This test kit is designed for the determination of anti-proteinase 3 antibodies (PR3) in human serum and plasma. This test is used as an aid in the differential diagnosis of Wegener's granulomatosis and other autoimmune vasculitides, in conjunction with other laboratory and clinical findings. This test kit is designed for the determination of anti-myeloperoxidase antibodies (MPO) in human serum and plasma. This test is used as an aid in the differential diagnosis of microscopic polyangitis, Churg-Strauss syndrome and other autoimmune vasculitides, in conjunction with other laboratory and clinical findings.
Device Story
The EUROIMMUN Anti-PR3 and Anti-MPO ELISA IgG kits are in vitro diagnostic assays for detecting autoantibodies in human serum or plasma. The device utilizes microwell strips coated with purified PR3 or MPO antigen. Patient samples are diluted and added to the wells; if specific autoantibodies are present, they bind to the immobilized antigen. After washing, a rabbit anti-human IgG horseradish peroxidase (HRP) conjugate is added, followed by a TMB/H2O2 substrate. The HRP enzyme catalyzes a colorimetric reaction proportional to the amount of bound antibody. A stop solution terminates the reaction, and optical density is measured via spectrophotometry at 450 nm. The device is intended for use in clinical laboratories by trained personnel. Results are interpreted as negative or positive based on a 20 RU/mL cut-off, aiding clinicians in the differential diagnosis of autoimmune vasculitides. The semi-quantitative output supports clinical decision-making by confirming the presence of specific ANCA-associated antibodies.
Clinical Evidence
No clinical data provided in the document; bench testing only.
Technological Characteristics
ELISA-based immunological test system. Analyte: IgG antibodies against Proteinase 3 (PR3) or Myeloperoxidase (MPO). Sample type: human serum and plasma. Regulatory class II, product code MOB.
Indications for Use
Indicated for the detection of anti-PR3 or anti-MPO IgG antibodies in human serum and plasma as an aid in the differential diagnosis of autoimmune vasculitides, including Wegener's granulomatosis, microscopic polyangiitis, and Churg-Strauss syndrome, in conjunction with other clinical and laboratory findings. 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}
1
# 510(k) SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE DETERMINATION DECISION SUMMARY
A. 510(k) Number:
k060700
B. Purpose for Submission:
New Devices
C. Measurand:
Anti-proteinase 3 IgG and anti-myeloperoxidase IgG
D. Type of Test:
Qualitative and semi-quantitative, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA)
E. Applicant:
EUROIMMUN US, LLC
F. Proprietary and Established Names:
EUROIMMUN Anti-Proteinase 3 (PR3) ELISA IgG
EUROIMMUN Anti-Myeloperoxidase (MPO) ELISA IgG
G. Regulatory Information:
1. Regulation section:
21 CFR 866.5660, Multiple Autoantibodies Immunological Test System
2. Classification:
II
3. Product code:
MOB, Test System, Antineutrophil Cytoplasmic Antibodies (ANCA)
4. Panel:
Immunology 82
H. Intended Use:
1. Intended use(s):
The EUROIMMUN Anti-Proteinase 3 (PR2) ELISA IgG test kit is designed for the determination of anti-proteinase 3 antibodies (PR3) in human serum and plasma. This test is used as an aid in the differential diagnosis Wegener's granulomatosis and other autoimmune vasculitides, in conjunction with other laboratory and clinical findings.
The EUROIMMUN Anti-Myeloperoxidase (MPO) ELISA IgG test kit is designed for the determination of anti-myeloperoxidase antibodies (MPO) in human serum and plasma. This test is used as an aid in the differential diagnosis of microscopic polyangiitis, Churg-Strauss syndrome and other autoimmune vasculitides, in conjunction with other laboratory and clinical findings.
2. Indication(s) for use:
Same as intended use.
3. Special conditions for use statement(s):
For prescription use only.
4. Special instrument requirements:
Microplate reader capable of measuring OD at 450 and a reference wavelength of 620-650 nm. Microplate washer optional.
{1}
2
I. Device Description:
Each device contains the following: microwell strips (12x8) coated with PR3 or MPO, Calibrators 1-3 (2, 20 and 200 RU/mL), rabbit anti-human IgG horse-radish peroxidase conjugate, TMB/H₂O₂ substrate, positive control, negative control, sample buffer, wash buffer (10x concentrate) and 0.5M sulfuric acid stop solution. All reagents are ready for use except for the wash buffer.
