K060351 · Medtox Diagnostics, Inc. · DJG · May 12, 2006 · Clinical Toxicology
Device Facts
Record ID
K060351
Device Name
MEDTOX OXYCODONE
Applicant
Medtox Diagnostics, Inc.
Product Code
DJG · Clinical Toxicology
Decision Date
May 12, 2006
Decision
SESE
Submission Type
Traditional
Regulation
21 CFR 862.3650
Device Class
Class 2
Indications for Use
The MEDTOX® OXYCODONE Test System uses immunochromatographic test strips for the rapid, qualitative detection of oxycodone in human urine. It is intended for prescription use. The test detects oxycodone at concentrations of 100 ng/mL and above. The MEDTOX® OXYCODONE assay provides only a preliminary analytical test result. A more specific alternate chemical method must be used in order to obtain a confirmed analytical result. Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) is the preferred confirmatory method. Clinical consideration and professional judgment should be applied to any drug of abuse test result.
Device Story
The MEDTOX® OXYCODONE is a lateral flow immunochromatographic test strip for qualitative detection of oxycodone in human urine. The device uses a competitive binding principle: mouse monoclonal antibody specific to oxycodone is conjugated to colloidal gold; drug-protein conjugate is immobilized at the test line. In the absence of drug, gold-labeled antibody binds to the test line (visible red line). In the presence of drug at or above 100 ng/mL, the drug binds the gold-labeled antibody, preventing binding to the test line (no line). An internal control line confirms proper sample volume and reagent migration. The device is used in point-of-care, clinical, and forensic settings by trained operators. Results are read visually. The test provides a preliminary analytical result; positive results require confirmation by a more specific method like GC/MS. The device aids in identifying potential drug use, allowing healthcare providers to initiate further diagnostic or clinical evaluation.
Clinical Evidence
Bench testing only. Precision/reproducibility studies conducted with in-house operators and 9 POC operators at 3 sites using spiked urine samples. Results showed 100% agreement for negative samples (0-25 ng/mL) and high agreement for positive samples (125-150 ng/mL). Method comparison study against GC/MS (n=not specified) showed 96% agreement among positives and 97% agreement among negatives. Cross-reactivity and interference studies evaluated various endogenous compounds, prescription, and OTC medications; no significant interference reported.
Technological Characteristics
Lateral flow immunochromatographic assay. Cassette format with plastic housing and dropper. Mouse monoclonal anti-oxycodone test antibody; rabbit polyclonal anti-mouse control antibody. Visual readout; no instrumentation required. Qualitative detection at 100 ng/mL cutoff.
Indications for Use
Indicated for the rapid, qualitative detection of oxycodone in human urine at concentrations of 100 ng/mL and above. Intended for prescription use in point-of-care, physician office laboratories, central laboratories, workplace, criminal justice, forensic, and drug rehabilitation settings. Not for over-the-counter sale.
Regulatory Classification
Identification
An opiate test system is a device intended to measure any of the addictive narcotic pain-relieving opiate drugs in blood, serum, urine, gastric contents, and saliva. An opiate is any natural or synthetic drug that has morphine-like pharmocological actions. The opiates include drugs such as morphine, morphine glucoronide, heroin, codeine, nalorphine, and meperedine. Measurements obtained by this device are used in the diagnosis and treatment of opiate use or overdose and in monitoring the levels of opiate administration to ensure appropriate therapy.
Special Controls
*Classification.* Class II (special controls). An opiate test system is not exempt if it is intended for any use other than employment or insurance testing or is intended for Federal drug testing programs. The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 862.9, provided the test system is intended for employment and insurance testing and includes a statement in the labeling that the device is intended solely for use in employment and insurance testing, and does not include devices intended for Federal drug testing programs (*e.g.,* programs run by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), the Department of Transportation (DOT), and the U.S. military).
