CR3 Keyless Split Sample Cup Morphine-Oxazepam is a rapid test for the qualitative detection of Morphine (a drug in the opiate class) and Oxazepam(a drug in the benzodiazepine class) in human urine at a cutoff concentration of 2000ng/mL and 300ng/mL, respectively. The tests may yield preliminary positive results even when prescription drugs including Morphine and Oxazepam are ingested, at prescribed doses; it is not intended to distinguish between prescription use or abuse of these drugs. There are no uniformly recognized cutoff concentration levels for morphine and oxazepam in urine. The test provides only preliminary test results. A more specific alternative chemical method must be used in order to obtain a confirmed analytical result. GC/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. For in vitro diagnostic use only. It is intended for over-the-counter and for prescription use.
Device Story
Lateral flow immunochromatographic assay for qualitative detection of Morphine and Oxazepam in human urine; uses monoclonal antibody-dye conjugates with gold chloride, fixed drug-protein conjugates, and anti-mouse IgG polyclonal antibody on membranes. Device is a split keyless cup; user immerses absorbent end into urine sample; capillary action draws sample across pre-coated membrane. Competitive binding principle: analyte below cutoff allows antibody-dye to bind immobilized drug-protein (colored line = negative); analyte above cutoff binds antibody-dye, preventing line formation (no line = preliminary positive). Used in point-of-care or home settings by lay persons or clinicians. Output is visual qualitative result (presence/absence of colored band). Results provide preliminary screening; requires confirmatory testing (GC/MS) for clinical decision-making.
Clinical Evidence
Bench testing only. Precision/reproducibility studies performed over 25 days with three lots. Analytical specificity and interference studies conducted with structurally related and unrelated compounds. Method comparison against GC/MS performed with 80 clinical samples by three professionals and one lay user. Lay user study (n=260) evaluated performance across various concentrations relative to cutoff; results showed high agreement with GC/MS. No clinical diagnostic trials performed.
Technological Characteristics
Lateral flow immunochromatographic assay; competitive binding principle. Materials include monoclonal antibody-dye conjugates, gold chloride, drug-protein conjugates, and anti-mouse IgG polyclonal antibody on membranes. Form factor is a split keyless cup. Stable at 4-30°C for 18 months. No electronic components or software.
Indications for Use
Indicated for qualitative detection of Morphine and Oxazepam in human urine for OTC and prescription use. Intended for individuals requiring drug screening; not for distinguishing between prescription use and abuse. No specific age or gender restrictions.
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
Wondfo Multi-Drug Urine Test Cup (Panel) (k130665)
Submission Summary (Full Text)
{0}
1
# 510(k) SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE DETERMINATION DECISION SUMMARY ASSAY ONLY TEMPLATE
A. 510(k) Number:
k140089
B. Purpose for Submission:
New Device
C. Measurand:
Oxazepam, Morphine
D. Type of Test:
Qualitative lateral flow chromatographic immunoassay
E. Applicant:
Guangzhou Wondfo Biotech Co., Ltd.
F. Proprietary and Established Names:
CR3 Keyless Split Sample Cup Morphine-Oxazepam
G. Regulatory Information:
| Product Code | Classification | Regulation Section | Panel |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| DJG | Class II | 21 CFR 862.3650, Opiate Test System | Toxicology (91) |
| JXM | Class II | 21 CFR 862.3170, Benzodiazepine Test System | Toxicology (91) |
H. Intended Use:
1. Intended use(s):
See Indication(s) for use.
2. Indication(s) for use:
CR3 Keyless Split Sample Cup Morphine-Oxazepam is a rapid test for the qualitative detection of Morphine (a drug in the opiate class) and Oxazepam (a drug in the
{1}
benzodiazepine class) in human urine at a cutoff concentration of 2000 ng/mL and 300ng/mL, respectively.