J. Substantial Equivalence Information:
1. Predicate device name(s):
Bindazyme Anti-PR3 ELISA Kit
Bindazyme Anti-MPO ELISA Kit
2. Predicate 510(k) number:
k981029 (Anti-PR3)
k981030 (Anti-MPO)
3. Comparison with predicate:
Anti-PR3
| Similarities | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Item | New Device | Predicate Device |
| Intended Use/Indications for Use | Detection of IgG antibodies to PR3 as an aid in the diagnosis of Wegener’s granulomatosis and other autoimmune vasculitis, in conjunction with other laboratory and clinical findings | Same |
| Assay format | Semi-quantitative | Same |
| Technology | ELISA | Same |
| Antigen | Purified | Same |
| HRP anti-human IgG conjugate | Rabbit | Same |
| Controls | Positive and negative | Same |
| Result reading | O.D. at 450 nm | Same |
| Differences | | |
| Item | New Device | Predicate |
| Sample | Serum or plasma
1:101 dilution | Serum
1:100 dilution |
| Calibrators | Three levels: 2, 20, 200 RU/mL | 5 levels: 1.23, 3.7, 11.1, 33.3 and 100 U/mL |
| Controls | Human IgG | Diluted human serum |
| Wash Buffer | 10X concentrate | 20X concentrate |
| Stop solution | 0.5M Sulfuric acid | 3M Phosphoric Acid |
| Calculation | Point to point
Linear/linear | Not point to point
Log/linear |
| Cut-off value | 20 RU/mL | 3.5 U/mL |
| Results interpretation | Semi quantitative:
Negative: <20 RU/mL
Positive: ≥20 RU/mL
Qualitative (OD (patient)/OD_{Cal 2})
Negative: <1.0
Positive: ≥1.0 | Semi-quantitative:
Negative: ≤3.5 U/mL
Positive: >3.5 U/mL |
{2}
Anti-MPO
| Similarities | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Item | New Device | Predicate Device |
| Intended Use | Detection of IgG antibodies to MPO | Same |
| Assay format | Semi-quantitative | Same |
| Technology | ELISA | Same |
| Antigen | Purified | Same |
| HRP anti-human IgG conjugate | Rabbit | Same |
| Controls | Positive and negative | Same |
| Result reading | O.D. at 450 nm | Same |
| Differences | | |
| Item | New Device | Predicate |
| Indications for Use | As an aid in the differential diagnosis of microscopic polyangitis, Churg-Strauss syndrome and other autoimmune vasculitides, in conjunction with other laboratory and clinical findings | As an aid to the diagnosis of certain types of autoimmune vasculitis including crescentric glomerulonephritis and microscopic polyarteritis, in conjunction with other clinical findings. |
| Sample | Serum or plasma 1:101 dilution | Serum 1:100 dilution |
| Calibrators | Three levels: 2, 20, 200 RU/mL | 5 levels: 1.23, 3.7, 11.1, 33.3 and 100 U/mL |
| Controls | Human IgG | Diluted human serum |
| Wash Buffer | 10X concentrate | 20X concentrate |
| Stop solution | 0.5M Sulfuric acid | 3M Phosphoric Acid |
| Calculation | Point to point Linear/linear | Not point to point Log/linear |
| Cut-off value | 20 RU/mL | 3.5 U/mL |
| Results interpretation | Semi quantitative: Negative: <20 RU/mL Positive: ≥20 RU/mL Qualitative (OD (patient)/OD_{Cal 2}) Negative: <1.0 Positive: ≥1.0 | Semi-quantitative: Negative: ≤3.5 U/mL Positive: >3.5 U/mL |
K. Standard/Guidance Document Referenced (if applicable):
None referenced.
L. Test Principle:
Diluted calibrators, controls, and diluted patient samples are added to microwell coated with either PR3 or MPO antigen. Anti-PR3 or anti-MPO autoantibodies will bind to the respective antigen in the microtiter wells. After washing to remove any unbound serum proteins, horseradish peroxidase conjugated rabbit anti human IgG, is added and incubated. Following another washing step, the peroxidase substrate (TMB) is added and incubated for an additional period of time. If the HRP enzyme conjugate is present in the well, it will react with the substrate and produce a blue color. A stop solution is then added to each well to terminate the enzyme reaction and to stabilize the color development. The optical density of the color reaction is measured by spectrophotometry. The amount of antigen specific bound antibody is
{3}
proportional to the color intensity.
