Clinical Testing: Not applicable" indicates that the nature of the device and its intended use, combined with the comprehensive non-clinical data, satisfied the FDA's requirements for demonstrating safety and effectiveness without the need for a human-subject clinical study. This is common for devices that are evolutionary improvements on existing technologies with well-understood performance parameters.

Ask a specific question about this device

The REMI Remote EEG Monitoring System is indicated for use in healthcare settings where near real-time and/or remote EEG is warranted and in ambulatory settings where remote EEG is warranted. REMI System uses single patient, disposable, wearable sensors intended to amplify, capture, and wirelessly transmit a single channel of electrical activity of the brain for a duration up to 30 days.

REMI System uses the REMI Mobile software application that runs on qualified commercial off-the-shelf mobile computing platforms. REMI Mobile displays user setup information to trained medical professionals and provides notifications to medical professionals and ambulatory users. REMI Mobile receives and transmits data from connected REMI Sensors to the secure REMI Cloud where it is stored and prepared for review on qualified EEG viewing software.

REMI System does not make any diagnostic conclusion about the subject's condition and is intended as a physiological signal monitor. REMI System is indicated for use with adult and pediatric patients (1+ years).

The REMI System has three major components:

• 1. REMI Sensor A disposable EEG sensor which is placed on the patient's scalp using a conductive REMI Sticker
• 2. REMI Mobile A mobile medical application that is designed to run on a qualified commercial-off-the-shelf mobile computing platform (an Android tablet for use in healthcare settings, and a portable/wearable Android device (phone or smartwatch) for use in ambulatory settings), acquire EEG data transmitted from REMI Sensors and then transmit the EEG data and associated patient information via wireless encrypted transmission to.
• 3. REMI Cloud A HIPAA-compliant secure cloud storage and data processing platform where data is processed into a qualified EEG reviewing software format for neurological review.

The provided document is a 510(k) Pre-market Notification Summary for the REMI Remote EEG Monitoring System (K243185). This document details the device's characteristics, indications for use, and the studies conducted to demonstrate its substantial equivalence to a predicate device (REMI Remote EEG Monitoring System, K230933).

Based on the provided information, here's a description of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document primarily relies on comparisons to its own predicate device (K230933) and general performance testing against recognized standards. Specific quantitative acceptance criteria are not explicitly detailed in a table format within this summary, but the general assertion is that the device met all predetermined acceptance criteria derived from the listed tests.

Ask a specific question about this device

The IceCaps (IceCap 2, IceCap 2 Small, IceCap Neonate (Sizes XS, S, & M)) are medical devices used as EEG electrodes. They are used by Healthcare Professionals on a patient in case of neurological disorders with a short or long-term EEG record (up to 72 hours).
IceCap 2 shall be placed on patients weighing at least 10 kg (22.05 lbs) and having a head circumference above 43 cm (16.93 inches).
IceCap Neonate shall be placed on the head of babies, newborns and premature babies.

The IceCaps (IceCap 2, IceCap 2 Small, IceCap Neonate (Sizes XS, S, & M)) are medical devices used as EEG electrodes.
The IceCaps are a single use cap which connects to the marketed EEG recorders using an IceAdapter or Touchproof adapter.
The electrodes placement in IceCap Product line is done accordingly to the 10/20 system.
The conductive tracks of the Flexible Printed Circuit are used to conduct EEG signals from the electrodes to the connectors.
IceCap 2 shall be placed on patients weighing at least 10 kg (22.05 lbs) and having a head circumference above 43 cm (16.93 inches).
IceCap Neonate (M,S,XS) shall be placed on the head of babies, newborns and premature babies.

The IceCap product line does not perform comparative effectiveness studies with human readers or standalone algorithm performance studies. The device is a cutaneous electrode, and its evaluation focuses on safety and performance according to relevant standards, not on AI-driven diagnostic accuracy.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and supporting studies for the IceCap product line:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

The provided document does not explicitly state the sample size used for specific test sets (e.g., for fit-to-form, impedance, or usability tests). It mentions that the "clinical data were not necessary to determine substantial equivalence," indicating that animal or human subject testing for diagnostic or comparative effectiveness was not performed as a primary means of establishing substantial equivalence for this type of device.

The document does not provide information on the country of origin of the data or whether the data was retrospective or prospective. The studies primarily involve non-clinical performance and safety testing.