The tests may yield preliminary positive results even when prescription drugs including Morphine and Oxazepam are ingested at prescribed doses; it is not intended to distinguish between prescription use or abuse of these drugs. There are no uniformly recognized cutoff concentration levels Morphine or Oxazepam in urine. The test provides only preliminary test results. A more specific alternative chemical method must be used in order to obtain a confirmed analytical result. GC/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.
For in vitro diagnostic use only. It is intended for over-the-counter and for prescription use.
3. Special conditions for use statement(s):
For Over the Counter and Prescription Use
For in vitro diagnostic use only
4. Special instrument requirements:
Not applicable. Device is visually read, single use device.
I. Device Description:
Each pouch contains a test cup and test card test card.
The OTC device also includes labeled vials for shipping the "preliminary" sample to the laboratory for confirmation, plastic transportation bags, mailing boxes, and personal identification numbers
Each test strip in the device consists of a conjugate pad containing colloidal gold coupled with the anti-drug antibodies and a nitrocellulose membrane containing two test lines coated with the conjugated drug antigen, and a procedural control line.
J. Substantial Equivalence Information:
1. Predicate device name(s):
Wondfo Multi-Drug Urine Test Cup (Panel)
2. Predicate 510(k) number(s):
k130665
{2}
3. Comparison with predicate:
| Item | Device | Predicate (K130665) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Indication(s) for use | For the qualitative determination of Morphine and Oxazepam in human urine. | Same |
| Methodology | Competitive binding, lateral flow immunochromatographic assays based on the principle of antigen antibody immunochemistry. | Same |
| Results | Qualitative | Same |
| Specimen Type | Human urine | Same |
| Cut Off Values | Morphine: 2000ng/ml Oxazepam: 300ng/ml | Same |
| Configurations | Split Keyless CupSplit Sample | Cup, Dip Card |
| Intended Use | OTC Use & Prescription Use | Same |
# K. Standard/Guidance Document Referenced (if applicable):
Not Applicable
# L. Test Principle:
The device is a rapid test for the qualitative detection of Morphine and Oxazepam in urine samples. It is a lateral flow chromatographic immunoassay. When the absorbent end is immersed into a urine sample, the urine is absorbed into the device by capillary action and mixes with the antibody-dye conjugate, flowing across the pre-coated membrane. At analyte concentrations below the target cutoff, antibody-dye conjugates bind to the drug-protein conjugate immobilized in the Test Region (T) of the device. This produces a colored test line that indicates a negative result. When the analyte concentration is above the cutoff, analyte molecules bind to the antibody-dye conjugate, preventing the antibody-dye conjugate from binding to the drug-protein conjugate immobilized in the Test Region (T) of the device. When the sample contains target drug above the cutoff concentration no colored band shows in the test region, indicating a preliminary positive result.
{3}
M. Performance Characteristics (if/when applicable):
1. Analytical performance:
a. Precision/Reproducibility:
Precision studies were carried out for urine samples with concentrations of -100% cutoff, -75% cutoff, -50% cutoff, -25% cutoff, +25% cutoff, +50% cutoff, +75% cutoff and +100% cutoff. For each concentration, tests using masked and randomized samples were performed by three operators twice per day for 25 days with three different lots of devices. The results obtained are summarized in the following tables.
