K121411 · Techlab Inc., Corporate Research Center · GMZ · Oct 2, 2012 · Microbiology
Device Facts
Record ID
K121411
Device Name
SHIGA TOXIN CHEK
Applicant
Techlab Inc., Corporate Research Center
Product Code
GMZ · Microbiology
Decision Date
Oct 2, 2012
Decision
SESE
Submission Type
Traditional
Regulation
21 CFR 866.3255
Device Class
Class 1
Attributes
Real-World Evidence
Real-World Evidence
Submission
Device
Sponsor
RWD Sources
RWE Use Summary
Key Tags
K121411 · Oct 2, 2012
SHIGA TOXIN CHEK
Techlab Inc., Corporate Research Center
Clinical fecal specimens; Broth cultures derived from clinical stool specimens
The device performance was evaluated by comparing results from clinical fecal specimens and broth cultures against the Vero Cell Cytotoxin Assay (clinical reference standard).
Patients with gastrointestinal symptoms; Sample Size: 913 (899 fresh and 14 frozen specimens); Number of Sites: 3
Vero Cell Cytotoxin Assay (with neutralization)
Sensitivity, specificity, and overall correlation
Method comparison study
Patients with gastrointestinal symptoms; Sample Size: 789; Number of Sites: 3
Vero Cell Cytotoxin Assay (with neutralization)
Sensitivity, specificity, and overall correlation
Indications for Use
The SHIGA TOXIN CHEK test is an enzyme immunoassay for the simultaneous qualitative detection of Shiga toxin 1 (Stx1) and Shiga toxin 2 (Stx2) in a single test. It is intended for use with human fecal samples from patients with gastrointestinal symptoms to aid in the diagnosis of disease caused by Shiga Toxin producing Escherichia coli (STEC). It may be used directly with human fecal specimens, or broth or plate cultures derived from fecal specimens. The test results should be considered in conjunction with the patient history.
Device Story
SHIGA TOXIN CHEK is an enzyme immunoassay (ELISA) for simultaneous qualitative detection of Shiga toxin 1 (Stx1) and Shiga toxin 2 (Stx2). Input: human fecal specimens, broth, or plate cultures. Operation: specimen emulsified in diluent, transferred to microassay wells coated with monoclonal antibodies specific for Stx1 and Stx2; detecting antibody (polyclonal anti-Stx1/Stx2 conjugated to horseradish peroxidase) added; incubation allows formation of enzyme-antibody-antigen complexes; unbound material washed away; substrate (tetramethylbenzidine/peroxide) added to produce colorimetric signal. Output: visual color change indicating presence of toxin. Used in clinical laboratories; performed by trained technicians. Results interpreted by healthcare providers in conjunction with patient history to aid STEC diagnosis.
Clinical Evidence
Clinical performance evaluated at 3 sites comparing SHIGA TOXIN CHEK to Vero Cell Cytotoxin Assay. Direct fecal testing (N=913): 100% sensitivity, 99.9% specificity. Broth culture testing (N=789): 97.1% sensitivity, 99.7% specificity. Reproducibility study (N=11 samples) across 3 labs showed 100% correlation. Analytical sensitivity established at 0.28 ng/mL (Stx1) and 0.23 ng/mL (Stx2) for direct samples.
Technological Characteristics
Microwell ELISA; materials include monoclonal antibody-coated plates, polyclonal antibody-HRP conjugate, TMB substrate, sulfuric acid stop solution, and thimerosal-preserved buffers. Sensing principle: enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Form factor: 12 strips of 8 wells. Connectivity: standalone. Sterilization: N/A (in vitro diagnostic reagent).
Indications for Use
Indicated for patients with gastrointestinal symptoms to aid in the diagnosis of disease caused by Shiga Toxin producing Escherichia coli (STEC) via detection of Stx1 and Stx2 in human fecal samples or derived cultures.
Regulatory Classification
Identification
Escherichia coli serological reagents are devices that consist of antigens and antisera used in serological tests to identify Escherichia coli from cultured isolates derived from clinical specimens. Additionally, some of these reagents consist of Escherichia coli antisera conjugated with a fluorescent dye used to identify Escherichia coli directly from clinical specimens or cultured isolates derived from clinical specimens. The identification aids in the diagnosis of diseases caused by this bacterium belonging to the genus Escherichia, and provides epidemiological information on diseases caused by this microorganism. Although Escherichia coli constitutes the greater part of the microorganisms found in the intestinal tract in humans and is usually nonpathogenic, those strains which are pathogenic may cause urinary tract infections or epidemic diarrheal disease, especially in children.
