Clinical samples were used to evaluate the performance of the Opiate Enzyme Immunoassay by comparing results against a reference confirmatory method (GC/MS or LC/MS).
Percent agreement with positive and negative samples
Indications for Use
The Opiate Enzyme Immunoassay is intended for the qualitative and semi-quantitative determination of opiates in human urine, at a cutoff value of 300 ng/mL when calibrated against morphine. The assay is designed for professional use with a number of automated clinical chemistry analyzers. The semi-quantitative mode is for purposes of (1) enabling laboratories to determine an appropriate dilution of the specimen for confirmation by a confirmatory method such as GCMS or (2) permitting laboratories to establish quality control procedures. The assay provides only a preliminary analytical result. A more specific alternative chemical method must be used in order to obtain a confirmed analytical result. Gas or liguid chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS or LC/MS) is the preferred confirmatory method). Clinical consideration and professional judgment should be exercised with any drug of abuse test result, particularly when the preliminary test result is positive.
Device Story
Opiate Enzyme Immunoassay; homogeneous competitive enzyme immunoassay; liquid reagent. Input: human urine sample. Principle: competition between sample drug and morphine-labeled G6PDH for fixed antibody; enzyme activity inversely proportional to drug concentration; active enzyme converts NAD to NADH; absorbance measured spectrophotometrically at 340 nm. Output: qualitative (positive/negative) or semi-quantitative concentration result. Used in clinical laboratories; operated by technicians/lab personnel on automated clinical chemistry analyzers (e.g., Hitachi 717). Results provide preliminary screening; require confirmation by GC/MS or LC/MS. Assists clinicians in identifying opiate presence for diagnostic/treatment decisions.
Clinical Evidence
Bench testing only. Precision evaluated with 88 determinations per concentration level (0-600 ng/mL). Linearity demonstrated on Hitachi 717 (0-1000 ng/mL, r2=0.9976). Method comparison with 130 clinical samples showed 98.3% positive agreement and 94.5-95.9% negative agreement compared to reference methods.
Technological Characteristics
Homogeneous enzyme immunoassay; liquid reagents (R1: mouse monoclonal anti-morphine antibody, G6P, NAD; R2: morphine-labeled G6PDH). Detection via spectrophotometry at 340 nm. Requires automated clinical chemistry analyzer capable of temperature control, pipetting, and timing. No specific materials of construction standards cited. Standalone reagent kit; not networked/cloud-connected.
Indications for Use
Indicated for qualitative and semi-quantitative detection of opiates in human urine at 300 ng/mL cutoff. For professional use in clinical settings with automated chemistry analyzers. Not for self-testing.
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).
Predicate Devices
Opiate Enzyme Immunoassay (k020368)
Submission Summary (Full Text)
{0}
1
510(k) SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE DETERMINATION
DECISION SUMMARY
ASSAY ONLY TEMPLATE
A. 510(k) Number:
k110298
B. Purpose for Submission:
New Device
C. Measurand:
Opiates
D. Type of Test:
Competitive enzyme immunoassay; qualitative and semi-quantitative
E. Applicant:
Lin-Zhi International, Inc.
F. Proprietary and Established Names:
Opiate Enzyme Immunoassay
G. Regulatory Information:
1. Regulation section:
21 CFR § 862.3650 Opiate Test System
2. Classification:
Class II
3. Product code:
DJG, Enzyme Immunoassay, Opiate
4. Panel:
91 (Toxicology)
H. Intended Use:
{1}
1. Intended use(s):
See Indications for use, below.
2. Indication(s) for use:
The Opiate Enzyme Immunoassay is intended for the qualitative and semi-quantitative determination of opiates in human urine, at a cutoff value of 300 ng/mL when calibrated against morphine. The assay is designed for prescription use with a number of automated clinical chemistry analyzers.
The semi-quantitative mode is for purposes of (1) enabling laboratories to determine an appropriate dilution of the specimen for confirmation by a confirmatory method such as GCMS or (2) permitting laboratories to establish quality control procedures.
