K170551 · Impact Applications, Inc. · POM · Jun 21, 2017 · Neurology
Device Facts
Record ID
K170551
Device Name
ImPACT Quick Test
Applicant
Impact Applications, Inc.
Product Code
POM · Neurology
Decision Date
Jun 21, 2017
Decision
SESE
Submission Type
Traditional
Regulation
21 CFR 882.1471
Device Class
Class 2
Attributes
Software as a Medical Device
Indications for Use
ImPACT Quick Test is intended for use as a computerized cognitive test aid in the assessment and management of concussion in individuals ages 12-70.
Device Story
ImPACT Quick Test (QT) is a 5-7 minute iPad-based neurocognitive test; designed for use by trained healthcare professionals (e.g., athletic trainers, physicians) to assess patients post-suspected concussion. Input consists of user touch-screen responses to three cognitive modules: Symbol Match, Three Letter Memory, and Attention Tracker. The device records objective performance metrics including working memory, processing speed, and reaction time, alongside symptom reporting. Output is presented as composite score percentiles based on normative data. The device does not provide diagnostic impairment recommendations; results are used by clinicians to determine if further evaluation or return-to-activity is appropriate. It serves as a brief assessment aid, not a substitute for comprehensive neuropsychological evaluation.
Clinical Evidence
Clinical studies included construct validity (n=118), concurrent validity (n=92), and test-retest reliability (n=76). Concurrent validity with the predicate ImPACT showed moderate-to-high correlations (r=0.32-0.63, p<0.001). Construct validity was assessed against BVMT-R, CTT, and SDMT. Test-retest reliability showed significant correlations (p<0.001) for composite scores (r=0.18-0.83). A normative database was established using 772 subjects representative of the 12-70 age population.
Technological Characteristics
Software-based neurocognitive test battery; delivered on off-the-shelf iPad hardware; user input via touch-screen. Implements three modules: Symbol Match, Three Letter Memory, and Attention Tracker. Developed per IEC 62304 and ISO 14971 standards. Connectivity is standalone software application.
Indications for Use
Indicated for use as a computerized cognitive test aid to assist in the assessment and management of concussion in individuals ages 12-70.
Regulatory Classification
Identification
The computerized cognitive assessment aid for concussion is a prescription device that uses an individual's score(s) on a battery of cognitive tasks to provide an indication of the current level of cognitive function in response to concussion. The computerized cognitive assessment aid for concussion is used only as an assessment aid in the management of concussion to determine cognitive function for patients after a potential concussive event where other diagnostic tools are available and does not identify the presence or absence of concussion. It is not intended as a stand-alone diagnostic device.
Special Controls
*Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special controls for this device are:(1) Software, including any proprietary algorithm(s) used by the device to arrive at its interpretation of the patient's cognitive function, must be described in detail in the software requirements specification (SRS) and software design specification (SDS). Software verification, validation, and hazard analysis must be performed.
(2) Clinical performance data must be provided that demonstrates how the device functions as an interpretation of the current level of cognitive function in an individual that has recently received an injury that causes concern about a possible concussion. The testing must:
(i) Evaluate device output and clinical interpretation.
(ii) Evaluate device test-retest reliability of the device output.
(iii) Evaluate construct validity of the device cognitive assessments.
(iv) Describe the construction of the normative database, which includes the following:
(A) How the clinical workup was completed to establish a “normal” population, including the establishment of inclusion and exclusion criteria.
(B) Statistical methods and model assumptions used.
(3) The labeling must include:
(i) A summary of any clinical testing conducted to demonstrate how the device functions as an interpretation of the current level of cognitive function in a patient that has recently received an injury that causes concern about a possible concussion. The summary of testing must include the following:
(A) Device output and clinical interpretation.
(B) Device test-retest reliability of the device output.
(C) Construct validity of the device cognitive assessments.
(D) A description of the normative database, which includes the following:
(
*1* ) How the clinical workup was completed to establish a “normal” population, including the establishment of inclusion and exclusion criteria.(
*2* ) How normal values will be reported to the user.(
*3* ) Representative screen shots and reports that will be generated to provide the user results and normative data.(
*4* ) Statistical methods and model assumptions used.(
*5* ) Whether or not the normative database was adjusted due to differences in age and gender.(ii) A warning that the device should only be used by health care professionals who are trained in concussion management.
(iii) A warning that the device does not identify the presence or absence of concussion or other clinical diagnoses.