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

As this device is an EEG electrode, the primary "ground truth" for its performance is its ability to meet electrical and biocompatibility standards, and to effectively acquire EEG signals as confirmed by non-clinical tests. There is no mention of human experts being used to establish a ground truth for a diagnostic outcome, as the device itself does not provide diagnostic interpretations.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. The evaluation performed is based on compliance with harmonized standards and engineering tests, not on human-based adjudication of diagnostic outcomes.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance

Not applicable. The IceCap product line is an EEG electrode, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool. Therefore, MRMC studies with human readers are not relevant to its clearance.

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

Not applicable. The device is a hardware component (EEG electrode) and does not involve a standalone algorithm for performance evaluation in a diagnostic context.

7. The type of ground truth used

The ground truth used for evaluating the IceCap product line is based on established engineering standards and regulatory requirements for medical devices, particularly for cutaneous electrodes. This includes:

• Performance standards: e.g., electrical impedance, signal integrity (implied by "general quality of signal").
• Safety standards: e.g., electrical safety (IEC 60601-1), electromagnetic compatibility (IEC 60601-1-2), usability for medical electrical equipment in the home healthcare environment (IEC 60601-1-11).
• Biocompatibility standards: (ISO 10993-1) for materials in contact with the patient.
• Functional tests: Fit-to-form, usability for installation.
  The "truth" is whether the device meets these specified, measurable criteria.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. This device is a hardware product (EEG electrode) and does not involve AI or machine learning algorithms that require a training set.

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

Not applicable. This device is a hardware product (EEG electrode) and does not involve AI or machine learning algorithms that require a training set or ground truth for training.

Ask a specific question about this device

Delphi MCS Electrode Cap is an EEG electrode set intended for routine clinical settings where rapid placement of large number of EEG electrodes is desired.

The Delphi MCS Electrode Cap is made of elastic textile material, preserving the shape and size. The cap provides the exact position of the electrodes on the head without the need for additional measurements and adjustments. Large holes are provided for ventilation and access to the electrodes and patient's skin. The cap is fixed to the head with a chinstrap. The Cap is available in the following sizes: XL 60-66cm, XL/L 57-63cm, L 54-60cm, L/M 51-57cm, M 48-54cm. The textile caps sizes are identifiable by the color material or seam and marking according to international system 10-20.

The Ag/AgCl electrodes are designed to provide minimal polarization and long-term stability of the signal. The conductive surface of the electrodes which is housed inside the electrode base does not have direct skin contact; an electrically conductive substance (hydrogel) is used inside the electrode base for improved conductivity.

Delphi Cap electrodes are thin cup Ag/AgCl sintered electrode for EEG recording. The electrodes are designed for maximum comfort while the patient in a supine position. The design of this electrode is suitable for conducting combined TMS-EEG studies. The Ag/AgCl sintered electrode material guarantees minimum polarization and long-term signal stability, as well as an increased electrode life.

The provided text does not contain information about acceptance criteria for a device's performance, nor does it detail a study that proves a device meets such criteria in terms of clinical effectiveness or diagnostic accuracy. Instead, the document describes the substantial equivalence claim for a new medical device, the "Delphi MCS Electrode Cap," in comparison to a predicate device, the "Electro-Cap System."

The document primarily focuses on demonstrating that the new device shares the same intended use and similar technological characteristics as the predicate device, and that any differences do not raise new safety or effectiveness concerns.

Here's a breakdown of what is provided, and what is missing based on your request:

Information Present (related to device evaluation):

• Device Name: Delphi MCS Electrode Cap
• Intended Use: "Delphi MCS Electrode Cap is an EEG electrode set intended for routine clinical settings where rapid placement of large number of EEG electrodes is desired."
• Performance Data (Non-Clinical Bench Tests):
  • Biocompatibility: Cytotoxicity, Sensitization, Irritation (per ISO 10993 standards)
  • Electrical safety (per IEC 60601-1)
  • Use cycle reliability and durability testing (resistance, noise, impedance, durability, repeated cleaning cycles)
  • AC Impedance
  • Offset Voltage
  • Combined offset instability and internal noise
  • Bias current tolerance
  • Shelf Life
  • Conductive connection compliance
• Conclusion of Performance Tests: "The results of the performance bench testing support the safety profile of the device and demonstrate that the device functions as intended." (This indicates the device met some internal performance objectives for these bench tests, but specific acceptance criteria and detailed quantitative results are not provided.)

