K040463 · Aesku, Inc. · MID · May 12, 2004 · Immunology
Device Facts
Record ID
K040463
Device Name
AESKULISA CARDIOLIPIN AGM
Applicant
Aesku, Inc.
Product Code
MID · Immunology
Decision Date
May 12, 2004
Decision
SESE
Submission Type
Traditional
Regulation
21 CFR 866.5660
Device Class
Class 2
Attributes
Real-World Evidence
Real-World Evidence
Submission
Device
Sponsor
RWD Sources
RWE Use Summary
Key Tags
K040463 · May 12, 2004
AESKULISA CARDIOLIPIN AGM
Aesku, Inc.
Clinically defined patient samples (retrospective clinical cohorts)
Retrospective clinical patient samples were used to evaluate the performance of the AESKULISA assays by comparing results against predicate devices and determining expected values across various disease populations.
Retrospective method comparison study; Follow-up/Duration: Not applicable
Clinically defined patients including SLE, primary and secondary APS, RA, and other autoimmune/connective tissue disorders; Sample Size: 111 (GM assay) and 82 (A and Check assays)
Positive/negative/total agreement between new device and predicate
Indications for Use
AESKULISA Cardiolipin-AGM is a solid phase enzyme immunoassay employing highly purified cardiolipin plus native human ß2-glycoprotein I for the semiquantitative and qualitative detection of IgA, IgG and /or IgM antibodies against cardiolipin in human serum. Anti-cardiolipin antibodies mainly recognize specific epitopes on a complex composed of cardiolipin and ß2-glycoprotein I which are only expressed when ß2glycoprotein I interacts with cardiolipin. The assay is an aid in the diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), primary and secondary anti-phospholipid syndrome (APS) and should be used in conjuction with other serological tests and clinical findings.
Device Story
AESKULISA Cardiolipin series are solid-phase enzyme immunoassays (ELISA) for detecting anti-cardiolipin antibodies in human serum. The device uses purified cardiolipin and native human ß2-glycoprotein I as antigens to capture antibodies that recognize the cardiolipin/ß2-glycoprotein I complex. Performed in clinical laboratories by trained technicians; results are interpreted by physicians alongside other serological tests and clinical findings to aid in diagnosing SLE and APS. The assay provides semiquantitative and qualitative data to support clinical decision-making regarding autoimmune disease management.
Clinical Evidence
Bench testing only. Analytical performance included precision (intra-assay CV 0.4-7.6%, inter-assay CV 0.7-9.5%), linearity (recovery 84-108.7%), and analytical sensitivity (1.0 APL/GPL/MPL/mL). Method comparison studies were conducted using 111 samples for GM assays and 81 samples for A/Check assays against predicate devices. Agreement varied by isotype: IgG (95.5% total agreement), IgM (79.3% total agreement), IgA (86.1% total agreement), and Check (89.9% total agreement). Discrepancies were analyzed against clinical diagnosis.
Technological Characteristics
Solid-phase enzyme immunoassay (ELISA). Utilizes purified cardiolipin and native human ß2-glycoprotein I as antigens. Designed for detection of IgA, IgG, and IgM antibody classes in human serum.
Indications for Use
Indicated for the detection of IgA, IgG, and/or IgM anti-cardiolipin antibodies in human serum to aid in the diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and primary/secondary anti-phospholipid syndrome (APS). For prescription use only.
Regulatory Classification
Identification
A multiple autoantibodies immunological test system is a device that consists of the reagents used to measure by immunochemical techniques the autoantibodies (antibodies produced against the body's own tissues) in serum and other body fluids. Measurement of multiple autoantibodies aids in the diagnosis of autoimmune disorders (disease produced when the body's own tissues are injured by autoantibodies).
Submission Summary (Full Text)
{0}
510(k) SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE DETERMINATION
DECISION SUMMARY
A. 510(k) Number:
k040463
B. Purpose for Submission:
New devices
C. Analyte:
Anti-cardiolipin antibodies
D. Type of Test:
Qualitative and semi-quantitative, EIA
E. Applicant:
AESKU, Inc.
