K162341 · Stryker Leibinger GmbH & Co KG · OLO · Oct 12, 2016 · Neurology
Device Facts
Record ID
K162341
Device Name
Stryker OrthoMap Precision Knee system
Applicant
Stryker Leibinger GmbH & Co KG
Product Code
OLO · Neurology
Decision Date
Oct 12, 2016
Decision
SESE
Submission Type
Traditional
Regulation
21 CFR 882.4560
Device Class
Class 2
Indications for Use
The Stryker OrthoMap Precision Knee system, which is comprised of the OrthoMap Precision Knee 5.0 Software and a platform of the NAV3i platform family, is intended as a planning and intraoperative guidance system to enable open or percutaneous image guided surgery. The system can be used for intraoperative guidance where a reference to a rigid anatomical structure can be identified. The system is indicated for conditions of the knee joint in which the use of computer assisted surgery may be appropriate.
Device Story
System provides planning and intraoperative guidance for knee surgery; utilizes wireless optical tracking to display real-time location of surgical instruments relative to patient anatomy. Input: infrared light emitted by active diodes on smart instruments (trackers/pointers) sensed by navigation camera array. Processing: software computes spatial information based on intra-operative anatomy survey of femur and tibia; maps instruments to computed anatomical model. Output: visual display of instrument position/movement relative to target anatomy on monitor. Used in OR by surgeons; supports open or percutaneous procedures. Benefits: enables precise alignment of mechanical axes and implant positioning; reduces reliance on manual estimation. Healthcare providers use visual feedback to guide bone resection and implant placement.
Clinical Evidence
No clinical studies performed. Evidence consists of bench testing, including ASTM F2554-10 accuracy testing, system accuracy verification (± 2 mm, ± 1°), clinical workflow simulation using Sawbones, and functional/safety testing.
Technological Characteristics
Infrared optical active sensing technology; wireless tracking of smart instruments via camera array. Components: computer, navigation camera, IO-Tablet, monitor. Software: OrthoMap Precision Knee 5.0. Standards: ANSI/AAMI ES60601-1, IEC 60601-1-2. Accuracy: ± 2 mm translational, ± 1° rotational.
Indications for Use
Indicated for patients with knee joint conditions requiring surgery where computer-assisted navigation is appropriate.
Regulatory Classification
Identification
A stereotaxic instrument is a device consisting of a rigid frame with a calibrated guide mechanism for precisely positioning probes or other devices within a patient's brain, spinal cord, or other part of the nervous system.
{0}------------------------------------------------
Image /page/0/Picture/1 description: The image is a black and white logo for the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. The logo features a stylized eagle with three heads facing to the right. The words "DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES - USA" are arranged in a circular pattern around the eagle.
Food and Drug Administration 10903 New Hampshire Avenue Document Control Center - WO66-G609 Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002
October 12, 2016
Stryker Leibinger Gmbh & Co. Kg % Calley Herzog Senior Consultant Biologics Consulting Group, Inc. 400 North Washington Street, Suite 100 Alexandria, Virginia 22314
Re: K162341
Trade/Device Name: Stryker OrthoMap Precision Knee System Regulation Number: 21 CFR 882.4560 Regulation Name: Stereotaxic instrument Regulatory Class: Class II Product Code: OLO Dated: August 18, 2016 Received: August 22, 2016
Dear Ms. Herzog:
We have reviewed your Section 510(k) premarket notification of intent to market the device referenced above and have determined the device is substantially equivalent (for the indications for use stated in the enclosure) to legally marketed predicate devices marketed in interstate commerce prior to May 28, 1976, the enactment date of the Medical Device Amendments, or to devices that have been reclassified in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Food. Drug. and Cosmetic Act (Act) that do not require approval of a premarket approval application (PMA). You may, therefore, market the device, subject to the general controls provisions of the Act. The general controls provisions of the Act include requirements for annual registration, listing of devices, good manufacturing practice, labeling, and prohibitions against misbranding and adulteration. Please note: CDRH does not evaluate information related to contract liability warranties. We remind you, however, that device labeling must be truthful and not misleading.