Missing Information (as per your request):

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: While non-clinical tests are listed, the specific acceptance criteria for each test (e.g., maximum allowed impedance, specific thresholds for cytotoxicity) and the quantitative reported performance of the Delphi MCS Electrode Cap against these criteria are not provided in this document. The document only states that the tests were "successful" and "support the safety profile" and "demonstrate that the device functions as intended."
2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable to the type of non-clinical bench testing reported.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable, as this is bench testing, not a clinical study requiring expert ground truth for interpretation.
4. Adjudication method: Not applicable.
5. If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done: No, not mentioned. This type of study would be relevant for devices that involve human interpretation of output (e.g., AI for image diagnosis), which is not the primary function of an EEG electrode cap.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable, as this device is an electrode cap, not an algorithm.
7. The type of ground truth used: Not explicitly stated for each bench test, but implied to be based on established standards and physical/electrical measurements.
8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable, as this is a physical medical device, not an AI/ML algorithm requiring a training set.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

In summary, the provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter and summary primarily address the safety and technical similarity of the Delphi MCS Electrode Cap to a predicate device through non-clinical bench testing. It does not detail specific acceptance criteria for clinical performance or diagnostic accuracy, nor does it describe a clinical study comparing its effectiveness or AI-assisted performance against human readers.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Electrode Pad is intended to transmit electrical current to patient skin for use with transcutaneous electrical stimulation devices. Some common types of the stimulation devices include, but are not limited to TENS (Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation) and EMS (Electrical Muscular Stimulation). The electrode is for OTC (Over-The -Counter) or Prescription use.

Electrode Pad is used as an accessory to the TENS or EMS device unit, which transmits electrical current to patient skin. The electrical current of Electrode Pad is first transmitted via the snap button or lead wire then transmitted to the conductive gel which is adhered to patient skin.

Electrode Pad is composed of a top cover, connector snap button or lead wire, conductive carbon film, conductive hydrogel media, and a carrier liner. The carrier liner is made of PET (polyethylene terephthalate).

Electrode Pad is non-sterile and intended for single adult patient multiple application use. The electrode pad has various shapes and sizes.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and study for the Electrode Pad (K241512), focusing on the requested information.

It's important to note that the provided document is an FDA 510(k) summary, which focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than a comprehensive clinical study report for an AI-powered medical device. Therefore, much of the requested information, particularly concerning AI device performance metrics, human reader studies, and detailed ground truth establishment for a test or training set, is not present in this type of document because the device is a simple "Electrode Pad" and not an AI-enabled diagnostic tool.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

This document describes performance testing for a non-AI hardware device (an electrode pad). Therefore, the concept of a "test set" in the context of machine learning, with associated data provenance, is not applicable here. The tests conducted are non-clinical, laboratory-based tests on the physical device components and batches of manufactured electrodes. The document does not specify general "sample sizes" for all tests, but implies testing was sufficient to meet standard requirements. The provenance of the data is from the manufacturer's internal testing.

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

Not applicable. As this is a physical medical device, not an AI diagnostic tool, there is no "ground truth" derived from expert interpretation for a test set. Acceptance is based on meeting technical specifications and international standards.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable for the reasons stated above.

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 an electrode pad, not an AI system. No MRMC study was conducted.

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

Not applicable. This is a physical electrode pad, not an AI algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" for this device's performance is defined by:

• International Standards: Adherence to standards like ISO 10993 series for biocompatibility, ASTM F1980-16 for accelerated aging, and AAMI/ANSI ES 60601-1 / IEC 60601-2-2 for electrical safety and impedance.
• Predicate Device Specifications: Demonstrating performance within ranges or equivalent to a legally marketed predicate device (K182111 DL Adhesive Electrode) for key parameters such as impedance and adhesion.
• Design Specifications: The device met its own design specifications.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable, as this is not an AI/machine learning device. The concept of a "training set" is irrelevant in this context.

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

Not applicable, as this is not an AI/machine learning device and therefore has no "training set" or corresponding ground truth establishment.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Wave Electrode is to be used exclusively for external prosthetic fittings of the upper limbs.