F. Proprietary and Established Names:
AESKULISA® Cardiolipin AGM
AESKULISA® Cardiolipin A
AESKULISA® Cardiolipin GM
AESKULISA® Cardiolipin Check
G. Regulatory Information:
1. Regulation section:
21 CFR §866.5660, Multiple Autoantibodies Immunological Test System
2. Classification:
Class II
3. Product Code:
MID, System Test, Anti-cardiolipin Immunological
4. Panel:
Immunology (82)
H. Intended Use:
AESKULISA Cardiolipin AGM is a solid phase enzyme immunoassay employing highly purified cardiolipin plus native human β2-glycoprotein I (β2-GPI) for the semiquantitative and qualitative detection of IgA, IgG and/or IgM antibodies against cardiolipin in human serum. Anti-cardiolipin antibodies mainly recognize specific epitopes on a complex composed of cardiolipin and β2-GPI which are only expressed when β2-GPI interacts with cardiolipin. The assay is an aid in the diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), primary and secondary anti-phospholipid syndrome (APS) and should be used in conjunction with other serological tests and clinical findings.
{1}
Page 2 of 9
AESKULISA Cardiolipin GM is a solid phase enzyme immunoassay employing highly purified cardiolipin plus native human β2-glycoprotein I (β2-GPI) for the semiquantitative and qualitative detection of IG and/or IgM antibodies against cardiolipin in human serum. Anti-cardiolipin antibodies mainly recognize specific epitopes on a complex composed of cardiolipin and β2-GPI which are only expressed when β2-GPI interacts with cardiolipin. The assay is an aid in the diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), primary and secondary anti-phospholipid syndrome (APS) and should be used in conjunction with other serological tests and clinical findings.
AESKULISA Cardiolipin A is a solid phase enzyme immunoassay employing highly purified cardiolipin plus native human β2-glycoprotein I (β2-GPI) for the semiquantitative and qualitative detection of IgA antibodies against cardiolipin in human serum. Anti-cardiolipin antibodies mainly recognize specific epitopes on a complex composed of cardiolipin and β2-GPI which are only expressed when β2-GPI interacts with cardiolipin. The assay is an aid in the diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), primary and secondary anti-phospholipid syndrome (APS) and should be used in conjunction with other serological tests and clinical findings.
AESKULISA Cardiolipin Check is a solid phase enzyme immunoassay employing highly purified cardiolipin plus native human β2-glycoprotein I (β2-GPI) for the combined semiquantitative and qualitative detection of IgA, IgG and IgM antibodies against cardiolipin in human serum. Anti-cardiolipin antibodies mainly recognize specific epitopes on a complex composed of cardiolipin and β2-GPI which are only expressed when β2-GPI interacts with cardiolipin. The assay is an aid in the diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), primary and secondary anti-phospholipid syndrome (APS) and should be used in conjunction with other serological tests and clinical findings.
1. Indication(s) for use:
Same as Intended Use.
2. Special condition for use statement(s):
The devices are for prescription use only.
3. Special instrument Requirements:
None
I. Device Description:
Each device consists of 1) an antigen coated 96 well microtiter plate, 2) individual horseradish peroxidase conjugated anti-human IgA, IgG and IgM (for AESKULISA Cardiolipin Check, it is a mixture of anti-human IgA/IgG/IgM), 3) TMB substrate, 4) cut-off control, 5) positive control (not included in AESKULISA Cardiolipin Check), 6) negative control, 7) calibrators A to F, 8) washing buffer concentrate (50x), 9) sample buffer concentrate (5x) and 10) stop solution. The calibrators and the positive and cut-off controls are diluted human sera. The negative control is BSA/PBS.
{2}
Page 3 of 9
# J. Substantial Equivalence Information:
1. Predicate device name(s):
Varelisa Cardiolipin Antibodies IgA, Varelisa Cardiolipin Antibodies IgG, Varelisa Cardiolipin Antibodies IgM and Varelisa Cardiolipin Antibodies Screen.