Morphine Testing
| Results per Lot | -100% cut off | -75% cut off | -50% cut off | -25% cut off | cut off 2000 ng/mL | +25% cut off | +50% cut off | +75% cut off | +100% cut off |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Lot 1 | 50-/0+ | 50-/0+ | 50-/0+ | 50-/0+ | 43+/7- | 50+/0- | 50+/0- | 50+/0- | 50+/0- |
| Lot 2 | 50-/0+ | 50-/0+ | 50-/0+ | 50-/0+ | 44+/6- | 50+/0- | 50+/0- | 50+/0- | 50+/0- |
| Lot 3 | 50-/0+ | 50-/0+ | 50-/0+ | 50-/0+ | 43+/7- | 50+/0- | 50+/0- | 50+/0- | 50+/0- |
Oxazepam Testing
| Results per Lot | -100% cut off | -75% cut off | -50% cut off | -25% cut off | cut off 300 ng/mL | +25% cut off | +50% cut off | +75% cut off | +100% cut off |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Lot 1 | 50-/0+ | 50-/0+ | 50-/0+ | 50-/0+ | 43+/7- | 50+/0- | 50+/0- | 50+/0- | 50+/0- |
| Lot 2 | 50-/0+ | 50-/0+ | 50-/0+ | 50-/0+ | 44+/6- | 50+/0- | 50+/0- | 50+/0- | 50+/0- |
| Lot 3 | 50-/0+ | 50-/0+ | 50-/0+ | 50-/0+ | 43+/7- | 50+/0- | 50+/0- | 50+/0- | 50+/0- |
b. Linearity/assay reportable range:
Not applicable
c. Traceability, Stability, Expected values (controls, calibrators, or methods):
Quality control materials are not supplied with these devices. The labeling contains recommendations to confirm the test procedure and to verify proper test performance, the sponsor recommends that the user test these devices using external controls following the appropriate federal, state and local guidelines.
{4}
Accelerated stability and real time stability tests were performed on three lots of dip cards and cups for morphine and oxazepam urine test devices using samples at -50% cutoff and +50% cutoff, and negative urine. The stability study results support the claimed shelf life of 18 months at 4 to 30 °C. The transport simulation study results support stability for 3 weeks when exposed to temperatures of ranging from -20 °C and 40 °C.
d. Detection limit:
Not applicable. The assay is intended for qualitative use.
e. Analytical specificity:
Analytical specificity studies were performed to determine whether drugs and drug metabolites within the same class of drugs or with similar molecular structures cross- react in the test system.
The target drug, drug metabolites, and other related compounds were added to drug-free urine. The cross reacting substances and the lowest concentration that produces a positive result was identified. A list of these compounds and their level of cross reactivity is provided in the tables below:
| Morphine, Cutoff=2000 ng/mL | Result Positive at 2,000 ng/mL | % Cross- Reactivity |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Codeine | Positive at 2,000 ng/mL | 100% |
| Ethylmorphine | Positive at 5,000 ng/mL | 40% |
| Hydrocodone | Positive at 12,500 ng/mL | 16% |
| Hydromorphone | Positive at 5,000 ng/mL | 40% |
| Levorphanol | Positive at 75,000 ng/mL | 2.7% |
| σ-Monoacetylmorphine | Positive at 5,000 ng/mL | 40% |
| Morphine 3-b-D-glucuronide | Positive at 2,000 ng/mL | 100% |
| Norcodeine | Positive at 12,500 ng/mL | 16% |
| Normorphone | Positive at 50,000 ng/mL | 4% |
| Oxycodone | Positive at 25,000 ng/mL | 8% |
| Oxymorphone | Positive at 25,000 ng/mL | 8% |
| Procaine | Positive at 150,000 ng/mL | 1.3% |
| Thebaine | Positive at 100,000 ng/mL | 2% |
| Oxazepam, Cutoff=300 ng/mL | Result Positive at 300 ng/mL | % Cross- Reactivity |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Alprazolam | Positive at 200 ng/mL | 150% |
| α-Hydroxyalprazolam | Positive at 1,500 ng/mL | 20% |
{5}
Interference Studies:
Interference studies were performed using 100 µg/mL of structurally unrelated compounds as well as endogenous compounds listed below.. These compounds were tested in drug-free urine and urine containing ±25% cutoff concentration for each analyte. The following compounds were found not to interfere when tested at 100 µg/mL concentration.