Wave Electrode is an active analogue electrode for detecting any surface electromyographic signals, used for controlling prosthetic devices. It is compact and low-power, ensuring an accurate and fast reading of muscle electrical potentials generated voluntarily by the user. It also provides a real-time output signal proportional to the detected muscle activation. Through the Wave Electrode it is possible to non-invasively detect the electrical signal produced by the residual muscles on the patient's amputated limb (unilateral amputees, starting from a transradial amputation level) and send an electrical signal to the electronic board of the prosthetic hand with a proportional width to the detected contraction. Wave Electrode is only compatible with the Adam's Hand that, according to the Requlation Number 890.3420, are classified as class I medical device. Wave Electrode is available in two different models: Mod. AE02-50, with notch filter centred on the 50 Hz frequency; Mod. AE02-60, with notch filter centred on the 60 Hz frequency

This document is a 510(k) Premarket Notification from BionIT Labs Srl for their Wave Electrode (AE02-60; AE02-50) devices, seeking clearance from the FDA. The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, and therefore does not contain acceptance criteria or performance studies in the way you might expect for a novel device or AI/ML algorithm.

Here's an analysis based on the provided text, highlighting what is present and what is absent regarding your requested information:

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

The document does not explicitly present a table of acceptance criteria with corresponding performance statistics. Instead, it relies on demonstrating compliance with recognized electrical safety, EMC, and biocompatibility standards, and functional compatibility with a specific prosthetic hand. The performance is assessed by meeting these standards and ensuring the device operates as intended alongside the "Adam's Hand®" prosthetic hand.

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 provided in the document. The non-clinical performance data refers to "internal testing" and testing by "an accredited laboratory," but specifics on sample sizes, types of data (e.g., specific scenarios, duration), provenance, or study design are omitted.

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 applicable/not provided as there is no mention of a ground truth established by experts in the context of diagnostic or interpretive performance for an AI/ML algorithm. The device is a cutaneous electrode for EMG signal detection, and its performance is evaluated against engineering and biological safety standards, not against an expert-derived ground truth for an interpretation task.

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

This information is not applicable/not provided. As explained above, there's no mention of a ground truth derived from expert adjudication for interpretive tasks.

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 or mentioned. This type of study is typically relevant for AI/ML-driven diagnostic or interpretive devices that assist human readers. The Wave Electrode is a hardware device for signal acquisition, not an AI/ML diagnostic tool.

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

No standalone algorithm-only performance study was done or mentioned. The device itself is hardware. The document states it is an "analog device and has no on-board programmable electronics (FW and or PEMS)."

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

Given the nature of the device (cutaneous electrode), the "ground truth" implicitly refers to:

• Engineering specifications and recognized standards: Performance is measured against criteria for electrical safety (IEC 60601-1, IEC 60601-1-11), electromagnetic compatibility (IEC 60601-1-2), and biocompatibility (ISO 10993 series).
• Intended function: The ability to "detect, process, and transmit physiological signals" and operate as intended "in conjunction with 'Adam's Hand®' prosthetic hand."

There is no mention of ground truth related to medical diagnoses, pathology, or outcomes data, as these are not relevant to the function of a cutaneous EMG electrode.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not applicable/not provided. The Wave Electrode is described as an analog device without programmable electronics or software. Therefore, there is no AI/ML algorithm that would require a "training set."

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

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

Ask a specific question about this device

The CAIs Sensor is applied directly to the patient's skin to enable recordings of electrophysiological (such as EEG) signals.

The CAIs Sensor, generally speaking with regard to the four variations of the sensor, is a circle shaped, pre-gelled array of four electrodes that is applied to the patient's skin to record electrophysiological signals, such as EEG signals.
It is a low impedance, single patient use, disposable electrode sensor designed for application to the frontal/temporal area. The sensor is designed to provide ease of use and electrode placement accuracy. It is in conjunction with CAIx and CAI software of CAI Monitoring System.
The CAIs sensor is attached to the forehead, and the four electrodes placed on the sensor collect EEG signals and transmit them to the CAI monitoring system through the CAI cable.
Each sensor is packed in individual heat-sealed pouches are packed into a cardboard box.
The hydrogel used in the sensors is designed for single use by one patient.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for a device named "CAIs Sensor (CAIs-001)". However, the document does not contain information about the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets those criteria in the context of an AI/ML algorithm or a performance study.