If your device is classified (see above) into either class II (Special Controls) or class III (PMA), it may be subject to additional controls. Existing major regulations affecting your device can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21, Parts 800 to 898. In addition, FDA may publish further announcements concerning your device in the Federal Register.
Please be advised that FDA's issuance of a substantial equivalence determination does not mean that FDA has made a determination that your device complies with other requirements of the Act or any Federal statutes and regulations administered by other Federal agencies. You must comply with all the Act's requirements, including, but not limited to: registration and listing (21 CFR Part 807); labeling (21 CFR Parts 801); medical device reporting of medical device-related adverse events) (21 CFR 803); good manufacturing practice requirements as set
{1}------------------------------------------------
forth in the quality systems (QS) regulation (21 CFR Part 820); and if applicable, the electronic product radiation control provisions (Sections 531-542 of the Act); 21 CFR 1000-1050.
If you desire specific advice for your device on our labeling regulation (21 CFR Part 801), please contact the Division of Industry and Consumer Education at its toll-free number (800) 638-2041 or (301) 796-7100 or at its Internet address
http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ResourcesforYou/Industry/default.htm. Also, please note the regulation entitled, "Misbranding by reference to premarket notification" (21CFR Part 807.97). For questions regarding the reporting of adverse events under the MDR regulation (21 CFR Part 803), please go to
http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/ReportaProblem/default.htm for the CDRH's Office of Surveillance and Biometrics/Division of Postmarket Surveillance.
You may obtain other general information on your responsibilities under the Act from the Division of Industry and Consumer Education at its toll-free number (800) 638-2041 or (301) 796-7100 or at its Internet address
http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ResourcesforYou/Industry/default.htm.
Sincerely,
Image /page/1/Picture/8 description: The image shows the name "Mark N. Melkerson -S" in a clear, sans-serif font. The text is horizontally aligned and appears to be part of a document or label. The letters are uniformly sized and spaced, contributing to the legibility of the name.
Mark N. Melkerson Director Division of Orthopedic Devices Office of Device Evaluation Center for Devices and Radiological Health
Enclosure
{2}------------------------------------------------
## Indications for Use
510(k) Number (if known) K162341
Device Name Stryker OrthoMap Precision Knee system
#### Indications for Use (Describe)
The Stryker OrthoMap Precision Knee system, which is comprised of the OrthoMap Precision Knee 5.0 Software and a platform of the NAV3i platform family, is intended as a planning and intraoperative guidance system to enable open or percutaneous image guided surgery.
The system can be used for intraoperative guidance where a rigid anatomical structure can be identified. The system is indicated for conditions of the knee joint in which the use of computer assisted surgery may be appropriate.
| Type of Use (Select one or both, as applicable) | |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| <div> <span> <span style="font-size:16px">✖</span> Prescription Use (Part 21 CFR 801 Subpart D) </span> </div> | <div> <span> <span style="font-size:16px">❏</span> Over-The-Counter Use (21 CFR 801 Subpart C) </span> </div> |
#### CONTINUE ON A SEPARATE PAGE IF NEEDED.
This section applies only to requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
#### *DO NOT SEND YOUR COMPLETED FORM TO THE PRA STAFF EMAIL ADDRESS BELOW.*
The burden time for this collection of information is estimated to average 79 hours per response, including the time to review instructions, search existing data sources, gather and maintain the data needed and complete and review the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this information collection, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to:
> Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Office of Chief Information Officer Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Staff PRAStaff(@fda.hhs.gov
"An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB number."