(iv) A warning that the device is not a stand-alone diagnostic.
(v) Any instructions technicians must convey to patients regarding the administration of the test and collection of cognitive test data.
In combination with the general controls of the FD&C Act, the Computerized Cognitive Assessment Aid for Concussion is subject to the following special controls:
{0}------------------------------------------------
Public Health Service
Food and Drug Administration 10903 New Hampshire Avenue Document Control Center - WO66-G609 Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002
June 21, 2017
Impact Applications, Inc. Michael Zagorski Director of Regulatory Affairs 9665 Granite Ridge Drive. Suite 550 San Diego, California 92123
Re: K170551
Trade/Device Name: ImPACT Ouick Test Regulation Number: 21 CFR 882.1471 Regulation Name: Computerized Cognitive Assessment Aid For Concussion Regulatory Class: Class II Product Code: POM Dated: May 22, 2017 Received: May 23, 2017
Dear Mr. Zagorski:
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 Part 801); medical device reporting (reporting of medical device
{1}------------------------------------------------
related adverse events) (21 CFR 803); good manufacturing practice requirements as set 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" (21 CFR 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,
# Michaelリ. Hoffmann -S
for
Carlos L. Peña, PhD, MS Director Division of Neurological and Physical Medicine Devices Office of Device Evaluation Center for Devices and Radiological Health
Enclosure
{2}------------------------------------------------
## Indications for Use
510(k) Number (if known) K170551
Device Name ImPACT Quick Test
Indications for Use (Describe)
ImPACT Quick Test is intended for use as a computerized cognitive test aid in the assessment and management of concussion in individuals ages 12-70.
| Type of Use (Select one or both, as applicable) | |
|-------------------------------------------------|--|
|-------------------------------------------------|--|
X Prescription Use (Part 21 CFR 801 Subpart D)
| Over-The-Counter Use (21 CFR 801 Subpart C)
#### 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}------------------------------------------------
Image /page/3/Picture/0 description: The image is a logo for ImPACT Applications, Inc. The logo features a stylized image of a human head in profile, with a brain inside the head. The brain is colored in a light blue color. To the right of the head is the text "ImPACT" in a combination of dark blue and light blue colors. Below the word "ImPACT" is the text "APPLICATIONS, INC."
#### Section 5 - 510(k) Summary
Submission Date: May 22, 2017
#### Submitter Information:
| Company: | ImPACT Applications, Inc.<br>9665 Granite Ridge Drive, Suite 150<br>San Diego, CA 92123 |
|-------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Official Correspondent: | Michael Zagorski<br>Director of Regulatory Affairs |
Device Information:
| Trade Name: | ImPACT Quick Test™™ |
|------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|
| Classification Name: | Computerized Cognitive Assessment Aid for Concussion |
| Device Class: | II |
| Device Classification: | 21 CFR 882.1471, Product Code POM |
| Review Panel | Neurology |
ImPACT (DEN150037)
ImPACT Applications, Inc. Tel: 412-567-8400 x.939
Email: mzagorski@impacttest.com
#### Predicate Device:
#### Indications for Use:
lmPACT Quick Test is intended for use as a computerized cognitive test to aid in the assessment and management of concussion in individuals ages 12-70
#### Device Description:
lmPACT Quick Test (ImPACT) QT is a brief computerized neurocognitive test designed to assist trained healthcare professionals in determining a patient's status after a suspected concussion. ImPACT QT provides basic data related to neurocognitive functioning, including working memory, processing speed, reaction time, and symptom recording.
lmPACT QT is designed to be a brief 5-7 minute iPad-based test to aid sideline personnel and first responders in determining if an athlete/individual is in need of further evaluation or is able to immediately return to activity. ImPACT QT is not a substitute for a full neuropsychological evaluation or a more comprehensive computerized neurocognitive test (such as ImPACT).
{4}------------------------------------------------
Image /page/4/Picture/2 description: The image is a logo for ImPACT Applications, Inc. The logo features a stylized image of a human head in profile, with the brain outlined in blue. To the right of the head is the word "ImPACT" in blue, with the "I" in a darker shade of blue than the rest of the word. Below "ImPACT" is the phrase "APPLICATIONS, INC." in a smaller, darker blue font.