The document primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device ("Covidien BIS Sensors") based on:

• Indications for Use Comparison: Stating that both devices are applied to the skin for recording electrophysiological signals (e.g., EEG).
• Technological Comparison: Claiming the CAIs Sensor has similar major characteristics affecting safety and performance as the predicate device.
• Non-Clinical Tests: Biocompatibility testing (per ISO 10993 standards), usability engineering, risk analysis (within the CAI Monitoring System), and bench testing for electrical, adhesive performance, and shelf life (per FDA guidance, ANSI/AAMI EC12, and IEC 60601-2-2).

Crucially, the document explicitly states: "Clinical studies were not performed."

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, device performance, sample sizes, expert ground truth establishment, or any details related to MRMC or standalone performance studies, as these aspects are not present in the provided text. The device is a cutaneous electrode, not an AI/ML diagnostic or predictive device with performance metrics based on algorithms.

Ask a specific question about this device

This is an EEG electrode set intended for routine clinical settings where rapid placement of a large number of EEG electrodes is desired. Patient population from infants up to any age.

WaveGuard™ Net EEG cap consists of Saline-based EEG electrolyte- soaked sponge electrodes made of PU substrate plated with Ag and arranged in Chin-strap (placed under the chin). Cable bundle(s) with connector(s) The layout of the electrodes depends on the number of electrodes placed in the cap, and may be placed according to the international 10/10, 10/20 or 10/5 percent system, or according an equidistant "Duke" layout. Caps can have different sizes, ranging from baby to large adult head-size, spanning a total of 6 different cap sizes.

The provided text is a 510(k) Premarket Notification from the FDA for a medical device called the "WaveGuard Net EEG Cap." This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, rather than proving the device meets specific performance acceptance criteria for an AI/algorithm-driven system.

The "acceptance criteria" and "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" requested in the prompt are typically associated with performance validation studies for software or AI/ML-based medical devices, often requiring clinical or technical performance metrics against a defined ground truth.

This 510(k) summary primarily addresses:

• Device Description: What the device is (EEG electrode cap with saline-soaked electrodes).
• Intended Use: For routine clinical EEG settings.
• Comparison to Predicate Device: How it's similar and different from a previously cleared device (WaveGuard EEG Cap K110223). Key differences noted are electrode material (Coated Ag vs. Sintered Ag/AgCl), cap material (Silicone Mesh vs. Lycra), and Magnetic Resonance compatibility (MR unsafe vs. MR safe).
• Non-Clinical Testing: This section refers to performance standards and biocompatibility testing for the device itself (like electrical safety, material safety), not against an AI/algorithm's predictive accuracy or diagnostic performance. The listed standards (e.g., ISO 10993 series, 21 CFR PART 898) relate to safety, material characteristics, and electrical performance of electrodes/cables.

Therefore, based on the provided text, it is not possible to extract the information requested in the prompt, as the document does not describe a performance study for an AI/algorithm-driven device with accuracy, sensitivity, or specificity metrics.

Specifically, the document does not provide:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance for an AI/algorithm. The document discusses performance standards for an electrode cap (e.g., electrical safety, biocompatibility), not a software's classification or prediction accuracy.
2. Sample size used for a test set or data provenance for an AI/algorithm validation.
3. Number of experts or their qualifications for establishing ground truth for an AI/algorithm test set.
4. Adjudication method for an AI/algorithm test set.
5. Information on any Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study. The device is a physical electrode cap, not an AI or software assistant for human readers.
6. Information on standalone (algorithm-only) performance. Again, this is a physical device.
7. The type of ground truth used in the context of an algorithm's performance. The "ground truth" for this device would relate to its physical and electrical properties meeting specified standards.
8. Training set sample size for an AI/algorithm.
9. How ground truth for the training set was established for an AI/algorithm.

The document's "Performance Data / Summary of Non-Clinical Testing" section refers to:

• 21 CFR PART 898—Performance Standard for Electrode Lead wires and Patient Cables: This regulation sets electrical safety and performance standards for the physical components of the EEG cap.
• Biocompatibility testing (ISO 10993 series): This ensures the materials in contact with the patient are safe (non-toxic, non-irritating, etc.).

These are standard regulatory requirements for all medical devices like EEG caps, not specific to the validation of AI/ML software.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Natus BrainWatch System including the Natus BrainWatch Headband, is intended to record and store EEG signals and present these signals visually to assist trained medical staff in making neurological diagnoses in patients aged 2 years and older.

The device does not provide any diagnostic conclusions about the subject's condition and does not provide any automated alerts of an adverse clinical event. The Natus BrainWatch System is intended for use within a professional healthcare facility or clinical research environment. The Natus BrainWatch Headband is intended for single-patient use.