2. Predicate K number(s):
k020757, k020752, k020758, k023433
3. Comparison with predicate:
| DEVICE | PREDICATE |
| --- | --- |
| A. Similarities | |
| Intended Use. For the determination of antibodies against cardiolipin in human serum. The assay is an aid in the diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), primary and secondary anti-phospholipid syndrome (APS) and should be used in conjunction with other serological tests and clinical findings. (Note: thrombotic risk evaluation was not stated in the claim) | For the determination of cardiolipin antibodies in serum or plasma to aid in the diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), and to evaluate the thrombotic risk in patients with Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) |
| Assay type – ELISA | Same |
| Analytes – Anti-cardiolipin antibodies | Same |
| Assay Format – Qualitative and semi-quantitative | Same |
| Capture Antigens - cardiolipin and β2-GPI | Same |
| Reporter conjugate - Horseradish peroxidase | Same |
| Substrate – TMB | Same |
| B. Differences | |
| Source of β2-GPI -human | Bovine |
| Sample Type – Serum | Serum and plasma |
| Cut-off Values – 15 PL/mL for IgA, IgG and IgM | 1.2 (ratio) with an equivocal zone |
| 20 U/mL for screening assay | of 1.0 to 1.2 |
# K. Standard/Guidance Document Referenced (if applicable):
None referenced.
# L. Test Principle:
The AESKULISA devices are enzyme-linked immunoassays. Purified antigens are coated separately in wells of microtiter plates. Diluted patient serum is added to the microtiter well and antibody specific to the antigen will bind to the immobilized antigen if present. Unbound sample is washed away and an enzyme labeled anti-human IgA or IgG or IgM antibody (except for AESKILISA Cardiolipin Check which uses a mixture if IgA/IgG/IgM) is added to each well and bind to the
{3}
antigen/antibody complex. After washing away any unbound enzyme conjugate, the chromogenic substrate is added. The color intensity in the wells is proportional to the amount of each autoantibody in the sample.
## M. Performance Characteristics (if/when applicable):
### 1. Analytical performance:
#### a. Precision/Reproducibility:
AESKULISA Cardiolipin GAM, A and GM assays – To determine intra-assay reproducibility 3 serum samples with high, medium and low antibody reactivity were assayed 24 times on one plate. For inter-assay reproducibility, three different sera were tested for 18 times on three plates on different days. The mean concentrations and %CV of the intra-assay and inter-assay results are summarized.
| Intra-Assay | | | Inter-Assay | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Sample | Mean Concentrations (GPL) | CV (%) | Sample | Mean Concentrations (GPL) | CV (%) |
| 1 | 586.2 | 1.5 | 1 | 499.8 | 0.9 |
| 2 | 67.4 | 3.4 | 2 | 68.9 | 1.7 |
| 3 | 34.5 | 7.6 | 3 | 40.7 | 4.6 |
| Sample | Mean Concentrations (APL) | CV (%) | Sample | Mean Concentrations (APL) | CV (%) |
| 1 | 63.9 | 3.8 | 1 | 78.2 | 3.2 |
| 2 | 42.0 | 6.1 | 2 | 37.6 | 3.1 |
| 3 | 22.5 | 6.9 | 3 | 24.9 | 3.3 |
| Sample | Mean Concentrations (MPL) | CV (%) | Sample | Mean Concentrations (MPL) | CV (%) |
| 1 | 156.2 | 0.4 | 1 | 110.2 | 0.7 |
| 2 | 37.0 | 0.8 | 2 | 24.0 | 0.7 |
| 3 | 11.4 | 2.6 | 3 | 11.8 | 2.7 |
AESKULISA Cardiolipin Check – To determine the intra-assay reproducibility, three sera with high, medium and low antibody reactivity were tested 24 times on one plate with IgA/G/M mixed-conjugate. For inter-assay reproducibility, three different sera were tested for 18 times on three plates on different days. The mean concentrations and %CV of the intra-assay and inter-assay results are summarized.
| Intra-Assay | | | Inter-Assay | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Sample | Mean Concentrations (GPL) | CV (%) | Sample | Mean Concentrations (GPL) | CV (%) |
| 1 | 20.5 | 3.6 | 1 | 18.4 | 9.5 |
| 2 | 43.6 | 5.5 | 2 | 47.5 | 5.5 |
| 3 | 111.3 | 4.1 | 3 | 120.3 | 8.7 |
#### b. Linearity/assay reportable range:
{4}
Page 5 of 9
For anti-cardiolipin IgG assay, two serum samples with antibody concentrations of 680 MPL/mL and 1418 MPL/mL were serially diluted to 1:100, 1:200, 1:400 and 1:800. Percent recovery for the higher concentration sample ranged from 93.5% to 101.1% and for the moderate concentration sample, 93.0% to 105.9%.