#### Comparison to Predicate Device:
lmPACT QT is substantially equivalent to ImPACT, manufactured by ImPACT Applications, Inc., and cleared under DEN150037. ImPACT QT and Predicate Device ImPACT share the same intended use as Computerized Cognitive Assessment Aid for Concussion. Both devices enable administration of neuropsychological test taker's cognitive state. They are also similar in terms of technological characteristics as both administer neurocognitive test modules on a standard off-the-shelf computing device and record objective cognitive performance measurements as the test taker responds to stimuli presented on the screen.
lmPACT QT differs from Predicate Device in the content and design of the cognitive tasks, and the test reported for analysis, including different normative data set.
| Table 1 - Substantial Equivalence Comparison | | | |
|----------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Characteristic | New Device: ImPACT Quick<br>Test | Predicate Device: ImPACT<br>(DEN150037) | Reference Device: ImPACT<br>Pediatric (DEN150037) |
| Indications of Use | Similar to the Predicate and<br>the Reference Device.<br>ImPACT QT is intended for<br>use as a computerized<br>cognitive test to aid in the<br>assessment and management<br>of concussion in individuals<br>ages 12-70. | ImPACT is intended for use as<br>a computer-based<br>neurocognitive test battery<br>to aid in the assessment and<br>management of concussion.<br>ImPACT is a neurocognitive<br>test battery that provides<br>healthcare professionals with<br>objective measure of<br>neurocognitive functioning as<br>an assessment aid and in the<br>management of concussion<br>in individuals ages 12-59. | ImPACT is intended for use as<br>a computer-based<br>neurocognitive test battery<br>to aid in the assessment and<br>management of concussion.<br>ImPACT is a neurocognitive<br>test battery that provides<br>healthcare professionals with<br>objective measure of<br>neurocognitive functioning as<br>an assessment aid and in the<br>management of concussion<br>in individuals ages 5-11. |
| Patient<br>Population | Similar to the Predicate<br>ImPACT QT age range is 12-70 | 12-59 | 5-11 |
| Technology | Similar to Predicate, and the<br>same as Reference Device. | Stand-alone software application<br>delivered on desktop/laptop<br>computers | Stand-alone software application<br>delivered on iPad |
| Neurocognitive<br>tasks<br>administered | Similar to Predicate and<br>Reference Devices<br>ImPACT QT includes:<br>Demographic data, (age,<br>gender);Symptoms list;Neurocognitive test battery<br>consisting of 3 modules:Module 1: Symbol MatchModule 2: Three letter<br>memoryModule 3: Attention<br>TrackerModules 1 and 2 are identical to<br>Modules 3 and 4 of the Predicate<br>Device. | 1. Demographic data, (age,<br>gender, concussion history);<br>2. Symptoms list;<br>3. Neurocognitive test battery<br>consisting of 6 modules:<br>Module 1: Word Memory<br>and Delayed Memory<br>RecognitionModule 2: Design Memory<br>and Delayed Design<br>RecognitionModule 3: X's and O'sModule 4: Symbol<br>MatchingModule 5: Color MatchModule 6: Three Letter<br>Memory | 1. Demographic data, (age,<br>gender, concussion history);<br>2. Symptoms list;<br>3. Neurocognitive test battery<br>consisting of 6 modules:<br>Module 1: Word Memory<br>and Delayed Memory<br>RecognitionModule 2: Design Memory<br>and Delayed Design<br>RecognitionModule 3: Stop and GoModule 4: Memory TouchModule 5: Picture MatchModule 6: Color Match |
{5}------------------------------------------------
| Image: IMPACT APPLICATIONS, INC. | | ImPACT Quick Test - Traditional 510(k) | Section 5 - 510(k) Summary |
|----------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Reporting | Similar to Predicate and<br>Reference Devices.<br>The new device reports<br>symptoms and displays test<br>results in a form of composites<br>score percentiles based on<br>normative data. | • Symptom scores<br>• Raw Scores (subscales)<br>• Composite scores with<br>percentiles based on<br>normative data.<br>• Reliable Change Index. | • Symptom scores<br>• Raw Scores<br>• Factor Scores with<br>percentiles based on<br>normative data. |
| Results<br>Interpretation | Same as Predicate and<br>Reference Devices. | ImPACT does not provide a<br>recommendation that the<br>patient is impaired vs.<br>unimpaired.<br>Clinical interpretation of the<br>results includes comparison with<br>the normative database. | ImPACT Pediatric does not<br>provide a recommendation that<br>the patient is impaired vs.<br>unimpaired.<br>Clinical interpretation of the<br>results includes comparison with<br>the normative database. |
| Stimulus<br>presentation | Same as Predicate Device | Computer screen | Tablet (mobile device) screen |
| Test taker<br>response capture | Same as Reference Device | Computer mouse or keyboard | User input (finger touch) via<br>tablet touch-screen |
| Psychometric<br>properties | Same as Predicate and<br>Reference Devices | Demonstrates construct validity<br>with traditional<br>neuropsychological tests and<br>test-retest reliability. | Demonstrates construct validity<br>with traditional<br>neuropsychological tests and<br>test-retest reliability. |
| Standards used | ISO 14971<br>IEC 62304 | ISO 14971<br>IEC 62304 | ISO 14971<br>IEC 62304 |
## Summary of Non-Clinical Testing:
lmPACT QT software was developed, validated, and documented in accordance with IEC 62304 and FDA Guidance "General Principles of Software Validation." Software verification activities including code reviews, design reviews, evaluations, analyses, traceability assessment, and manual software testing were executed to demonstrate device performance and functionality. All activities were completed successfully and met the required acceptance criteria.