{0}
510(k) SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE DETERMINATION
DECISION SUMMARY
DEVICE ONLY TEMPLATE
A. 510(k) Number
k060351
B. Purpose for Submission:
New device
C. Measurand:
Oxycodone
D. Type of Test:
Qualitative immunoassay, lateral flow immunochromatographic
E. Applicant:
MedTox Diagnostics
F. Proprietary and Established Names:
MedTox Oxycodone
G. Regulatory Information:
1. Regulation section:
21 CFR 862.3650, Enzyme Immunoassay, Opiates
2. Classification:
Class II
3. Product Code:
DJG
4. Panel:
Toxicology (91)
H. Intended Use:
1. Intended use(s):
Refer to Indications for use below.
2. Indication(s) for use:
The MEDTOX® OXYCODONE Test System uses immunochromatographic test strips for the rapid, qualitative detection of oxycodone in human urine. It is intended for prescription use.
The test detects oxycodone at concentrations of 100 ng/mL and above.
{1}
Page 2 of 12
The MEDTOX® OXYCODONE assay provides only a preliminary analytical test result. A more specific alternate chemical method must be used in order to obtain a confirmed analytical result. Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) is the preferred confirmatory method. Clinical consideration and professional judgment should be applied to any drug of abuse test result.
3. Special condition for use statement(s):
The MEDTOX® OXYCODONE provides only a preliminary analytical test result. A more specific alternate chemical method must be used in order to obtain a confirmed analytical result. Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) is the preferred confirmatory method. Clinical consideration and professional judgment should be applied to any drug of abuse test result.
The assay is intended for prescription use in point-of-care settings.
Tests for oxycodone cannot distinguish between abused drugs and certain prescribed medications.
Certain foods or medications may interfere with tests for oxycodone and cause false positive results.
4. Special instrument Requirements:
Not applicable. The device is a visually read single-use device.
I. Device Description:
The product is a single-use device in a cassette format. The device includes the immunochromatographic strip enclosed in plastic, a plastic dropper for dispensing urine, and the package insert. At one end is the sample well where the urine sample is applied. The test reaction is initiated by movement of the sample through the test strip. In the middle of the device is a read window with a test line for oxycodone and a control line. Above the read window are interpretations for negative or non-negative for the test line and valid or invalid for the control line.
Description of the test antibody: monoclonal mouse antibody against oxycodone.
Description of the control line antibody: rabbit polyclonal anti-mouse.
J. Substantial Equivalence Information:
1. Predicate device name(s):
DRI Oxycodone Assay
2. Predicate 510(k) number(s):
k040411
3. Comparison with predicate:
Both devices are for the qualitative determination of the same analyte in the same matrix, and utilize the same cutoff concentration. The predicate uses
{2}
Page 3 of 12
liquid reagents on automated clinical chemistry analyzers. The candidate device is visually read and designed for single use only.
The reagent formulations vary between the two devices.
| Similarities | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Item | Predicate | Device |
| Cutoff | Same | 100 ng/mL |
| Cross-reactivity to opiates and oxycodone metabolites other than oxymorphone | Less than 1% | 2% or less |
| Test Antibodies | Same | Mouse monoclonal anti-oxycodone |
| Differences | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Item | Predicate | Device |
| Methodology | Automated homogeneous enzyme immunoassay | Lateral flow immunochromatographic |
| Procedure | Automated | Manual |
| Controls | Controls must be run separately in the same manner as patient samples | Control provided on each strip |
| Calibration Required | Yes | No |
| Cross-reactivity to oxymorphone (primary metabolite) | 103% | 50% |
K. Standard/Guidance Document Referenced (if applicable):
The sponsor did not reference any standards in this submission.
L. Test Principle:
The test employs lateral flow immunochromatographic technology.
Drug in the sample and drug-labeled conjugate (containing a chromagen) compete for antibody binding sites in the test area of the test strip. Binding of drug in the sample causes the absence of a line at the test area, i.e., a positive result. When drug is not present in the sample, the drug-labeled conjugate binds at the test line, resulting in formation of a line, i.e., a negative result. The absence or presence of the line is determined visually by the operator.
The device also has an internal process control which indicates that an adequate volume of sample has been added and that the immunochromatographic strip is intact.
{3}
Page 4 of 12
# M. Performance Characteristics (if/when applicable):
## 1. Analytical performance:
a. Precision/Reproducibility:
The sponsor performed two Precision/Reproducibility studies. The first was conducted at the sponsor's facility.