This assay provides only a preliminary analytical test result. A more specific alternative chemical method must be used in order to obtain a confirmed analytical result. Gas or liquid chromatography (GC/MS or LC/MS) is the preferred confirmatory method. Clinical consideration and professional judgment should be exercised with any drug of abuse test result, particularly when the preliminary result is positive.
3. Special conditions for use statement(s):
The assay is for prescription use
4. Special instrument requirements:
Clinical chemistry analyzers capable of maintaining a constant temperature, pipetting sample, mixing reagent, measuring enzymatic rates at 340 nm and timing the reaction accurately can be used to perform this homogeneous immunoassay.
Performance studies in this submission were performed on the Hitachi 717.
I. Device Description:
The Opiate Enzyme Immunoassay is a homogeneous enzyme immunoassay ready-to-use liquid reagent. The assay is comprised of two ready-to-use liquid reagents, R1 (1 x 100 mL or 1 x 1000 mL) and R2 (1 x 37.5 or 1 x 375 mL). R1 solution contains a mouse monoclonal anti-morphine antibody, glucose-6-phosphate (G6P), nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD), stabilizers, and sodium azide (0.09%) as a preservative. R2 solution contains glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PDH) labeled with morphine in buffer, with sodium azide (0.09%) as a preservative. The kits will be provided in two configurations, with R1 x 100 mL; R2 x 37.5 mL and with R1 x 1000 mL; R2 x 375 mL.
{2}
Previously cleared (k020769) Calibrators and Controls are sold separately and contain negative human urine with sodium azide as preservative.
J. Substantial Equivalence Information:
1. Predicate device name(s):
Opiate Enzyme Immunoassay
2. Predicate 510(k) number(s):
k020368
3. Comparison with predicate:
| Similarities and Differences | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Item | Candidate device (Opiate Enzyme Immunoassay) | Predicate device (k020368) |
| Intended Use | The Opiate Enzyme Immunoassay is intended for the qualitative and semi-quantitative determination of opiates in human urine, at a cut off value of 300 mg/mL. The assay is designed for professional use with a number of automated clinical chemistry analyzers.
The semi-quantitative mode is for purposes of: 1) enabling laboratories to determine an appropriate dilution of the specimen for confirmation by a confirmatory method such as GCMS or 2) permitting laboratories to establish quality control procedures.
This assay provides only a preliminary analytical test result. A more specific alternative chemical method must be used in order to obtain a confirmed analytical result. Gas or liquid chromatography (GC/MS or LC/MS) is the preferred | Same |
{3}
| Similarities and Differences | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | confirmatory method. Clinical consideration and professional judgment should be exercised with any drug of abuse test result, particularly when the preliminary result is positive. | |
| Sample Types | Urine | Same |
| Test Principle | Competitive enzyme immunoassay | Same |
| Cutoff | 300 ng/mL | Same |
K. Standard/Guidance Document Referenced (if applicable):
No Standards/Guidance Referenced
L. Test Principle:
The Opiate Enzyme Immunoassay is a competitive enzyme immunoassay based on competition between drug in the sample and drug labeled with the enzyme glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PDH) for a fixed amount of antibody in the reagent. Enzyme activity decreases upon binding to the antibody, and the drug concentration in the sample is measured in terms of enzyme activity. In the absence of drug in the sample, morphine-labeled G6PDH conjugate is bound to antibody and enzyme activity is inhibited. When free drug is present in the sample antibody binds to the free drug, the unbound morphine-labeled G6PDH then exhibits its maximum enzyme activity. Active enzyme converts nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD) to NADH resulting in an absorbance change measured spectrophotometrically at 340 nm.