Risk Management activities, conducted in accordance on ISO 14971, assure that all risks related to use of a computerized neurocognitive test, including use related risks and cybersecurity risks, are appropriately mitigated.
## Summary of Clinical Testing:
The 510(k) included the results of clinical studies that examined the construct and concurrent validity of ImPACT QT as a clinical tool by documenting correlations with ImPACT and traditional neuropsychological tests. Clinical data was also collected to examine test-retest reliability and to construct a normative database.
#### Normative Database:
To develop a normative data set, 772 subjects were recruited by utilizing 11 sites across the United States. All subjects completed an IRB approved consent form and met eligibility criteria before testing. The standardization sample was developed to be representative of the population of individuals ages 12-70 years, based upon the 2010 U.S. Census, approximating the targets for age, gender and race.
All subjects completed an IRB approved consent form and met eligibility criteria before testing. All testing was completed by professionals who were specifically trained to administer the test. These professionals consisted of neuropsychologists, physicians, psychology/psychology/psychology graduate students, certified athletic trainers and athletic training graduate students. All testing was completed in a supervised setting.
{6}------------------------------------------------
Image /page/6/Picture/2 description: The image is a logo for ImPACT Applications, Inc. The logo features a stylized head with a brain inside, followed by the word "ImPACT" in blue letters. Below the word "ImPACT" is the phrase "APPLICATIONS, INC." in smaller, blue letters. The logo is clean and professional, and it is likely used to represent a company that specializes in brain-related applications.
## Concurrent Validity
A study was completed comparing ImPACT Quick Test to ImPACT, the test from which it was derived. This study compared 92 subjects who were given both ImPACT Quick Test. Tests were administered in counterbalanced order across subjects by trained examiners. The sample consisted of 41 (45%) males and 51 (55%) females with an average age of 36.5 years (S.D. = 19.8 years, range = 12-76 years).
The correlations between the two instruments tend to be in the moderate to high range, 0.32-0.63. This suggests that although the two instruments measure similar constructs, the fact that ImPACT Quick Test contains a subset of ImPACT tests as well as unique content explains the moderate relationship between the two instruments.
| Table 2. Concurrent Validity Between ImPACT and ImPACT Quick Test. | |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|-----|
| Visual Motor Speed | |
| Three Letters Counting Average Correct | .63 |
| Reaction Time | |
| Three Letters Average Time First Click | .47 |
| Attention Tracker Rectangular Average Time Correct | .44 |
| Attention Tracker Figure Eight Average Time Correct | .40 |
| Attention Tracker Complex Average Time Correct | .43 |
| Symbol Match Correct Visible Average Answer Time | .61 |
| Symbol Match Correct Hidden Average Answer Time | .36 |
| Symbol Match Incorrect Hidden Average Answer Time | .32 |
| All correlations p<.001 | |
The results of these studies demonstrate that ImPACT QT provides a reliable measure of cognitive function to aid in assessment of concussion, and is therefore substantially equivalent to the Predicate Device.
## Construct Validity
A study was completed comparing ImPACT Quick Test to the Brief Visuospatial Motor Test (BVMT-R) (Benedict, 1997), a measure of visual-spatial memory, the Color Trails Test (CTT) (D'Elia et al., 1998), a measure of attention and sequencing, and the Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT) (Smith, 1973), a measure of attention, visual scanning and motor speed).