{3}------------------------------------------------
# 510(K) SUMMARY
In accordance with 21 CFR 807.87(h) and (21 CFR 807.92) the 510(k) Summary for the Stryker OrthoMap Precision Knee system is provided below.
| Device Common Name: | Orthopedic Stereotaxic Instrument |
|----------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Device Trade Name: | Stryker OrthoMap Precision Knee system |
| Applicant: | Stryker Leibinger GmbH & Co. KG<br>Boetzinger Strasse 41<br>D-79111 Freiburg, Germany<br>Phone number: +49-761-45120<br>Fax number: +49-761-45120 |
| Contact: | Bjoern Lampart<br>Stryker Leibinger GmbH & Co. KG<br>Boetzinger Strasse 41<br>D-79111 Freiburg, Germany<br>P +49 761 4512 3991<br>C +49 160 97870607<br>F +49 761 4512 49 3991<br>bjoern.lampart@stryker.com |
| Prepared by: | Calley Herzog<br>Senior Consultant<br>Biologics Consulting Group, Inc.<br>cherzog@biologicsconsulting.com<br>Phone: 720-883-3633 |
| Date Prepared: | August 18, 2016 |
| Classification Regulation: | §882.4560 - Stereotaxic Instrument |
| Panel: | Orthopedic |
| Product Code: | OLO - Orthopedic Stereotaxic Instrument |
| Predicate Device: | K153240 - Stryker OrthoMap Express Knee system |
Indication for Use:
{4}------------------------------------------------
The Stryker OrthoMap Precision Knee system, which is comprised of the OrthoMap Precision Knee 5.0 Software and a platform of the NAV3i platform family, is intended as a planning and intraoperative guidance system to enable open or percutaneous image guided surgery.
The system can be used for intraoperative guidance where a reference to a rigid anatomical structure can be identified.
The system is indicated for conditions of the knee joint in which the use of computer assisted surgery may be appropriate.
### Device Description:
The Stryker OrthoMap Precision Knee system is intended to be used as a planning and intraoperative guidance system to enable open or percutaneous image guided knee surgery. The system uses wireless optical tracking technology to display to the surgeon the intraoperative location of navigated surgical instruments relative to a computed anatomical model of the patient's leg (femur and tibia). The computed model is based on an intra-operative anatomy survey of the leg. The system consists of a Stryker surgical software application (software), which runs on a platform, consisting of a Stryker computer, a navigation camera, an IO-Tablet and a monitor. The Stryker surgical software application interfaces with smart instruments (e.g. patient trackers, instrument trackers or pointers) and several accessories enabling the tracking of surgical instruments.
The Stryker OrthoMap Precision Knee 5.0 software is compatible with the NAV31 Platform Family. The NAV3i platform family is a family of platforms that, when used with a surgical software application, displays patient specific images and/or patient specific anatomical landmark information and tracks the position and movement of surgical instruments in relation to a target anatomical site on a patient. The NAV3i platform family consists of the following three platforms that have been previously cleared independently or with other Stryker surgical software applications:
- Stryker NAV3 Platform
- Stryker NAV3i Platform ●
- Stryker NAVSuite3 Kit
The platforms consist of the following components:
- Stryker computer
- Navigation camera ●
- IO-Tablet ●
- Monitor
- Mobile cart (if applicable) ●
### Performance Data:
The following performance data were provided in support of the substantial equivalence decision:
### Electrical Safety and Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) Testing
{5}------------------------------------------------
Electrical safety and EMC testing were conducted on the subject device in accordance with the following standards:
- ANSI/AAMI ES60601-1:2005/(R)2012 and A1:2012, C1:2009/(R)2012 and ● A2:2010/(R)2012 (Consolidated Text) Medical electrical equipment - Part 1: General requirements for basic safety and essential performance (IEC 60601-1:2005, MOD) (FDA Rec# 19-4)
- . IEC 60601-1-2:2007: Medical electrical equipment - Part 1-2: General requirements for basic safety and essential performance - Collateral standard: Electromagnetic compatibility - Requirements and tests (FDA Rec#19-1)
### Software Verification and Validation Testing
Software verification and validation testing were conducted and documentation was provided as recommended by FDA's Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff, "Guidance for the Content of Premarket Submissions for Software Contained in Medical Devices." The software for this device was considered as a "MAJOR" level of concern.