M. Performance Characteristics (if/when applicable):
1. Analytical performance:
Performance was evaluated on the Hitachi 717
a. Precision/Reproducibility:
Precision was determined by spiking morphine standards into drug free urine pool at various concentrations surrounding the cutoff: -100%, -75%, -50%, -25%, cutoff, +100%, +75%, +50%, +25% +100%. Concentrations were confirmed by GC/MS. Testing for both the with-in run and between-run studies were performed by testing each sample in replicate, with two runs per day, for 22 days. The qualitative and semi-quantitative results are presented below:
{4}
Qualitative Precision Data:
| 300 ng/mL Cutoff Result | | Within Run | | Total Precision | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Sample Concentration (ng/mL) | % of Cutoff | Number of Determinations | Immunoassay Results | Number of Determinations | Immunoassay Results |
| 0 | -100% | 22 | 22 Negative | 88 | 88 Negative |
| 75 | -75% | 22 | 22 Negative | 88 | 88 Negative |
| 150 | -50% | 22 | 22 Negative | 88 | 88 Negative |
| 225 | -25% | 22 | 22 Negative | 88 | 88 Negative |
| 300 | Cut off | 22 | 16 Pos/6 Neg | 88 | 51 Pos/37 Neg |
| 375 | +25% | 22 | 22 Positive | 88 | 88 Positive |
| 450 | +50% | 22 | 22 Positive | 88 | 88 Positive |
| 525 | +75% | 22 | 22 Positive | 88 | 88 Positive |
| 600 | +100% | 22 | 22 Positive | 88 | 88 Positive |
Semi-Quantitative Precision Data:
| 300 ng/mL Cutoff Result | | Within Run | | Total Precision | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Sample Concentration (ng/mL) | % of Cutoff | Number of Determinations | Immunoassay Results | Number of Determinations | Immunoassay Results |
| 0 | -100% | 22 | 22 Negative | 88 | 88 Negative |
| 75 | -75% | 22 | 22 Negative | 88 | 88 Negative |
| 150 | -50% | 22 | 22 Negative | 88 | 88 Negative |
| 225 | -25% | 22 | 22 Negative | 88 | 88 Negative |
| 300 | Cut off | 22 | 6 Pos/16 Neg | 88 | 27 Pos/61 Neg |
| 375 | +25% | 22 | 22 Positive | 88 | 88 Positive |
| 450 | +50% | 22 | 22 Positive | 88 | 88 Positive |
| 525 | +75% | 22 | 22 Positive | 88 | 88 Positive |
| 600 | +100% | 22 | 22 Positive | 88 | 88 Positive |
b. Linearity/assay reportable range:
Linearity across the range was confirmed by serially diluting a spiked urine pool containing 1000 ng/mL of morphine to obtain the concentrations listed in the table below. Each sample was assayed in replicates of 10 on the Hitachi 717 analyzer in the semi-quantitative mode. The results were averaged and compared to the expected result and the percent recovery was calculated. Results are presented in the table below:
| Expected Value (ng/mL) | Mean Observed Value (ng/mL) | Recovery (%) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1000 | 1099.09 | 109.9 |
| 900 | 957.84 | 106.4 |
{5}
6
| 800 | 832.13 | 104.0 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 700 | 710.24 | 101.5 |
| 600 | 619.26 | 103.2 |
| 500 | 523.29 | 104.7 |
| 400 | 425.71 | 106.4 |
| 300 | 303.31 | 101.1 |
| 200 | 225.04 | 112.5 |
| 100 | 116.31 | 116.3 |
| 20 | 20.81 | 104.1 |
| 0 | 0 | Not Applicable |
c. Traceability, Stability, Expected values (controls, calibrators, or methods):
Traceability:
Five levels of calibrators (0, 150, 300, 600, 1000 ng/mL) and two levels of control material (225 and 375 ng/mL) are available for use with the Opiate Enzyme Immunoassay. These calibrator and control solutions are human urine based and were previously cleared under k020769
Stability and Value assignment:
Stability and value assignment of the calibrators and controls was evaluated in k020769.
d. Detection limit:
Performance at low drug concentrations in the semi-quantitative assay was characterized by determination of recovery (see section b above).
e. Analytical specificity:
The cross-reactivity of various potential interfering drugs was tested by spiking a final concentration of up to 3,000,000 ng/mL of each substance into drug-free urine. The structurally un-related compounds were spiked into samples containing morphine at concentrations ±25% of the cutoff.