ProSpecT Shiga Toxin E. coli (EHEC) Microplate ELISA (K980507)
Submission Summary (Full Text)
{0}
1
# 510(k) SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE DETERMINATION DECISION SUMMARY
A. 510(k) Number:
k121411
B. Purpose for Submission:
To obtain substantial equivalence for the SHIGA TOXIN CHEK assay
C. Measurand:
Shiga toxin 1 (stx1) and Shiga toxin 2 (stx 2)
D. Type of Test:
Enzyme immunoassay
E. Applicant
TechLab Inc.
F. Proprietary and Established Names:
SHIGA TOXIN CHEK
G. Regulatory Information:
1. Regulation section:
21 CFR 866.3255, Escherichia coli serological reagents
2. Classification:
Class I
3. Product code:
GMZ – Antigens, all types, Escherichia coli
4. Panel:
83 - Microbiology
{1}
H. Intended Use:
1. Intended use:
The SHIGA TOXIN CHEK test is an enzyme immunoassay for the simultaneous qualitative detection of Shiga toxin 1 (Stx1) and Shiga toxin 2 (Stx2) in a single test. It is intended for use with human fecal samples from patients with gastrointestinal symptoms to aid in the diagnosis of disease caused by Shiga Toxin producing Escherichia coli (STEC). It may be used directly with human fecal specimens, or broth or plate cultures derived from fecal specimens. The test results should be considered in conjunction with the patient history.
2. Indication(s) for use:
The SHIGA TOXIN CHEK test is an enzyme immunoassay for the simultaneous qualitative detection of Shiga toxin 1 (Stx1) and Shiga toxin 2 (Stx2) in a single test. It is intended for use with human fecal samples from patients with gastrointestinal symptoms to aid in the diagnosis of disease caused by Shiga Toxin producing Escherichia coli (STEC). It may be used directly with human fecal specimens, or broth or plate cultures derived from fecal specimens. The test results should be considered in conjunction with the patient history.
3. Special conditions for use statement:
For Prescription Use
4. Special instrument requirements:
N/A
I. Device Description:
The kit consists of:
A Microassay Plate – 12 strips, each strip consisting of 8 wells, coated with monoclonal antibodies specific for Stx1 and Stx2 (stored with desiccant)
Diluent (40 mL) – buffered protein solution containing 0.02% thimerosal
Substrate (14 mL) – solution containing tetramethylbenzidine and peroxide
Wash Buffer Concentrate (50 mL) – 20X concentrate containing phosphate buffered saline, detergent, and 0.2% thimerosal
Stop Solution (7 mL) – 0.6N sulfuric acid
Positive Control (3.5 mL) – inactivated antigen in a buffered protein solution containing
{2}
amphotericin B
Conjugate (7 mL) – polyclonal antibodies specific for Stx1 and Stx2 coupled to horseradish peroxidase in a buffered protein solution containing 0.02% thimerosal
Disposable plastic pipettes - graduated at 50 µL, 100 µL, 200 µL and 300 µL
Plastic Adhesive Sheets – 2
Wash Label – 1
J. Substantial Equivalence Information:
1. Predicate device names:
Premier EHEC
Immunocard Stat EHEC
ProspecT Shiga Tox E.coli EHEC
2. Predicate K numbers:
K953362
K062546
K980507
3. Comparison with predicate:
| Similarities | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Item | Device | Predicate |
| Intended Use | Qualitative detection of Shiga toxin | Same |
| Technology | Immunoassay | Same |
| Antibody format | Monoclonal/polyclonal | Monoclonal/polyclonal |
| Differences | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Item | Device | Predicate |
| Intended Use | Non differentiation of toxins 1 &2 | Same except for Immunocard Stat EHEC which differentiates toxin 1 from toxin 2 |
| Technology | Enzyme immunoassay-microwell plate ELISA | Same except for Immunocard Stat EHEC |
{3}
| Differences | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Item | Device | Predicate |
| | | which is an
immunochromatographic
lateral flow |
| Specimen types | Direct fecal and broth cultures | Same for ProspecT Shiga
Premier EHEC – direct fecal, broth and plate cultures
Immunocard – broth & plate cultures |
| Specimen volume | 50μl – broth and direct culture
100 μl – transport media | Same except for ProspecT - 300 μl |
| Time to result | 60 mins | Premier – 25 mins
Immunocard – 2 hrs 15 mins
ProspecT – 1 hr 50 mins |
## K. Standard/Guidance Document Referenced :
CLSI - EP 17-A: Protocols for determination of Limits of Detection and Limits of Quantitation.