### Performance Testing - Bench
The following design verification activities have been performed to ensure the correct functionality of the system as it has been specified:
- ASTM accuracy testing verifying the accuracy performance of the localization and . tracking technology using the standardized test procedure according to ASTM Standard F2554-10.
- . System accuracy testing verifying the specified accuracy of ± 2 mm and ± 1° using a mechanical leg mimicking the patient's anatomy.
- . Clinical workflow testing verifying that all system components (application, computer platform and accessories) are compatible. Complete total knee arthroplasty procedures are simulated using Sawbones mimicking the patient's anatomy.
- Functional testing to ensure that all functional requirements are fulfilled.
- . Safety testing verifying the effectiveness of all risk controls determined in the device risk analysis and in the risk analyses of the platforms.
This strategy ensures the verification of the accuracy, system integration, software algorithms, system functionality, and correct implementation of the risk control measures. All tests have been successfully completed.
### Animal Study
No animal studies were performed to support substantial equivalence.
### Clinical Studies
No clinical studies were performed to support substantial equivalence.
{6}------------------------------------------------
### Substantial Equivalence Rationale:
The intended uses of the subject and predicate devices are similar. The systems are intended as planning and intraoperative guidance systems to enable open or percutaneous computer assisted surgery. Minor modifications were made to the indication for use statement to provide clarification, but do not change the meaning of the indication for use statement.
Both the subject device and the primary predicate device use the same main system components, use similar modes of operation, and use the same localization and tracking technology. Also, both systems use similar accessories (Smart Instruments, Patient Tracker Fixation, Navigated Manual Instruments and other accessories).
The technological characteristics of the subject and predicate device are equivalent. None of the changes alter the operating principle, the control mechanism, the localization and tracking technology, the main system components or the system accuracy performance. The workflow, user interaction, the software architecture and the software features are similar. As demonstrated by the performance testing described above, the subject device continues to meet the same accuracy specifications as the predicate device. Therefore, the differences in technological characteristics to do not raise new questions of safety and effectiveness.
In conclusion, the Stryker OrthoMap Precision Knee system can be found substantially equivalent to the OrthoMap Express Knee system (K153240).
The device comparison table below provides a comparison of the technological characteristics of the subject device to the primary predicate device.
| | Subject Device<br>Stryker OrthoMap Precision Knee System | Predicate Device - K153240<br>Stryker OrthoMap Express Knee system |
|-----------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 510(k) Number | Under review | K153240 |
| Clearance Date | Under review | July 7, 2016 |
| Device Name | Stryker Navigation OrthoMap Precision Knee<br>5.0 Navigation System | Stryker Navigation OrthoMap Express<br>Knee 2.0 Navigation System |
| Regulation<br>Number | §882.4560 - Stereotaxic Instrument | §882.4560 - Stereotaxic Instrument |
| Product Code | OLO - Orthopedic Stereotaxic Instrument | OLO - Orthopedic Stereotaxic Instrument |
| Product Class | II | II |
| Localization<br>and Tracking<br>technology | Infrared optical active sensing technology:<br>Infrared light emitted by diodes placed in a<br>known fashion on navigated surgical<br>instruments is sensed by a camera array<br>(navigation camera) on the computer platform,<br>thus allowing for computation of the spatial<br>information. | Infrared optical active sensing technology:<br>Infrared light emitted by diodes placed in a<br>known fashion on navigated surgical<br>instruments is sensed by a camera array<br>(navigation camera) on the computer<br>platform, thus allowing for computation of<br>the spatial information. |