Morphine
| 4-Acetamidophenol | Ecgonine methylester | Oxolinic acid |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Acetophenetidin | (-) -Y -Ephedrine | Oxymetazoline |
| N-Acetylprocainamide | Erythromycin | Papaverine |
| Acetylsalicylic acid | β-Estradiol | Penicillin-G |
| Aminopyrine | Estrone-3-sulfate | Pentazocine |
| Amitryptyline | Ethyl-p-aminobenzoate | Pentobarbital |
| Amobarbital | Fenoprofen | Perphenazine |
| Amoxicillin | Furosemide | Phencyclidine |
| Ampicillin | Gentisic acid | Phenelzine |
| Ascorbic acid | Hemoglobin | Phenobarbital |
| D,L-Amphetamine | Hydralazine | Phentermine |
| Apomorphine | Hydrochlorothiazide | L-Phenylephrine |
| Aspartame | Hydrocortisone | β-Phenylethylamine |
{6}
| Atropine | O-Hydroxyhippuric acid | Phenylpropanolamine |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Benzilic acid | p-Hydroxy methamphetamine | Prednisone |
| Benzoic acid | 3-Hydroxytyramine | D,L-Propanolol |
| Benzoylecgonine | Ibuprofen | D-Propoxyphene |
| Benzphetamine | Imipramine | D-Pseudoephedrine |
| Bilirubin (±) | Iproniazid | Quinidine |
| Brompheniramine | Isoproterenol | Quinine |
| Caffeine | Isoxsuprine | Ranitidine |
| Cannabidiol | Ketamine | Salicylic acid |
| Chloral hydrate | Ketoprofen | Secobarbital |
| Chloramphenicol | Labetalol | Serotonin (5-Hydroxytyramine) |
| Chlordiazepoxide | Loperamide | Sulfamethazine |
| Chlorothiazide | Maprotiline | Sulindac |
| (±) Chlorpheniramine | Meperidine | Temazepam |
| Chlorpromazine | Meprobamate | Tetracycline |
| Chlorquine | Methadone | Tetrahydrocortisone, 3 Acetate |
| Cholesterol | Methoxyphenamine | Tetrahydrocortisone3 (β-D glucuronide) |
| Clomipramine | (+) 3,4-Methylenedioxy-amphetamine | Tetrahydrozoline |
| Clonidine | (+)3,4-Methylenedioxy-methamphetamine | Thiamine |
| Cocaine hydrochloride | Nalidixic acid | Thioridazine |
| Cortisone | Nalorphine | D, L-Tyrosine |
| (-) Cotinine | Naloxone | Tolbutamide |
| Creatinine | Naltrexone | Triamterene |
| Deoxycorticosterone | Naproxen | Trifluoperazine |
| Dextromethorphan | Niacinamide | Trimethoprim |
| Diazepam | Nifedipine | Trimipramine |
| Diclofenac | Norethindrone | Tryptamine |
| Diflunisal | D-Norpropoxyphene | D, L-Tryptophan |
| Digoxin | Noscapine | Tyramine |
| Diphenhydramine | D,L-Octopamine | Uric acid |
| Doxylamine | Oxalic acid | Verapamil |
| Ecgonine hydrochloride | Oxazepam | Zomepirac |
7
{7}
Oxazepam
| 4-Acetamidophenol | Doxylamine | Oxolinic acid |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Acetophenetidin | Ecgonine hydrochloride | Pentobarbital |
| N-Acetylprocainamide | Ecgonine methylester | Perphenazine |
| Acetysalicylic acid | (-)-Y-Ephedrine | Phencyclidine |
| Aminopyrine | Fenoprofen | Phenelzine |
| Amitriptyline | Furosemide | Phenobarbital |
| Amorbarbital | Gentisic acid | Phentermine |
| Amoxicillin | Hemoglobin | L-Phenylephrine |
| Ampicillin | Hydrocortisone | -Phenylethylamine |
| l-Ascorbic Acid | O-Hydroxyhippuric acid | Phenylpropanolamine |
| D.L-Amphetamine | p-Hydroxy-methamphetamine | Prednisone |
| Apomorphine | 3-Hydroxytyramine | D.L-Propranolol |
| Aspartame | Ibuprofen | D-Propoxyphene |
| Atropine | Imipramine | D-Pseudoephedrine |
| Benzilic acid | Iproniazid | Quinine |
| Benzoic acid | (±)Isoproterenol | Ranitidine |
| Benzoylecgonine | Isoxsuprine | Salicylic acid |