## L. Test Principle:
The SHIGA TOXIN CHEK test uses antibodies to Stx1 and Stx2. The microassay wells supplied with the kit contain immobilized monoclonal antibodies against Stx1 and Stx2. The detecting antibody consists of a mixture of anti-Stx1 and anti-Stx2 polyclonal antibodies conjugated to horseradish peroxidase. In the assay, an aliquot of a fecal specimen or culture is emulsified in the Diluent and the diluted specimen is then transferred to the microassay well containing the detecting antibody. If Stx1 and/or Stx2 are present in the specimen, they will bind to the detecting antibody and to the immobilized monoclonal antibodies during the incubation phase. Any unbound material is removed during the washing steps. Following the addition of substrate, a color is detected due to the enzyme-antibody-antigen complexes that form in the presence of toxin.
{4}
M. Performance Characteristics:
1. Analytical performance:
a. Precision/Reproducibility:
The reproducibility of the SHIGA TOXIN CHEK test was determined using 11 fecal specimens that were coded to prevent their identification during testing. Testing was performed at 2 independent laboratories and on-site at TECHLAB®, Inc. The samples were tested, twice a day over a 5-day period by multiple technicians at each site using 2 different kit lots. A positive and negative control was run with each panel of the masked samples. The results from each laboratory were submitted to TECHLAB®, Inc. and compared with in-house results. The results were consistent among the different locations, and exhibited a correlation of 100%. The samples produced the expected results 100% of the time.
For the determination of intra-assay performance, 6 positive fecal specimens and 6 negative fecal specimens were analyzed. Each specimen was assayed in replicates of eight. All positives remained positive and all negatives remained negative.
The inter-assay precision of the SHIGA TOXIN CHEK test was determined using 12 fecal specimens (six negative, two positive for Stx1, two positive for Stx2, and two positive for both Stx1 and Stx2). The samples were tested, twice a day over a 5-day period using 2 different kit lots. A positive and negative control was run each day. All positives remained positive and all negatives remained negative.
b. Linearity/assay reportable range:
N/A
c. Traceability, Stability, Expected values (controls, calibrators, or methods):
N/A
d. Detection limit:
From direct fecal testing
The limit of detection (LoD) for Stx1 was determined by using highly purified Stx1, and was defined as the concentration of toxin which yielded positive results 95% of the time, and negative results 5% of the time. The LoD was determined empirically by testing dilutions of Stx1 in a negative fecal pool, in replicates of 20. Using this method, the cutoff was found to be 0.280 ng/mL.
5
{5}
A concentration of 0.275 ng/mL was positive 50% of the time, and a concentration of 0.260 ng/mL was negative 95% of the time.
The LoD for Stx2 was determined by using highly purified Stx2, and was defined as the concentration of toxin which yielded positive results 95% of the time, and negative results 5% of the time. The LoD was determined empirically by testing dilutions of Stx2 in a negative fecal pool, in replicates of 20. Using this method, the cutoff was found to be 0.230 ng/mL. A concentration of 0.200 ng/mL was positive 50% of the time, and a concentration of 0.150 ng/mL was negative 95% of the time.
## From broth culture
The limit of detection (LoD) for Stx1 was determined by using highly purified Stx1, and was defined as the concentration of toxin which yielded positive results 95% of the time, and negative results 5% of the time. The LoD was determined empirically by testing dilutions of Stx1 in overnight GN broth culture of non-toxin producing E. Coli O157 (ATCC 043888), in replicates of 20. Using this method, the cutoff was found to be 0.180 ng/mL. A concentration of 0.120 ng/mL was positive 50% of the time, and a concentration of 0.110 ng/mL was negative 95% of the time.