Specimen description: drug free urine spiked with oxycodone
Number of days: three
Replicates per day: two
Lots of product used: one
Number of operators: three
Operator: manufacturer staff
Testing Facility: manufacturer
Results of the study are presented below:
Oxycodone Precision Study Results at Sponsor's Facility
| Concentration of sample, ng/mL | Number of determinations | Results # Neg/ #Pos |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | 54 | 54/0 |
| 25 | 54 | 54/0 |
| 50 | 54 | 50/4 |
| 75 | 54 | 14/40 |
| 100 | 54 | 4/50 |
| 125 | 54 | 1/53 |
| 150 | 54 | 0/54 |
The second precision study was performed at three point of care sites.
Specimen description: drug free urine spiked with oxycodone
Number of days: one
Replicates per day: ninety (six concentrations X fifteen replicates per concentration)
Lots of product used: one
Number of operators: nine
Operators: POC staff, DOA Collection Center Staff, Rehabilitation Center Staff
Testing Facilities: Three POC sites
Results of the study are presented below:
{4}
Page 5 of 12
Oxycodone Precision Study Results at Point of Care Sites
| Concentration of sample, ng/mL | Number of determinations | | | Results # Neg/ #Pos | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | Site 1 | Site 2 | Site 3 | Site 1 | Site 2 | Site 3 |
| 0 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15/0 | 15/0 | 15/0 |
| 25 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15/0 | 15/0 | 15/0 |
| 50 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 13/2 | 15/0 | 14/1 |
| 100 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 0/15 | 3/12 | 3/12 |
| 125 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 0/15 | 2/13 | 1/14 |
| 150 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 0/15 | 0/15 | 0/15 |
b. Linearity/assay reportable range:
Not applicable. The assay is intended for qualitative use.
c. Traceability (controls, calibrators, or method):
External control materials are recommended but are not specifically identified in the labeling.
The device has an internal process control. Users are instructed to follow federal, state, and local guidelines when determining when to run external controls.
d. Detection limit:
Sensitivity of this assay is characterized by validating performance around the claimed cutoff concentration (100 ng/mL) of the assay, including a determination of the lowest concentration of drug that is capable of producing a positive result.
This information appears in the precision section, above.
e. Analytical specificity:
Cross-reactivity was established by spiking various concentrations of similarly structured drug compounds into drug-free urine. By analyzing various concentration of each compound the sponsor determined the concentration of the drug that produced a response approximately equivalent to the cutoff concentration of the assay. Results of those studies appear in the table(s) below:
| Drug compound | Response equivalent to cutoff in ng/mL | Percent Cross-Reactivity |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 6-monoacetylmorphine | Negative at 100,000 | < 1% |
| Apomorphine | Negative at 100,000 | < 1% |
{5}
Page 6 of 12
| Drug compound | Response equivalent to cutoff in ng/mL | Percent Cross-Reactivity |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Codeine | 5,000 | 2% |
| Dihydrocodeine | 10,000 | 1% |
| Ethylmorphine | 5,000 | 2% |
| Heroin | Negative at 100,000 | < 1% |
| Hydrocodone | 75,000 | < 1% |
| Hydromorphone | 50,000 | < 1% |
| Levorphanol | Negative at 50,000 | < 1% |
| Morphine | 50,000 | < 1% |