| Benzphetamine | Ketamine | Secobarbital |
| Bilirubin | Ketoprofen | Serotonin (5-Hydroxytyramine) |
| (±) Chlorpheniramine | Labetalol | Sertraline |
| Caffeine | Loperamide | Sulfamethazine |
| Cannabidiol | Maprotiline | Sulindac |
| Chloral hydrate | Meperidine | Tetrahydrocortisone, 3 Acetate |
| Chloramphenicol | Meprobamate | Tetrahydrocortisone, ( -D glucuronide) |
| Chlorothiazide | Methadone | Tetrahydrozoline |
| (±)Chlorpheniramine | Methoxyphenamine | Thiamine |
| Chlorpromazine | (+) 3,4-Methylenedioxy-amphetamine | Thioridazine |
| Chloroquine | (+)3,4-Methylenedioxy-methamphetamine | D.L-Tyrosine |
| Cholesterol | Nalidixic acid | Tolbutamide |
| Clomipramine | Nalorphine | Triamterene |
| Clonidine | Naloxone | Trifluoperazine |
| Cocaine hydrochloride | Naltrexone | Trimethoprim |
{8}
| Cortisone | Naproxen | Tryptamine |
| --- | --- | --- |
| (-)cotinine | Niacinamide | D.L-Tryptophan |
| Creatinine | Nifedipine | Tyramine |
| Dextromethorphan | Norethindrone | Uric acid |
| Diclolfenac | D-Norpropoxyphene | Verapamil |
| Diflunisal | Noscapine | Zomepirac |
| Dioxin | D.L-Octopamine | |
| Diphenhydramine | Oxalic acid | |
Specific Gravity:
Twelve urine samples with density ranges (1.000-1.035) were collected and spiked with each drug at 25% below and 25% above cutoff levels. Each sample was tested using three lots of CR3 Keyless Split Sample Cup Morphine-Oxazepam. The results showed that specific gravity range of 1.000 to 1.035 does not affect the accuracy of the test.
pH:
A negative urine pool was adjusted to a pH range of 4.00 to 9.00 in 1 pH unit increments and was spiked with each drug at 25% below and 25% above cutoff levels. Samples were tested using three lots of CR3 Keyless Split Sample Cup Morphine-Oxazepam and results showed that urine pH range of 4.00 to 9.00 does not affect the accuracy of the accuracy of the test.
f. Assay cut-off:
Characterization of how the device performs around the claimed cutoff concentration is shown in the precision section M.1.a. above as well as the Lay User Study below.
2. Comparison studies:
a. Method comparison with predicate device:
The method comparison for the CR3 Keyless Split Sample Cup Morphine-Oxazepam was performed at the manufacturer's site.. Operators ran 80 unaltered masked and randomized clinical samples. The samples were compared to GC/MS results. Four "viewers" separately read results (3 experienced viewers, 1 OTC viewer). Viewers A, B, and C in the table below were experienced professionals. Viewer D was a lay person. The results are presented in the table below:
{9}
10
Morphine
| Results per Operator | | Negative | Low Negative by GC/MS (less than -50%) | Near Cutoff Negative by GC/MS (Between -50% and | Near Cutoff Positive by GC/MS (Between the cutoff and +50%) | High Positive by GC/MS (greater than +50%) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Viewer A | Positive | 0 | 0 | 2 | 19 | 20 |
| | Negative | 10 | 20 | 8 | 1 | 0 |
| Viewer B | Positive | 0 | 0 | 3 | 18 | 20 |
| | Negative | 10 | 20 | 7 | 2 | 0 |
| Viewer C | Positive | 0 | 0 | 2 | 18 | 20 |
| | Negative | 10 | 20 | 8 | 2 | 0 |
| Viewer D | Positive | 0 | 0 | 3 | 18 | 20 |
| | Negative | 10 | 20 | 7 | 2 | 0 |
The following table lists the CR3 Keyless Split Sample results and GCMS results for the discordant samples shown in the table above.