## M. Performance Characteristics (if/when applicable):
### 1. Analytical performance:
#### a. Precision/Reproducibility:
For each of the device, eight samples with different autoantibody concentrations were used in the reproducibility studies. Samples were assayed 20 times in one run for the intra-assay reproducibility study and 4 times on 4 different runs for the inter-assay reproducibility study. The assay specification was <12% CV. Results are summarized below.
| | Anti-PR3 | | | | Anti-MPO | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | Intra-Assay | | Inter-Assay | | Intra-Assay | | Inter-Assay | |
| Serum | Mean RU/mL | CV (%) | Mean RU/mL | CV (%) | Mean RU/mL | CV (%) | Mean RU/mL | CV (%) |
| 1 | 12 | 11.1 | 10 | 5.1 | 15 | 7.8 | 19 | 9.9 |
| 2 | 21 | 7.6 | 16 | 9.8 | 21 | 11.3 | 20 | 4.9 |
| 3 | 22 | 10.6 | 16 | 7.6 | 30 | 6.9 | 27 | 6.9 |
| 4 | 33 | 9.9 | 33 | 9.6 | 31 | 6.5 | 37 | 5.4 |
| 5 | 40 | 3.8 | 42 | 8.0 | 58 | 4.4 | 59 | 5.1 |
| 6 | 85 | 3.4 | 94 | 3.2 | 67 | 2.3 | 71 | 4.6 |
| 7 | 108 | 3.4 | 125 | 3.5 | 125 | 2.1 | 125 | 3.5 |
| 8 | 152 | 4.0 | 139 | 3.0 | 159 | 1.7 | 164 | 3.6 |
The inter-lot reproducibility for each device was determined by testing 6 QC samples with different autoantibody concentrations for two runs on three lots of kits. Speciation was set at <12% CV. Results are summarized in the following table.
| | | Anti-PR3 | | | | | | Anti-MPO | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Sample | | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| Lot | Run | Concentrations (RU/mL) | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 1 | 1 | 116 | 72 | 46 | 20 | 33 | 20 | 85 | 72 | 187 | 20 | 17 | 25 |
| 1 | 2 | 115 | 72 | 43 | 19 | 37 | 21 | 77 | 74 | 163 | 20 | 18 | 26 |
| 2 | 1 | 124 | 82 | 47 | 23 | 30 | 22 | 83 | 81 | 170 | 20 | 18 | 26 |
| 2 | 2 | 129 | 80 | 49 | 22 | 37 | 22 | 83 | 76 | 181 | 20 | 17 | 27 |
| 3 | 1 | 118 | 79 | 47 | 18 | 29 | 20 | 91 | 70 | 165 | 18 | 16 | 23 |
| 3 | 2 | 127 | 80 | 47 | 18 | 34 | 20 | 92 | 71 | 165 | 19 | 16 | 23 |
| Mean value | | 122 | 78 | 46 | 20 | 33 | 21 | 85 | 74 | 172 | 19 | 17 | 25 |
| SD | | 6.0 | 4.4 | 1.8 | 2.1 | 3.4 | 1.1 | 5.5 | 4.0 | 9.9 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 1.6 |
| CV% | | 4.9 | 5.7 | 3.8 | 10.1 | 10.1 | 5.2 | 6.5 | 5.4 | 5.8 | 4.1 | 6.2 | 6.5 |
#### b. Linearity/assay reportable range:
For each device, six samples with different autoantibody concentrations were serially diluted to cover the assay range. For each sample, there were four dilutions and the dilution factor for each was dependent on the autoantibody concentration. Results showed the assays were linear for the specified assay range.
The assay ranges for anti-PR3 and anti-MPO are 12-158 RU/ML and 7-181 RU/mL respectively.
#### c. Traceability, Stability, Expected values (controls, calibrators, or methods):
{4}
There is no reference standard for anti-PR3 and anti-MPO. The calibrators, positive and negative controls are prepared in-house and arbitrary units are assigned during development process.
d. Detection limit:
The detection limit is determined by assaying the sample buffer 20 times in one run. The mean and standard deviation (SD) were calculated. The detection limit is defined as 3SD above the mean value of the sample buffer and is approximately 1 RU/mL.
e. Analytical specificity:
Interference by endogenous substances: Aliquots of three samples were spiked with three different concentrations of endogenous substances, namely hemoglobin, bilirubin and triglyceride were tested on both anti-PR3 and anti-MPO devices. The acceptance criterion for the mean % recovery ranged from 89% to 115%. Both devices did not appear to be affected by hemoglobin (up to 1000 mg/dL), bilirubin (up to 40 mg/dL) and triglyceride (up to 2000 mg/dL).