Compounds that interfered with the performance of the device were further tested at ±50% of the cutoff concentration. Samples evaluated in both semi-quantitative and qualitative mode. Results summarize the approximate quantity of each compound that is equivalent in assay reactivity to the 300 ng/mL morphine cutoff and are presented below:
Structurally Related Compounds
| Compound | Compound Concentration | Cross-reactivity (%) |
| --- | --- | --- |
{6}
7
| | (ng/mL) | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 6-Monoacetyl Morphine | 400 | 85.85 |
| Codeine | 200 | 169.00 |
| Dihydrocodeine | 700 | 43.44 |
| Heroin | 300 | 107.88 |
| Hydrocodone | 2300 | 13.74 |
| Hydromorphone | 1900 | 17.23 |
| Levorphanol | 8000 | 4.01 |
| Morphine | 300 | 101.15 |
| Morphine-3-Glucuronide | 800 | 39.12 |
| Morphine-6-Glucuronide | 300 | 109.03 |
| Nalbuphine | 3,000,000 | 0.006 |
| Naloxone | 2,700,000 | 0.046 |
| Naltrexone | 800,000 | 0.011 |
| Normorphine | 30,000 | 0.316 |
| Norcodeine | 130,000 | 0.24 |
| Oxycodone | 60,000 | 0.51 |
| Oxymorphone | 140,000 | 0.23 |
| Thebaine | 2,000 | 16.12 |
| Codeine-6-β-Glucuronide | 250 | 124.38 |
**Structurally Unrelated Compounds**
| Compound | Concentration (ng/mL) | -25% Cutoff | | +25% Cutoff | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | Semi-quant | Qualitative | Semi-quant | Qualitative |
| Acetaminophen | 500,000 | NEG | NEG | POS | POS |
| Acetylsalicylic Acid | 3,000,000 | NEG | NEG | POS | POS |
| Albuterol | 3,000,000 | NEG | NEG | POS | POS |
| Amitriptyline | 50,000 | NEG | NEG | POS | POS |
| Amobarbital | 3,000,000 | NEG | NEG | POS | POS |
| d-Amphetamine | 3,000,000 | NEG | NEG | POS | POS |
| Benzoylecgonine | 3,000,000 | NEG | NEG | POS | POS |
| Bupropion | 1,000,000 | NEG | NEG | POS | POS |
| Caffeine | 3,000,000 | NEG | NEG | POS | POS |
| Carbamazepine | 500,000 | NEG | NEG | POS | POS |
| Chlorpromazine | 80,000 | NEG | NEG | POS | POS |
| Clomipramine | 30,000 | NEG | NEG | POS | POS |
{7}
The following compounds interfered with the performance of the assay at $+/- 25\%$ of the cutoff concentration of morphine: Imipramine, Methapyrilene, Ranitidine, Tramadol. These compounds were further tested at $+/- 50\%$ of the cutoff and were shown to have no detectable interference with the assay.