For anti-cardiolipin IgA assay, two serum samples with antibody concentrations of 240 APL/mL and 340 APL/mL were diluted to 1:100, 1:200, 1:400 and 1:800. Percent recovery for the higher concentration sample ranged from 95.3% to 105.9% and for the lower concentration sample, 93.3% to 103.3%.
For anti-cardiolipin IgM assay, two serum samples were antibody concentrations of 3629 MPL/mL and 295 MPL/mL were serially diluted to 1:100, 1:200, 1:400 and 1:800. Percent recovery for the higher concentration sample ranged from 84.0% to 106.1% and for the lower concentration sample, 89.7% to 101.7%.
For the AESKULISA Cardiolipin Check, two serum samples with antibody concentrations of 761 U/mL and 1011 U/mL were diluted to 1:100, 1:200, 1:400 and 1:800. Percent recovery for the higher concentration sample ranged from 90.1% to 108.4% and for the lower concentration sample, 91.5% to 108.7%.
c. Traceability (controls, calibrators, or method):
Calibrators are traceable to the reference sera from E.N. Harris and are purchased from a commercial source. Calibrators are supplied in 6 concentrations (0, 3, 10, 30, 100 and 300 U/mL). A negative, a positive and a cut-off control are included in each device. The cut-off controls are calibrated to the reference sera.
d. Detection limit (functional sensitivity):
The analytical sensitivity has been determined to be 1.0 APL/mL, GPL/mL or MPL/mL.
e. Analytical specificity:
To test for cross-reactivity, 16 sera from patients with other autoimmune diseases (Wegener's Granulomatosis, reactive arthritis, RA, MCTD, Jo-1 Syndrome, CREST, thyroid disease, celiac disease and vasculitis) were assayed on the AESKULISA Cardiolipin Check. All results were negative. Interference testing with hemolyzed, lipemic or icteric samples were not performed but the package insert specified that these types of samples should not be used.
f. Assay cut-off:
To determine the cut-off value, three fold serial dilutions of an antibody specific patient serum are tested in triplicates. The OD₄₅₀ value for each dilution is plotted (linear-log with a 4 parameter
{5}
Page 6 of 9
fitting) against the dilution factor to determine the linear range. The dilution in the linear range with an OD value of ~2.0 is defined as Calibrator F and assigned an arbitrary unit of 300 U/mL. Calibrator F is diluted and calibrated to the respective reference serum. The selected cut-off is equivalent to an OD of 0.5 to 0.6 of that of the reference serum. The cut-off values were validated by testing 40 healthy subjects from two hospitals. For the AESKULISA Cardiolipin GAM, A and GM assays, the cut-off value for the IgA, IgG and IgM anti-cardiolipin antibodies is 15 PL/mL and for the AESKULISA Cardiolipin Check, the cut-off value for the combined IgGAM antibodies is 20 U/mL.
2. Comparison studies:
a. Method comparison with predicate device:
In the original submission, there were very few samples for primary and secondary APS, the sponsor was asked to provide data on additional positive samples and the sponsor supplemented data from 13 primary and 13 secondary APS patients.
i) AESKULISA Cardiolipin GM
One hundred and eleven clinically defined patient samples were tested on the new device and the predicate devices Varelisa Cardiolipin Antibodies IgG, Varelisa Cardiolipin Antibodies IgM. These samples consisted of 28 SLE, 36 RA, 19 primary APS, 15 secondary APS, 3 connective tissue disease, 3 polyneuropathy and one each of cerebral vasculitis, p-ANCA positive vasculitis, Sjogren Syndrome, prolonged reversible ischemic neurological deficiency, fibromyalgia, polyangiitis and hypertension. Twenty-four of the 111 sera were from male patients and 87 from female patients. Forty-six percent of the patients were between 16y to 44y, 32% were 45y to 64y and 22% were ≥65y. Results are summarized in the following tables.
| | Varelisa IgG | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | + | - | Total |
| AESKULISA IgG | + | 42 | 1 | 43 |
| | - | 4 | 64 | 68 |
| | Total | 46 | 65 | 111 |
% positive agreement = 91.3% (95% CI 83.2% to 99.4%)
% negative agreement = 98.5% (95% CI 95.5% to 101.5%)
% total agreement = 95.5% (95% CI 91.6% to 99.4%)
The overall agreement between the AESKULISA IgG and the Varelisa IgG assays was 95.5%. Three of the six Varelisa+/AESKULISA- discrepant samples were from patients
{6}
Page 7 of 9
with other disorders (polyneuropathy, vasculitis and RA) and the other three from patients with primary APS. The two Varelisa⁺/AESKULISA⁺ discrepant samples were a fibromyalgia sample and a secondary APS sample.