The LoD for Stx2 was determined by using highly purified Stx2, and was defined as the concentration of toxin which yielded positive results 95% of the time, and negative results 5% of the time. The LoD was determined empirically by testing dilutions of Stx2 in overnight GN broth culture of non-toxin producing E. Coli O157 (ATCC 043888), in replicates of 20. Using this method, the cutoff was found to be 0.300 ng/mL. A concentration of 0.200 ng/mL was positive 50% of the time, and a concentration of 0.170 ng/mL was negative 95% of the time.
## e. Analytical specificity:
The SHIGA TOXIN CHEK test was evaluated for cross-reactivity with the bacterial and viral strains listed below. None of the strains were shown to interfere with the performance of the SHIGA TOXIN CHEK test.
## Crossreactivity
| Aeromonas hydrophila | Campylobacter coli | Campylobacter fetus |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Campylobacter jejuni | Candida albicans | Citrobacter freundii |
| Clostridium difficile | Clostridium perfringens | Enterobacter cloacae |
| Enterococcus faecalis | Escherichia coli (non-toxigenic) | Escherichia coli O157:H7 |
| (non-toxigenic) | | |
| Escherichia coli EIEC (enteroinvasive) | Escherichia coli EPEC (enteropathogenic) | |
| Escherichia coli ETEC (enterotoxic) | | |
| Escherichia fergusonii | Escherichia hermannii | Gardnerella vaginalis |
{6}
7
| Helicobacter pylori | Klebsiella pneumoniae | Lactobacillus acidophilus |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Proteus vulgaris | Providencia stuartii | Pseudomonas aeruginosa |
| Pseudomonas fluorescens | Salmonella enteric serovar minnesota | |
| Salmonella typhimurium | | |
| Serratia liquefaciens | Shigella flexneri | Shigella sonnei |
| Staphylococcus aureus | Staphylococcus aureus (Cowan) | Staphylococcus epidermidis |
| Yersinia enterocolitica | | |
Human Adenovirus, Type 2, 14, 40 and 41
Human Coxsackievirus A9, B1
Feline calicivirus
Human Enterovirus 69
Human rotavirus
## Strains/Serotypes
Various *E. coli* Shiga toxin-producing strains and serotypes were tested in the SHIGA TOXIN CHEK test by both the Sorbitol MacConkey Agar (SMAC) plate and MacConkey broth culture methods. *Escherichia coli* O157 strains were also tested using CT-SMAC and ChromAgar O157 plate cultures. Each strain is a clinical isolate and each was tested by a cytotoxin assay and by a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to confirm the presence of the Shiga toxin gene(s). All organisms generated positive results for the appropriate toxin(s) when tested.
Following is a list of the serotypes tested, the number of strains tested in that group type and the type of toxin produced by each strain.
**Shiga Toxin Type Stx1: Strain Types** - O26:H11 (5 strains), O157:H7, O111:NM (2 strains), O103:H2, O103:H25, O103:H6, O103:N, O111:H11, O111:H8, O145:H16, O145:NM, O45:H2 (4 strains), O45:NM, O125:NM, O146:H21, O156:H21, O26, O5:N, O70:H11, O111a:NM
**Shiga Toxin Type Stx2: Strain Types** - 157:H7 (6 strains), O104:H4 (European 2011 outbreak strain), O177:NM, O6:H10, O121:H19 (3 strains), O121, O145:H28, O145, O113:H21, O104:H21, O55:H7, O91:H21, O6:H10
**Shiga Toxin Type Stx1 and Stx2: Strain Types** - O157:H7 (8 strains), O157:NM (2 strains), O111:H8, O111, O111:NM (2 strains), O113:H21, O15:H27
## Interfering Substances (U.S. Formulations)
The following substances had no effect on positive or negative test results analyzed at the concentrations indicated: Hog gastric mucin (3.5% w/v), Human blood (40% v/v), Barium sulfate (5% w/v), Imodium® (5% v/v), Kaopectate® (5% v/v), Pepto-Bismol® (5% v/v), Maalox® Advanced (5% v/v), Steric Acid (40% w/v), Metronidazole (0.25% w/v), Vancomycin (0.25% w/v), Prilosec OTC® (5 μg/mL), TUMS (50 μg/mL), Tagamet® (5 μg/mL), Leukocytes (0.05% v/v), Ciprofloxacin (0.25% w/v).