| Morphine-3-β-glucuronide | Negative at 100,000 | < 1% |
| Morphine-6-β-glucuronide | Negative at 100,000 | < 1% |
| Nalorphine | Negative at 100,000 | < 1% |
| Drug compound | Response equivalent to cutoff in ng/mL | Percent Cross-Reactivity |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Naloxone | 50,000 | < 1% |
| Naltrexone | Negative at 100,000 | < 1% |
| Norcodeine | 100,000 | < 1% |
| Oxymorphone | 200 | 50% |
| Thebaine | Negative at 100,000 | < 1% |
The following compounds were evaluated for potential positive and/or negative interference with the assay. To evaluate for interference the sponsor prepared two control samples that consisted of drug-free urine spiked with 25 ng/mL (to test for positive interference) and 150 ng/mL (to test for negative interference) of oxycodone. Next, 100 µg/mL of all of the potentially interfering compounds were added to separate aliquots of the control samples and analyzed. There were no deviations from the expected results for the following compounds:
Acetylsalicylic Acid
Acetaminophen
Brompheniramine
Caffeine
Carbamazepine
Chlorpheniramine
Cocaine
Doxylamine
Dextromethorphan
5,5 Diphenylhydantoin
Ibuprofen
Phenobarbital
d-Pseudoephedrine
Salicylic Acid
{6}
Page 7 of 12
The sponsor did a second interference study which tested for positive interference only. It is noted that these compounds were spiked into drug-free urine (zero concentration oxycodone) only. All of the compounds listed below were spiked in at a concentration of 100 µg/mL with the following exceptions:
Alprazolam @ 25 µg/mL, Alprazolam, 1-Hydroxy @ 10 µg/mL, Buprenorphine @ 10 µg/mL, Fentanyl @ 10 µg/mL, 11-hydroxy-Δ⁹-THC @ 10 µg/mL, Lorazepam glucuronide @ 10 µg/mL, 11-Nor-9-carboxy Δ⁹-THC @10 µg/mL, Olanzapine @ 10 µg/mL, Oxazepam glucuronide @ 10 µg/mL, and Triazolam, 1-hydroxy @ 10 µg/mL. There were no deviations from the expected negative results.
| Acecainide | Caffeine | Dextromethorphan |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Acetaminophen | Cannabidiol | Diazepam |
| Acetylsalicylic Acid | Cannabinol | Diclofenac |
| Allobarbital | Captopril | Diethylpropion |
| Alprazolam | Carbamazepine | Diflunisal |
| Alprazolam, 1-Hydroxy p-Aminobenzoic Acid | Carbamazepine, 11 epoxide | Digoxin |
| 7-Amino-clonazepam | Carisoprodol | Dimenhydrinate |
| 7-Amino-flunitrazepam | Cephalexin | 1,3-Dimethylbarbituric acid |
| Aminoglutethimide | Chloral Hydrate | Diphenhydramine |
| l-Aminopyrine | Chloramphenicol | e |
| Amitriptyline | Chlordiazepoxide | Domperidone |
| Amobarbital | Chloroquine | Dopamine |
| Amoxapine | Chlorothiazide | Doxepin |
| Amoxicillin d-Amphetamine | Chlorpheniramine | Doxylamine |
| l-Amphetamine | Chlorpromazine | Ecgonine |
| Ampicillin | Chlorprothixene | Doxyamine |
| Aprobarbital | Clobazam | Ecgonine Methyl Ester |
| l-Ascorbic Acid | Clomipramine | EDDP |
| Aspartame | Clonazepam | Efavirenz |
| Atenolol | Clonidine | EMDP |
| Atropine Sulfate | Clorazepate | Ephedrine |
| Barbital | Clozapine | Equilin |
| Barbituric Acid | Cocaine | Erythromycin |
| Benzic Acid | Cortisone | Estrone |
| Benzocaine | Cotinine | Ethanol |
| Benzoylecgonine | Cyclopentobarbitol | Fenfluramine |
| Benzphetamine | Deoxycorticosterone | Fenoprofen |
| Benztropine | Desalkylflurazepam | Fentanyl |
| Brompheniramine | Desipramine | Flunitrazepam |
| Buprenorphine | Norchlordiazepoxide | Fluoxetine |
| Bupropion | Desmethylflunitrazepam | Lurazepam |
| Butabarbital | Desmethylvenlafaxine | Furosemide |
| Butalbital | Dexamethasone | Fuvoxamine |
| | | Gentisic Acid |