| | Subject Device<br>Stryker OrthoMap Precision Knee System | Predicate Device – K153240<br>Stryker OrthoMap Express Knee system |
| Main System<br>Components | Computer Platform<br>OrthoMap Precision Knee 5.0 Software<br>Smart Instruments<br>Patient Tracker Fixation<br>Navigated Manual Instruments<br>Instrument Battery, Trays | Computer Platform<br>OrthoMap Express Knee 2.0 Software<br>Smart Instruments<br>Patient Tracker Fixation<br>Navigated Manual Instruments<br>Instrument Battery, Trays |
| Compatible<br>Platforms | NAV3i Computer Platform Family:<br>Stryker NAV3 Platform<br>Stryker NAV3i Platform<br>Stryker NAVSuite3 Kit | NAV3i Computer Platform Family:<br>Stryker NAV3 Platform<br>Stryker NAV3i Platform<br>Stryker NAVSuite3 Kit |
| Registration<br>and Navigation<br>Work Flow | Patient Preparation<br>System Setup<br>Patient Registration (femur and tibia)<br>Analyze Initial Alignment<br>Size and Position Implant<br>Resect Bones<br>Analyze Trial Implant<br>Analyze Final Implant | Patient Preparation<br>System Setup<br>Patient Registration (femur)<br>Navigation (femur)<br>Patient Registration (tibia)<br>Navigation (tibia) |
| System<br>Accuracy | The system enables the determination of the<br>mechanical axes of the leg as well as cut and<br>component alignment with a mean<br>translational error of $<$ 2 mm and a mean<br>rotational error of $<$ 1°. | The system enables the determination of the<br>mechanical axes of the leg as well as cut<br>and component alignment with a mean<br>translational error of $<$ 2 mm and a mean<br>rotational error of $<$ 1°. |
| Accessories:<br>Patient /<br>Instrument<br>Trackers | Patient/Instrument Trackers<br>Universal Tracker Tibia/Pelvic Tracker Femoral Tracker nGenius Universal Tracker nGenius Tibial Tracker nGenius Femur Tracker Hip Femur Tracker Hip Tibia/Pelvis TrackerPointers Pointer, Knee Navigation Ortho Grip Knee Pointer Pointer, Straight | Femur Trackers / Tibia Trackers<br>Universal Tracker Tibia/Pelvic Tracker Femoral Tracker nGenius Tibial Tracker nGenius Femur Tracker nGenius Femur Tracker Hip Femur Tracker Hip Tibia/Pelvis TrackerPointers Pointer, Knee Navigation Ortho Grip Knee Pointer Pointer, Straight |
| Accessories:<br>Patient Tracker<br>Fixation | OrthoLock with OrthoLock Navigation Pin or<br>OrthoLock EX-Pins<br>Anchoring Pins and Insertion Tool | ASM Fixation Plate |
| | Subject Device<br>Stryker OrthoMap Precision Knee System | Predicate Device – K153240<br>Stryker OrthoMap Express Knee system |
| Accessories:<br>Navigated<br>Manual<br>Instruments | Dedicated Mini Jig (which consists of): Adjustment Component Tracker Adapter Mini Cutting Guide Mini Fixation Plate MIS Jig (which consists of): Navigated MIS Jig-A Navigated MIS Jig-B Tracker Adapter Plane Probes (Resection Plan Probes and a<br>Posterior Plane Probe) | Dedicated Mini Jig (which consists of): Adjustment Component Tracker Adapter Mini Cutting Guide ASM Resection Plane Probe |
| Screwdrivers | Screwdriver<br>Universal Joint Screwdriver | Screwdriver<br>Universal Joint Screwdriver |
#### Device Comparison Table:
{7}------------------------------------------------
{8}------------------------------------------------
### Substantial Equivalence Conclusion:
Based on the comparison of intended use and technological characteristics, the device is similar to the predicate device. The hardware and software verification and validation testing demonstrate that the subject device meets its performance specifications and will perform as intended in the specified use conditions and that any differences between the subject device and predicate device do not raise new questions of safety and effectiveness. Therefore, the subject device can be found substantially equivalent to the predicate device.
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.