{7}
f. Assay cut-off:
The cutoff for the SHIGA TOXIN CHEK test for direct fecal specimens was established at concentrations of 0.28 ng/mL Stx1 and 0.23 ng/mL Stx2, and for broth cultures at concentrations of 0.18 ng/mL Stx1 and 0.30 ng/mL Stx2.
2. Comparison studies:
a. Method comparison with predicate device:
N/A
b. Matrix comparison:
N/A
3. Clinical studies:
a. Clinical Sensitivity:
The performance of the SHIGA TOXIN CHEK test was evaluated at 3 independent sites. A summary of overall performance at the 3 sites follows.
Direct Fecal Testing
The performance of the SHIGA TOXIN CHEK test was compared to the Vero Cell Cytotoxin Assay (with neutralization) and included 899 fresh and 14 frozen specimens. The following table shows a summary of the clinical performance of the SHIGA TOXIN CHEK test. The results show that the SHIGA TOXIN CHEK test exhibited a sensitivity of 100%, a specificity of 99.9%, and an overall correlation of 99.9% with the cytotoxin assay.
SHIGA TOXIN CHEK Test Versus the Vero Cell Cytotoxicity Assay
| N = 913 | Vero Cell Cytotoxicity Assay Positive | Vero Cell Cytotoxicity Assay Negative |
| --- | --- | --- |
| SHIGA TOXIN CHEK Positive | 78 | 1 |
| SHIGA TOXIN CHEK Negative | 0 | 834 |
| | | 95% Confidence Limits |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Sensitivity | 100% | 94.2 – 100% |
| Specificity | 99.9% | 99.2 – 100% |
| Correlation | 99.9% | 100 – 100% |
{8}
9
# Broth Cultures
The performance of the SHIGA TOXIN CHEK test using overnight broth cultures (GN or MacConkey broth) from fecal specimens was compared to the Vero Cell Cytotoxin Assay. The following table shows a summary of the clinical performance of the SHIGA TOXIN CHEK test. The results show that the SHIGA TOXIN CHEK test exhibited a sensitivity of 97.1%, a specificity of 99.7%, and an overall correlation of 99.5% with the cytotoxin assay.
## SHIGA TOXIN CHEK Test Versus the Vero Cell Cytotoxicity Assay
| N = 789 | Vero Cell Cytotoxicity Assay Positive | Vero Cell Cytotoxicity Assay Negative |
| --- | --- | --- |
| SHIGA TOXIN CHEK Positive | 67 | 2 |
| SHIGA TOXIN CHEK Negative | 2 | 718 |
| | | 95% Confidence Limits |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Sensitivity | 97.1% | 89.0 – 99.5% |
| Specificity | 99.7% | 98.9 – 99.9% |
| Correlation | 99.5% | 99.5 – 99.5% |
b. Clinical specificity:
See 3a. above.
c. Other clinical supportive data (when a. and b. are not applicable):
N/A
4. Clinical cut-off:
N/A
5. Expected values/Reference range:
The SHIGA TOXIN CHEK test detects the presence of Stx1 and Stx2. Expected values for a particular population should be established by each laboratory. The positivity rate may be dependent upon a number of factors including geography, process of specimen collection, handling and transport, patient age.
{9}
Shiga toxin E. coli is the source of an estimated 110,000 cases (0.04% of the population) of foodborne illness annually in the United States (11). Reported incidence rates in fecal samples submitted for testing range from 0% - 4.1% and vary depending upon the season, geographical location, and patient population, with higher incidence rates seen in the summer months and in preschool-aged children and the elderly (28). A positive result in the SHIGA TOXIN CHEK test confirms the presence of Shiga toxin in the sample; a negative result indicates the absence of toxin or insufficient levels of toxin for detection.
N. Proposed Labeling:
The labeling is sufficient and it satisfies the requirements of 21 CFR Part 809.10.
O. Conclusion:
1. The submitted information in this premarket notification is complete and supports a substantial equivalence decision.
10
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.