| | | Glutethimide |
| | | Guaiacol Glyceryl Ether |
{7}
Page 8 of 12
| Haloperidol | I- | Perphenazine |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Hexobarbital | Methamphetamine | Phenallymal |
| Hippuric acid | e | Phenacetin |
| Hydralazine | Methaqualone | Phencyclidine |
| Hydrochlorothiazide | Methcathinone | Phendimetrazine |
| Hydrocortisone | Methocarbamol | Phenelzine |
| Hydroxybupropion | Methoxyphenamine | Phenethylamine |
| Hydroxyhippuric acid | Methylphenidate | Pheniramine |
| 1-11-Hydroxy-Δ⁹-THC | Methylprylon | Phenmetrazine |
| p-Hydroxyphenobarbital | Metoprolol | Phenobarbital |
| 4-Hydroxyphencyclidine | Midazolam | Phenothiazine |
| 3-Hydroxytyramine | Mirtazapine | Phentermine |
| Hydroxyzine | Nalidixic Acid | Phentoin |
| Ibuprofen | Naproxen | Phenylbutazone |
| Imipramine | Niacinamide | Phenylephrine |
| Iproniazid | Nicotine | Phenylpropanolamine |
| (R)-Isoproterenol | Nifedipine | Piroxicam |
| Isoxsuprine | Nitrazepam | Prazosin |
| Ketamine | Nitrofurantoin | Prednisolone |
| Ketoprofen | Norclomipramine | Prednisone |
| Labetalol | Nordiazepam | Procaine |
| Lidocaine | Nordoxepin | Procainamide |
| Lithium carbonate | Norethindrone | Prochlorperazine |
| Loperamide | Norlysergic Acid | Promazine |
| Lorazepam | Normeperidine | Promethazine |
| Lorazepam glucuronide | Norpropoxyphene | Propoxyphene |
| Loxapine | I- | Propranolol |
| Lysergic Acid | Norpseudoephedrine | Protriptyline |
| Lysergic Acid | 11-Nor-9-carboxy-Δ⁹-THC | d-Pseudoephedrine |
| Diethylamide | 11-Nor-9-carboxy-Δ⁸-THC | Pyrilamine |
| Maprotiline | Nortriptyline | Quetiapine |
| MDA | Noscapine | Quinidine |
| MDEA | Nylidrin | Ranitidine |
| MDMA | Octopamine | Riboflavin |
| Melanin | Ofloxacin | Rifampin |
| Meperidine | Olanzapine | Salicylic Acid |
| Mephobarbital | Omeprazole | Secobarbital |
| Mepivacaine | Orphenadrine | Selegiline |
| Mesoridazine | Oxalic Acid | Serotonin |
| Methadone | Oxaprosin | Sertraline |
| d-Methamphetamine | Oxazepam | Sildenafil |
| d-Methamphetamine | glucuronide | Sulfamethazine |
| d-Methamphetamine | Oxolinic Acid | Sulindac |
| d-Methamphetamine | Oxymetazoline | Talbutal |
| d-Methamphetamine | Papaverine | Temazepam |
| d-Methamphetamine | hydrochloride | Tetracycline |
| d-Methamphetamine | Penicillin G | Δ⁹-Tetrahydrocannabinol |
| d-Methamphetamine | Pentazocine | Tetrahydrocannabinol |
| d-Methamphetamine | Pentobarbital | Tetrahydrozoline |
| d-Methamphetamine | Thiophyline | Thiamine |
| d-Methamphetamine | Thiamine | Thiopental |
{8}
Page 9 of 12
Thioridazine
Thiothixine
Tolbutamide
Tolmetin
Trazodone
Triamterene
Triazolam
Triazolam, 1-
hydroxy
Trifluoperazine
Trimethoprim
Trimipramine
Tripelennamine
Tryptamine
Tryptophan
Tyramine
Tyrosine
Valproic Acid
Venlafaxine
Verapamil
Zomepirac
There is the possibility that other substances and/or factors not listed above may interfere with the test and cause false results, e.g., technical or procedural errors.
To test for potential positive/and or negative interference from endogenous conditions the sponsor performed the following studies:
To assess the effects of pH on the assay, the sponsor prepared samples from a pH of 4-9 and then to separate aliquots spiked in oxycodone at concentrations of 25 and 150 ng/mL. There were no deviations from the expected results.
The sponsor did a similar study with specific gravity values of 1.003, 1.005, 1.010, 1.015, 1.020, 1.025, 1.030, and 1.035 with urine samples spiked at 25 and 150 ng/mL. There were no deviations from the expected results.