The Natus BrainWatch system is a reliable, mobile, and easy-to-use EEG device intended to record, store, and visually present EEG signals to assist trained medical staff in making neurological diagnoses in patients.

The system includes a touchscreen tablet as its primary interface. The Natus BrainWatch Headband is a single-use disposable headpiece with an integrated array of 10 passive electrodes that are applied to the patient's head to record EEG signals when connected to an amplifier.

The Natus BrainWatch System consists of the following components: Tablet, IV Pole Handle, Amplifier, Headband(s), Gel Pods and a Mobile Application:

• Touchscreen Tablet with charger
• Single-Use disposable elastic fabric headband with 10 electrodes (available in sizes Small, Medium, and Large) containing:
  • Hydroflex patch with 2 built-in electrodes
  • 8 electrodes attached to gel pods used to improve impedance levels labeled L1-L4, R1-R4
• Wireless amplifier that attaches to the headband and connects to the tablet via Bluetooth
• IV pole handle that holds the tablet for a hands-free experience
• Gels pods attach to the electrodes to improve impedance levels

The Natus BrainWatch System is a portable 10-channel EEG monitoring system. 10 patient electrodes are used to record the 10 channels. Channels 1-5 should be used for the patient's left hemisphere, with channel 1 at the front of the patient's head and channel 5 at the back. Channels 6-10 should be used for the patient's right hemisphere, with channel 6 at the front of the patient's head and channel 10 at the back.

EEG recording files are transferred wirelessly to a computer from the Natus BrainWatch Tablet using a Wi-Fi connection. The EEG sessions from Natus BrainWatch are stored using a cloudbased solution which allows the end user to view studies at a later date. Recorded sessions can be reviewed remotely on a computer using the Neuroworks EEG software.

The device is a portable, 10-channel EEG monitoring system. The device connects to a headband consisting of 10 patient electrodes which are used to form the 10 channels and may be used with any scalp EEG electrodes.

The system acquires the EEG signals of a patient and presents the EEG signals in visual formats in real time. The EEG recordings are displayed on a computer or tablet using an EEG viewer software. The visual signals assist trained medical staff to make neurological diagnoses. It does not provide any diagnostic conclusion about the subject's condition and does not provide any automated alerts of an adverse clinical event.

Micro-USB cable is used to connect the Natus BrainWatch System to power adapter for charging. Bluetooth is used to connect amplifier with tablet to transfer EEG recording files. When the Natus BrainWatch System is connected to a power adapter of a computer, all EEG acquisition functions are automatically disabled.

The Natus BrainWatch System is a portable 10-channel EEG monitoring system intended to record, store, and visually present EEG signals to assist trained medical staff in making neurological diagnoses in patients aged 2 years and older. It does not provide diagnostic conclusions or automated alerts of adverse clinical events.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study verifying the device's performance:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided text details the performance verification against various standards rather than specific quantitative acceptance criteria for clinical performance. The focus is on demonstrating safety and electrical performance equivalence to predicate devices.

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

The document does not specify a separate "test set" in the context of clinical data for algorithmic performance. The testing described is primarily bench and engineering verification against international standards. Therefore, information about sample size, country of origin, or retrospective/prospective nature of a clinical test set is not provided.

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

Not applicable, as the provided information does not describe a study involving clinical ground truth establishment by experts for a test set. The device assists trained medical staff in making diagnoses but does not provide diagnostic conclusions itself.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

Not applicable, as there is no described clinical study involving a test set and ground truth adjudication.

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 is described. The device is a data acquisition and visualization tool; it does not explicitly feature AI for interpretation or diagnostic assistance.

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

Not applicable. The "Natus BrainWatch System" is an electroencephalograph (EEG) device that records and visually presents signals for trained medical staff to interpret. It does not provide any diagnostic conclusions or automated alerts, meaning it is not a standalone diagnostic algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used

Not applicable. The testing focuses on engineering performance, safety, and functional compliance rather than diagnostic accuracy against a clinical ground truth (e.g., pathology, outcomes data, or expert consensus).

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable, as the document does not describe the development or validation of an AI algorithm with a training set. The device's function is to capture and display raw EEG signals.

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

Not applicable, as there is no described training set or AI algorithm for which ground truth would need to be established.

Ask a specific question about this device