| GC/MS Morphine Concentration (ng/mL) | CR3 Morphine Result |
| --- | --- |
| 1997 | Positive |
| 1994 | Positive |
| 2025 | Negative |
| 1994 | Positive |
| 2025 | Negative |
| 1943 | Positive (for viewers B and D) |
| 2043 | Negative (for viewers (B, C, and D) |
{10}
Oxazepam
| Results per Operator | | Negative | Low Negative by GC/MS (less than -50%) | Near Cutoff Negative by GC/MS (Between -50% and | Near Cutoff Positive by GC/MS (Between the cutoff and +50%) | High Positive by GC/MS (greater than +50%) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Viewer A | Positive | 0 | 0 | 2 | 17 | 21 |
| | Negative | 10 | 10 | 18 | 2 | 0 |
| Viewer B | Positive | 0 | 0 | 3 | 18 | 21 |
| | Negative | 10 | 10 | 17 | 1 | 0 |
| Viewer C | Positive | 0 | 0 | 2 | 16 | 21 |
| | Negative | 10 | 10 | 18 | 3 | 0 |
| Viewer D | Positive | 0 | 0 | 3 | 15 | 21 |
| | Negative | 10 | 10 | 17 | 4 | 0 |
The following table lists the CR3 Keyless Split Sample results and GCMS results for the discordant samples shown in the table above.
| GC/MS Oxazepam Concentration (ng/mL) | CR3 results |
| --- | --- |
| 357 | Negative |
| 296 | Positive |
| 358 | Negative for viewers A, C, D |
| 344 | Negative for viewers A, C, D |
| 312 | Negative for viewers B, C, D |
| 288 | Positive for 3 viewers B, C, D |
| 291 | Positive for viewers A, B, D |
A lay user study was performed at three sites with 260 lay persons. In the study, 79 males and 47 females tested the Morphine samples and 74 males and 60 females tested the Oxazepam samples. The participants had diverse educational and professional backgrounds and ranged in age from 21 to $>50$. Urine samples were prepared at the following concentrations; $-100\%$, $+/-75\%$, $+/-50\%$, $+/-25\%$ of the cutoff by spiking drug(s) into drug free-pooled urine specimens. The concentrations of the samples were confirmed by GC/MS. Each sample was aliquoted into
{11}
individual containers. Each participant was provided with the package insert, one masked and randomized sample, and a device. The results are summarized below.
| Drug | Concentration | Number of samples | Negative | Positive | %Agreement With GC/MS |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Drug -free | -100% | 20 | 20 | 0 | 100% |
| Morphine | -75% | 20 | 20 | 0 | 100% |
| | -50% | 20 | 20 | 0 | 100% |
| | -25% | 20 | 18 | 2 | 90% |
| | +25% | 20 | 3 | 17 | 85% |
| | +50% | 20 | 0 | 20 | 100% |
| | +75% | 20 | 0 | 20 | 100% |
| Oxazepam | -75% | 20 | 20 | 0 | 100% |
| | -50% | 20 | 20 | 0 | 100% |
| | -25% | 20 | 17 | 3 | 85% |
| | +25% | 20 | 3 | 17 | 85% |
| | +50% | 20 | 0 | 20 | 100% |
| | +75% | 20 | 0 | 20 | 100% |
b. Matrix comparison:
Not applicable. The assay is intended for use with urine samples only.
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
4. Clinical cut-off:
Not applicable
{12}
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.
13
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.