| | Varelisa IgM | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | + | - | Total |
| AESKULISA IgM | + | 18 | 1 | 19 |
| | - | 22 | 70 | 92 |
| | Total | 40 | 71 | 111 |
% positive agreement = 45% (95% CI 29.6% to 60.4%)
% negative agreement = 98.6% (95% CI 95.9% to 101.3%)
% total agreement = 79.3% (95% CI 71.8% to 86.8%)
The overall agreement between the AESKULISA IgM and the Varelisa IgM assays was 79.3%. The discrepant samples included 5 RA, 5 SLE, 6 primary APS, 3 secondary APS and 4 with other disorders (MCTD, polyangiitis, vasculitis and cerebral vasculitis). The samples were from patients with RA and other disorders suggesting that the results for the predicate device were false positives. The discrepancies observed with the IgM positive SLE and APS samples were not resolved.
ii) AESKULISA Cardiolipin A and AESKULISA Cardiolipin Check
Seventy-nine clinically defined patient samples and three normal donor samples were tested on the new device and the predicate devices Varelisa Cardiolipin Antibodies IgA, Varelisa Cardiolipin Antibodies Screen. These samples consisted of 25 SLE, 17 primary APS, 16 secondary APS, 6 RA, 4 suspected reactive arthritis, 2 CREST, 2 Sjogren Syndrome and one each of inflammatory bowel disease, microsomia, MCTD, chronic heart disease/hypertension, apthous oral infection and Wegener's Granulomatosis. Results are summarized in the following tables.
| | Varelisa IgA | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | + | - | Equiv | Total |
| AESKULISA IgA | + | 22 | 5 | 2 | 29 |
| | - | 4 | 46 | 2 | 52 |
| | Total | 26 | 51 | 4 | 81 |
% positive agreement = 84.6% (95% CI 35.5% to 95.6%)
% negative agreement = 90.2% (95% CI 82.0% to 98.4%)
% total agreement = 86.1% (95% CI 78.5% to 93.7%)
{7}
Page 8 of 9
Excluding the equivalent samples, the overall agreement between the AESKULISA IgA and the Varelisa IgA assays was 86.1%. The five Varelisa⁺/AESKULISA⁺ samples were from 3 SLE and 2 primary APS patients. Two of the SLE patients were known to have anti-cardiolipin antibodies. The four Varelisa⁺/AESKULISA⁻ sample were from 3 primary APS patients and one SLE patient with unknown anti-cardiolipin antibody status. For the four Varelisa IgA equivalent samples, two AESKULISA positives were from SLE patients and the two AESKULISA negative were from an APS patient and a SLE patient.
| | Varelisa Screen | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | + | - | Equiv | Total |
| AESKULISA Check | + | 50 | 8 | 1 | 59 |
| | - | 0 | 21 | 1 | 22 |
| | Total | 50 | 29 | 2 | 81 |
% positive agreement = 100% (50/50)
% negative agreement = 72.4% (95% CI 27.6% to 87.3%)
% total agreement = 89.9% (95% CI 83.3% to 96.5%)
Excluding the equivalent samples, the overall agreement between the AESKULISA Check and the Varelisa Screen was 89.9%. Based on the clinical diagnosis, 6 of 8 discrepant samples i.e. AESKULISA Check⁺/Varelisa Screen were from patients known to have anti-cardiolipin antibodies, therefore suggesting that the predicate results were false negatives.
b. Matrix comparison:
Both the predicate and the new device use serum samples.
3. Clinical studies:
a. Clinical sensitivity:
Not applicable.
b. Clinical specificity:
Not applicable
4. Clinical cut-off:
Not applicable.
5. Expected values/Reference range:
The expected value for the normal population is negative. The frequency distribution of anti-cardiolipin antibodies in the various disease cohorts was determined using the same study samples from the correlation studies.