# Endogenous Compounds:
The following endogenous compounds were spiked into urine spiked with morphine to $\pm 25\%$ of cutoff (225 or $375~\mathrm{ng / mL}$ ). The spiked solutions were evaluated on the Hitachi 717. The substances listed in the following table were determined not to interfere at the concentrations tested:
| Compound | Concentration (ng/mL) | -25% Cutoff | | +25% Cutoff | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | Qual. | Semi- | Qual. | Semi- |
| Imipramine | 225 | 375 | 375 | 375 | 375 |
| Dextramethorphan | 40,000 | NEG | NEG | POS | POS |
| Doxepine | 175,000 | NEG | NEG | POS | POS |
| Ecgonine | 3,000,000 | NEG | NEG | POS | POS |
| Ephedrine | 1,400,000 | NEG | NEG | POS | POS |
| Fentanyl | 300,000 | NEG | NEG | POS | POS |
| Fluoxetine | 800,000 | NEG | NEG | POS | POS |
| Fluphenazine | 3,000,000 | NEG | NEG | POS | POS |
| Ibuprofen | 500,000 | NEG | NEG | POS | POS |
| Imipramine | 20,000 | POS | POS | POS | POS |
| Lidocaine | 3,000,000 | NEG | NEG | POS | POS |
| Maprotiline | 600,000 | NEG | NEG | POS | POS |
| Meperidine | 25,000 | NEG | NEG | POS | POS |
| Methadone | 700,000 | NEG | NEG | POS | POS |
| Methapyrilene | 300,000 | POS | POS | POS | POS |
| Methaqualone | 3,000,000 | NEG | NEG | POS | POS |
| Metronidazole | 700,000 | NEG | NEG | POS | POS |
| Nicotine | 800,000 | NEG | NEG | POS | POS |
| Nortriptyline | 110,000 | NEG | NEG | POS | POS |
| Oxazepam | 3,000,000 | NEG | NEG | POS | POS |
| Phencyclidine | 900,000 | NEG | NEG | POS | POS |
| Phenobarbital | 3,000,000 | NEG | NEG | POS | POS |
| Propoxyphene | 260,000 | NEG | NEG | POS | POS |
| Ranitidine | 3,000,000 | POS | NEG | POS | POS |
| Secobarbital | 3,000,000 | NEG | NEG | POS | POS |
| Talwin | 100,000 | NEG | NEG | POS | POS |
| Thioridazine | 70,000 | NEG | NEG | POS | POS |
| Tramadol | 500,000 | POS | NEG | POS | POS |
| Valproic Acid | 3,000,000 | NEG | NEG | POS | POS |
{8}
| | | | quant | | quant |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Acetone | 1000 | NEG | NEG | POS | POS |
| Ascorbic Acid | 1500 | NEG | NEG | POS | POS |
| Creatinine | 500 | NEG | NEG | POS | POS |
| Ethanol | 1000 | NEG | NEG | POS | POS |
| Galactose | 10 | NEG | NEG | POS | POS |
| β-Globulin | 500 | NEG | NEG | POS | POS |
| Glucose | 3000 | NEG | NEG | POS | POS |
| Hemoglobin | 300 | NEG | NEG | POS | POS |
| Human Serum Albumin | 500 | NEG | NEG | POS | POS |
| Oxalic Acid | 100 | NEG | NEG | POS | POS |
| Riboflavin | 0.3 | NEG | NEG | POS | POS |
| Sodium Chloride | 6000 | NEG | NEG | POS | POS |
| Urea | 6000 | NEG | NEG | POS | POS |
The package insert includes a complete list of all structurally related, structurally un-related and endogenous compounds tested.
**Specific gravity:**
Eight drug-free urine samples with specific gravity ranging from of 1.002 to 1.027 (1.002, 1.005, 1.008, 1.010, 1.012, 1.018, 1.02, 1.027 were spiked with morphine to achieve concentrations of $\pm 25\%$ of the cut-off (225 ng/mL or 375 mg/mL). The original and the spiked samples were tested with Opiate Enzyme Immunoassay on the Hitachi 717 in the qualitative and semi-quantitative modes. The results indicate that there is no positive or negative interference due to specific gravity.
**pH:**
The effect of pH was tested across the range of 3 to 11 (pH 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11). Drug free urine sample pools were pH adjusted then divided into two aliquots and then spiked with morphine to achieve $\pm 25\%$ of the cutoff. No positive or negative interference due to pH was observed.
**f. Assay cut-off:**
See Detection Limit Section, above.