For other endogenous substances, the sponsor performed a study which tested for positive interference only. It is noted that these compounds were spiked into drug-free urine (zero concentration oxycodone) only. The following table lists the compounds, the concentration that was spiked into drug-free urine, and the result.
| Compound | Concentration | MEDTOX Oxycodone result |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Acetaldehyde | 100 μg/ml | NEG |
| Acetone | 100 μg/ml | NEG |
| Albumin, human | 20 mg/ml | NEG |
| Bilirubin | 200 μg/ml | NEG |
| Cholesterol | 100 μg/ml | NEG |
| Creatinine | 100 μg/ml | NEG |
| d,l-Thyroxin | 100 μg/ml | NEG |
| Epinephrine | 100 μg/ml | NEG |
| B-Estradiol | 100 μg/ml | NEG |
| Estriol | 100 μg/ml | NEG |
| Glucose, Standard Solution | 100 μg/ml | NEG |
| Hemoglobin, human | 100 μg/ml | NEG |
| Sodium Chloride | 100 μg/ml | NEG |
{9}
Page 10 of 12
| Compound | Concentration | MEDTOX Oxycodone result |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Tetra hydrocortisone | 100 μg/ml | NEG |
| Uric Acid | 100 μg/ml | NEG |
f. Assay cut-off:
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) has not recommended a cutoff concentration for oxycodone. The sponsor’s claimed cutoff is 100 ng/mL.
Characterization of how the device performs analytically around the claimed cutoff concentration appears in the precision section, above.
2. Comparison studies:
a. Method comparison with predicate device:
The candidate device was compared both to a reference method, GC/MS, and to the predicate device.
A total of 161 samples (116 negative and 45 positive) were evaluated by the candidate device and by GC/MS and/or the predicate device.
Sample description: Unaltered clinical urine samples were evaluated. 37 additional diluted samples were also included in the study. The samples were prepared by diluting clinical samples with high drug concentrations with drug-free urine. This was done in order to obtain samples near the cutoff concentration of the assay, because the sponsor was not able to obtain unaltered samples near the cutoff.
Sample selection: Samples previously analyzed by the predicate device were selected to be analyzed by the candidate device. Samples were chosen for the study based on whether they screened positive or negative by the predicate device.
Only those samples found positive by the predicate device were analyzed by GC/MS. A portion of samples having drug concentrations that were below the cutoff concentration of the assay were also evaluated by GC/MS.
The study included an adequate number of samples that contained drugs near to the cutoff concentration of the assay. Approximately 10% of the study samples are evenly distributed between plus and minus 50% of the claimed cutoff concentration
Number of study sites: three
Type of study site(s): POC setting
{10}
Page 11 of 12
Operator description: POC staff, DOA Collection Center Staff, Rehabilitation Center Staff
Candidate Device Results vs. stratified GC/MS Values
| Candidate Device Results | Negative by Immunoassay Predicate Device | Concentration of up to the cutoff -50% | Near Cutoff Negative (Between 50% below the cutoff and the cutoff concentration) | Near Cutoff Positive (Between the cutoff and 50% above the cutoff concentration) | High Positive (greater than 50% above the cutoff concentration) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Positive | 0 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 37 |
| Negative | 103 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 1 |
GC/MS values used to categorize samples in this table are determined by adding together the concentration of oxycodone plus 50% of the concentration of oxymorphone, based on the sponsor’s cross-reactivity studies.
% Agreement among positives is 96%
% Agreement among negatives is 97%
The sponsor also performed a method comparison study at their own facility using many of the same samples as in the POC study above. Results between the two studies were similar.
b. Matrix comparison:
Not applicable. The assay is intended for only one sample matrix.
3. Clinical studies:
a. Clinical sensitivity:
Not applicable. Clinical studies are not typically submitted for this device type.
b. Clinical specificity:
Not applicable. Clinical studies are not typically submitted for this device type.
c. Other clinical supportive data (when a and b are not applicable):
4. Clinical cut-off:
Not applicable.
5. Expected values/Reference range:
Not applicable.
{11}
Page 12 of 12
N. Proposed Labeling:
The labeling is sufficient and it satisfies the requirements of 21 CFR Part 809.10.
O. 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.