{8}
Page 9 of 9
Anti-cardiolipin IgG and IgM:
| Study Population | N | % IgG Positive | % IgM Positive |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Primary APS | 19 | 78.9% (15/19) | 31.6% (6/19) |
| Secondary APS | 17 | 93.3% (14/15) | 41.2% (7/17) |
| SLE | 28 | 32.1% (9/28) | 10.7% (3/28) |
| RA | 36 | 0% (0/36) | 0% (0/36) |
| Other | 13 | 30.8% (4/13) | 23.1% (3/13) |
Anti-cardiolipin IgA and Check:
| Study Population | N | % IgA Positive | % IGAM Positive |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Primary APS | 17 | 23.5% (4/17) | 100% (17/17) |
| Secondary APS | 16 | 81.3% (13/16) | 100% (16/17) |
| SLE | 25 | 40% (10/25) | 76% (19/25) |
| RA | 6 | 0% (0/6) | 33% (2/6) |
| Other | 14 | 7.1% (1/14) | 42.9% (6/14) |
The sponsor provided expected values from published literature which showed the frequency for total anti-cardiolipin antibodies in SLE ranged from 16% to 86%, in primary and secondary APS 80% to 90% and in normals 2% to 5%. Frequency of anti-cardiolipin antibody for each allotype was not provided. In general, IgG and IgM anti-cardiolipin antibodies are considered to be of higher significance than IgA antibodies.
N. Conclusion:
The submitted information in this premarket notification is complete and supports a substantial equivalence decision
Predicate graph will load when search results are available.
Embedding visualization will load when search results are available.
PDF viewer will load when search results are available.
Loading panels...
Select an item from Submissions
Click any panel, subpart, regulation, product code, or device to see details here.
Section Matches
Results will appear here.
Product Code Matches
Results will appear here.
Special Control Matches
Results will appear here.
Loading collections...
Loading
My Alerts
You will receive email notifications based on the filters and frequency you set for each alert.
Sort by:
Create Alert
Search Filters
Agent Token
Create a read-only bearer token for Claude, ChatGPT, or other agents that can call HTTP APIs.
Copy this now. It will not be shown again.
Connected apps
Apps you authorized through browser sign-in. Disconnecting revokes their access immediately.
Learn the FDA Browser
Two short videos show you everything — or skip straight to the written tutorial if you'd rather read. You can reopen this any time from the Tutorial button in the top bar.
Part 1 — Search, results, and everyday workflows 16 min
Part 2 — Embeddings: the galaxy map 3 min
1. Search: exact and fuzzy
Type a phrase like "coronary artery calcification" into the search box. You get two kinds of results. Exact results match the literal phrase — prefix searches work ("coronary artery calcificati") but suffix searches do not. Fuzzy results match on the meaning and intent of your phrase rather than the exact words, and are sorted by relevance score. Hover over the Exact or Fuzzy badge on any row to see exactly why it matched.
Use the checkboxes above the results to narrow: SaMD keeps only software-only devices, AI / ML keeps only devices with AI.
Exact vs. fuzzy search: what's the difference?
Exact matches on the literal phrase (prefix search works, suffix does not). Fuzzy matches on the meaning and intent of the phrase rather than the exact words. Hover over the badge on any row to see why it matched.
You search "coronary artery calcification" and want only software devices with AI. What two filters do you apply?
Narrow by SaMD (software-only devices), then narrow by AI/ML (devices with AI).
2. The results table
Scroll right in the results table. The intended use is extracted for you — no need to open the PDF. The device story gives a high-level snapshot of what the device does and how it's used. The AI Performance sub-table shows each output name, acceptance criteria, observed values, and development/test dataset descriptions — the same format Innolitics uses for regulatory strategy outputs, and the fastest high-level fingerprint of an AI device. It is AI-generated but has been very reliable in practice.
Where do you find a device's intended use without opening the PDF?
Scroll right in the search results table. The intended use column is extracted for you; no need to dig into the 510(k) summary PDF.
What does the AI Performance sub-table show, and why is it useful?
Output name, acceptance criteria, observed values, development dataset description, and test dataset description. It's the same format we use for regulatory strategy output and Fast 510(k) input, and the fastest high-level fingerprint of an AI device. AI-generated but reliable in practice.
3. Judging fuzzy relevance
Fuzzy results trail off in relevance as you scroll. Use three signals to decide how far down to go: the fuzzy badge explanations, the intended use column, and whether your target output (e.g., Cobb angle) still appears in the AI Performance sub-table. Once it stops appearing, you're past the relevant zone. A top hit with a low score (~0.4) and a stretched explanation is a hint the closest predicates are far away — the project may be headed for De Novo. Note the fuzzy search is a pattern match: it doesn't handle negation ("not") well, and hardware devices can appear — filter by SaMD/AI ML to cut them.