**2. Comparison studies:**
**a. Method comparison with predicate device:**
A total of 88 unaltered clinical samples (44 positive and 44 negative) were tested with the Opiate Enzyme Immunoassay on the Hitachi 717 analyzer. The opiate concentrations for each sample were confirmed by GC/MS or LC/MS. Results are shown in the tables below:
{9}
Qualitative:
| Candidate Device Results | Negative | Low Negative (<50% of the cutoff by GC/MS) | Near Cutoff Negative (50% below the cutoff to the cutoff by GC/MS) | Near Cutoff Positive (50% above the cutoff to the cutoff by GC/MS) | High Positive (>50 above the cutoff by GC/MS) | Percent Agreement with GCMS |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Positive | 0 | 1 | 3 | 9 | 34 | 90.9% |
| Negative | 3 | 25 | 12 | 1 | 0 | 97.7% |
Summary of Discordant Results (Qualitative)
| Opiate Assay (POS/NEG) | Drug/Metabolite GC/MS or LC/MS value based on cross reactivity profile |
| --- | --- |
| Positive | 40.6 ng/mL (Morphine) |
| Positive | 244.62 ng/mL (Morphine) |
| Positive | 252.7 ng/mL (Morphine) |
| Positive | 241.9 ng/mL (Morphine) |
| Negative | 320.7 ng/mL (Morphine) |
Semi-Quantitative:
| Candidate Device Results | Negative | Low Negative (<50% of the cutoff by GC/MS) | Near Cutoff Negative (50% below the cutoff to the cutoff by GC/MS) | Near Cutoff Positive (50% above the cutoff to the cutoff by GC/MS) | High Positive (>50 above the cutoff by GC/MS) | Percent Agreement with GCMS |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Positive | 0 | 0 | 3 | 9 | 34 | 93.18% |
| Negative | 3 | 26 | 12 | 1 | 0 | 97.6% |
Summary of Discordant Results (Semi-Quantitative)
| Opiate Assay (POS/NEG) | Drug/Metabolite GC/MS or LC/MS value based on cross reactivity profile |
| --- | --- |
| Positive | 244.62 ng/mL (Morphine) |
| Positive | 252.7 ng/mL (Morphine) |
| Positive | 241.9 ng/mL (Morphine) |
| Negative | 320.74 ng/mL (Morphine) |
The tables above demonstrate that in this study qualitatively discrepant results were observed only for near-cutoff samples (+/- 50% of the cutoff concentration),
{10}
with the exception of 1 low negative sample that resulted in a positive result in the qualitative mode. A supplementary study, with an additional 42 unaltered patient samples was performed by the sponsor to support method comparison. Results from the additional study are presented below:
Qualitative:
| Candidate Device Results | Negative | Low Negative (<50% of the cutoff by GC/MS) | Near Cutoff Negative (50% below the cutoff to the cutoff by GC/MS) | Near Cutoff Positive (50% above the cutoff to the cutoff by GC/MS) | High Positive (>50 above the cutoff by GC/MS) | Percent Agreement with GCMS |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Positive | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 6 | 100% |
| Negative | 20 | 4 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 100% |
Semi-Quantitative:
| Candidate Device Results | Negative | Low Negative (<50% of the cutoff by GC/MS) | Near Cutoff Negative (50% below the cutoff to the cutoff by GC/MS) | Near Cutoff Positive (50% above the cutoff to the cutoff by GC/MS) | High Positive (>50 above the cutoff by GC/MS) | Percent Agreement with GCMS |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Positive | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 6 | 100% |
| Negative | 20 | 4 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 100% |
No additional discrepant results were observed in the supplementary study.
b. Matrix comparison:
Not Applicable, urine is the only indicated matrix.
3. Clinical studies:
a. Clinical Sensitivity:
Not applicable.
b. Clinical specificity:
Not applicable.
c. Other clinical supportive data (when a. and b. are not applicable):
Not applicable.
{11}
4. Clinical cut-off:
Not applicable
5. Expected values/Reference range:
Not applicable.
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.
12
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.