Cross-reactivity: One hundred and sixteen samples from patients with other autoimmune diseases (34 SLE, 5 Ulcerative colitis (UC), 4 Crohns, 23 PBC, 30 glomerular basement membrane (GBM) and 20 RA) were tested by both devices. No cross-reactivity was observed for the samples tested.
f. Assay cut-off:
The cut-off value of 20 RU/mL was based on testing 148 normal serum and 155 patient sera [113 Wegener's granulomatosis (WG), 16 Churg-Strauss syndrome (CSS), 13 Polyarteritis nodosa (PN), 11 Microscopic arteritis (MA)]. All normal sera were negative with the 20 RU/mL cut-off.
2. Comparison studies:
a. Method comparison with predicate device:
Anti-PR3
Testing was performed on 270 samples which included 148 samples from healthy adults, 37 WG, 5 CSS, 9 PN, 5 MA, 34 SLE, 5 UC, 4 Crohns and 23 PBC on the new device and the predicate device, Bindazyme Anti-PR3 ELISA. Two samples (one SLE and one PBC) were positive with the predicate device and negative with the new device. Results are summarized in table below.
| | Bindazyme Anti-PR3 ELISA | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | Positive | Negative | Total |
| EUROIMMUN
Anti-PR3
ELISA | Positive | 37 | 0 | 37 |
| | Negative | 2 | 231 | 233 |
| | Total | 39 | 231 | 270 |
Positive percent Agreement: 94.9% (37/39)
Negative percent agreement: 100% (231/231)
Overall percent agreement: 99.3% (268/270)
Anti-MPO
{5}
The same 270 samples were also tested on the EUROIMMUN Anti-MPO ELISA and the predicate device, Bindazyme Anti-MPO ELISA. Three samples (two SLE and one PBC) were positive with the predicate device and negative with the new device. Results are summarized in table below.
| | Bindazyme Anti-MPO ELISA | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | Positive | Negative | Total |
| EUROIMMUN Anti-MPO ELISA | Positive | 24 | 0 | 24 |
| | Negative | 3 | 243 | 246 |
| | Total | 27 | 243 | 270 |
Positive percent Agreement: 88.9% (24/27)
Negative percent agreement: 100% (243/243)
Overall percent agreement: 98.9% (267/270)
Other studies to support performance:
Study 1: 342 clinically defined samples from patients with the following diagnosis: 113 WG, 16 CSS, 13 PN, 11 MA and 208 healthy subjects were evaluated internally. Sex and age distribution of the subjects were provided. The Anti-PR3 device was positive only for the WG patient samples and the Anti-MPO device for the CSS, PN and MA samples. None of the samples from the healthy controls reacted in either device.
Study 2: This study used the same samples for the k051489 which was for the EUROIMMUN ANCA IFA Granulocyte BIOCHIP MOSAIC Test to determine the sensitivity and specificity of the Anti-MPO device. Sera samples used consisted of 30 microscopic polyangitis (MPA), 327 sera from patients with other autoimmune diseases (WG, RA, SLE, MCTD, Sjogren's syndrome and scleroderma) and 206 normal blood donors. Of the MPA samples, 53% (16/30) were positive as compared to 0.6% (3/533) in the control group (other autoimmune diseases and blood donors combined). One of the false positive samples was from a patient with WG. When compared to EUROIMMUN ANCA IFA, the % positive agreement for the MPA group was 93.3% (14/15), % negative agreement was 86.7% (13/15) and total agreement was 90% (27/30). As for the control group, the % total agreement was 99.2% (529/533).
b. Matrix comparison:
EDTA, heparin and citrate plasmas are claimed as additional sample types to serum. Comparison studies were performed by testing 15 matched serum/plasma pairs for each anti-coagulant. The concentration of the samples ranged from 14-187 RU/mL for anti-PR3 and 10-181 RU/mL for anti-MPO. The samples were also serially diluted and linear regression analyses were performed in addition to mean % recovery for each serum/plasma pair. Results are summarized below:
{6}
| | Anti-PR3 | | | Anti-MPO | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | EDTA | Heparin | Citrate | EDTA | Heparin | Citrate |
| % recovery | 101 | 99 | 101 | 106 | 98 | 96 |
| Correlation coefficient | 0.990 | 0.985 | 0.978 | 0.997 | 0.996 | 0.997 |
3. Clinical studies:
a. Clinical Sensitivity and specificity:
Not provided.
b. Other clinical supportive data (when a is not applicable):
Not applicable.
4. Clinical cut-off:
Same as assay cut-off.
5. Expected values/Reference range:
Expected values in the normal population should be negative. Using the EUROIMMUN Anti-PR3 IgG ELISA, the incidence of anti-PR3 IgG in a German cohort of Wegener's granulomatosis was 85%. Using the EUROIMMUN anti-MPO IgG ELISA, the incidence of anti-MPO IgG in a German cohort of Microscopic polyangiitis was 53%.
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.