How do you judge how far down fuzzy search results to go?
Use the relevancy signals: the fuzzy badge explanations, the intended use column, and whether the target output (e.g., Cobb angle) still appears in the AI Performance sub-table. Once it stops appearing, results are trailing off in relevancy.
4. Device detail page: chat and citations
Click a device name to open its detail page: device facts on the left, a chat window on the right. Ask something like "Describe the training data". The answer carries little citation bubbles — click one to jump to the highlighted passage in the source PDF, so you can verify every AI answer against the document. There's also a Download PDF button for sharing.
How do you verify an AI chat answer on the device detail page?
Click the citation bubbles to jump to the relevant highlight in the source document.
Reading rule for every project: how many summaries do you read in full?
At least the three most relevant 510(k) or De Novo summaries, in full. After that, use targeted chat questions to confirm your memory quickly. The tool supports this professional habit — it doesn't replace it.
5. Side-by-side comparison
Select multiple rows in the results table (aim for under ~10), then open the PDF Viewer tab. Ask one question — it goes to all selected devices in parallel, each with citations. This is the fastest way to compare and contrast devices: training data, PCCP scope, how they handled adding new scanners, and so on.
What does the side-by-side PDF viewer mode do?
Select multiple devices, open the PDF viewer tab, and ask one question (e.g., "Describe the training data"). It queries all selected devices simultaneously with citations, so you can compare and contrast quickly.
6. Collections
With rows selected, go to the Collections tab and create a labeled collection (e.g., "Cobb Angle Project"). Reload that selection any time — before a client call, pull up the collection and ask questions across all of its devices at once.
How do you save a set of selected devices for later use?
Select the rows, go to the Collections tab, and create a labeled collection (e.g., "Cobb Angle Project"). You can reload the selection anytime and carry it into the PDF viewer and other tabs that support selections.
7. Product codes and the regulations tree
Click a product code in the results to jump to it in the regulations tree — identification text, sibling product codes, and devices you can open in a PDF viewer on the right. Click a regulation number to see its identification, special controls, and related product codes. You can also search by product code or regulation number at the top of the tree. Always read the special controls if any exist for your device — it broadens your search and sharpens pre-kickoff research.
What can you do from the regulations tree view?
Browse product codes and regulation numbers, read the identification text and special controls, browse sibling product codes, open device PDFs on the right, and search by product code or regulation number at the top of the tree.
8. Chart view
Click Show Chart and segment by regulation number (or product code) to see which regulations dominate your result set. Clicking a regulation takes you into the regulations tree. Great for spotting that most matches are, say, hardware laparoscopic devices — a cue to go back and filter.
How do you see which regulations dominate a search result set?
Click "Show Chart" and segment by Regulation Number. Clicking a regulation takes you to the regulations tree.
9. The predicate graph
Open the Predicates tab for a family-tree view of predicate relationships. Click a node to trace its parents and children; selections from search carry over pre-selected. Commonly predicated devices are worth reading — a lot of people predicated them for a reason. The visual lineage is also handy on client calls, e.g. to show how a predicate family evolved and justify why your predicate still holds.
In the predicate graph, why are commonly predicated devices worth reading?
A lot of people predicated them for a reason. Clicking a node traces parents and children, and selections from search carry over pre-selected.
10. Embeddings: the galaxy map
The Embeddings tab plots every matching document in a 2-D "galaxy map" where semantically similar devices cluster together. Hover or click clusters to explore, and let AI label the clusters for you. Embeddings beat product codes for grouping: two devices can carry different product codes (LLZ vs. QIH) yet do the same thing — the embedding captures the meaning of the intended use and device story. This is also exactly how retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) works under the hood, and it makes a great visual on client calls.
Try it yourself
Head to the search page and work through a few of these AI/ML fuzzy searches to build intuition: perivascular fat on CT · aortic valve calcification opportunistic screening on noncontrast CT · breast cancer prediction on digital pathology slides · autism detection · gestational age prediction · a hearing aid that can also detect a pulse · foundation model based analysis of ECG · large language models · penetration test. Watch how the relevance scores, intended use, and AI Performance tables tell you when results stop being meaningful.