The study compared the results of 118 subjects; the tests were administered in counterbalanced order across subjects by trained examiners. The sample consisted of 73 (62%) females and 45 (38%) males with an average age of 32.5 years (S.D. = 16.7 years, range = 18-79 years).
The results suggest that Attention Tracker and Motor Speed correlate more highly with the BVMT-R, and CTT, than does the Memory Scale. These results are consistent with what one would expect as the BVMT-R, and CTT, provide measures of attention and motor speed. Although the correlation between the Memory Scale and the BVMT-R, was lower than expected, the fact that the format and task demands are significantly different can explain the lower than expected correlations.
{7}------------------------------------------------
Image /page/7/Picture/0 description: The image is a logo for ImPACT Applications, Inc. The logo features a stylized image of a human head with a brain inside, followed by the text "ImPACT" in a blue gradient, and the text "APPLICATIONS, INC." in a smaller font below. The logo is clean and professional, and it conveys a sense of intelligence and innovation.
| Table 3 - Construct validity: correlation of ImPACT Quick Test and neuropsychological test measures | | | | | | | | |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------|-------|-----------------------------|-----|-------|-----------------------------|-----|-------|
| Attention Tracker | r | Sig r | Motor Speed | r | Sig r | Memory | r | Sig r |
| BVMT-R Trial 1 | .29 | .07 | BVMT-R Trial 1 | .32 | .001 | BVMT-R Trial 1 | .10 | .30 |
| BVMT-R Trial 2 | .05 | .58 | BVMT-R Trial 2 | .18 | .05 | BVMT-R Trial 2 | .14 | .14 |
| BVMT-R Trial 3 | -.01 | .93 | BVMT-R Trial 3 | .17 | .06 | BVMT-R Trial 3 | .13 | .16 |
| BVMT-R Total Score | .10 | .27 | BVMT-R Total Score | .30 | .001 | BVMT-R Total Score | .13 | .16 |
| Color Trails-R Trial 1 Time | .37 | .001 | Color Trails-R Trial 1 Time | .50 | .001 | Color Trails-R Trial 1 Time | .03 | .75 |
| Color Trails-R Trial 2 Time | .28 | .003 | Color Trails-R Trial 2 Time | .61 | .001 | Color Trails-R Trial 2 Time | .16 | .09 |
| Color Trails-S Trial 1 Time | -.35 | .05 | Color Trails-S Trial 1 Time | .36 | .04 | Color Trails-S Trial 1 Time | .12 | .53 |
| SDMT Correct | .19 | .29 | SDMT Correct | .20 | .28 | SDMT Correct | .04 | .85 |
| Legend: r=Pearson's correlation coefficient; Sig r=significance r | | | | | | | | |
### Test-Retest Reliability
A sample of 76 individuals were tested twice for this study. During their initial visit, informed consent was obtained from each participant after which they were given ImPACT Quick Test and asked to return to take the test 1-4 weeks in the future. None of the test subjects had a history of concussion within one year of participating in the study and none had concussion symptoms during their participation. No subject was included in the study if he or she had a history of epilepsy or other neurological disorders or were taking psychoactive medication at the time of the study. All testing was completed under the direction of a trained test administrator. Pearson's Correlations for the Composite scores presented in the table were calculated to examine test-retest reliability for the subtests across the first two test sessions. All test-retest correlations (r) were significant at the p<.001 level or beyond, with the composite score correlations 0.18 for Memory, 0.73 for Attention Tracker, and 0.82 for Motor Speed. With the large majority of the correlations in the .6 to .8 range and the RCI scores total percent change at the various levels, this reflects considerable stability across the re-test period.
| Table 4 – Test-retest reliability results for ImPACT Quick Test Composite Scores | | | | | | | |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----|------------------------|--------------|-------------|---------------------------|--------|--------|
| Composite Scores | r | aReliable Change (RCI) | | | bRCI Total Percent Change | | |
| | | 80% CI | 90% CI | 95% CI | 80% CI | 90% CI | 95% CI |
| Attention Tracker | .73 | △.56/14%/3% | △.72/8%/1% | △.86/5%/1% | 17% | 9% | 6% |
| Motor Speed | .83 | △4.08/14%/5% | △5.22/12%/4% | △6.24/8%/3% | 19% | 16% | 11% |
| Memory | .18 | △3/15%/12% | △4/9%/5% | △5/1%/1% | 28% | 14% | 2% |
| aReliable Change (RCI) reflects the delta (△) required for "reliable" change, and the percentage of cases declining and improving beyond that delta. | | | | | | | |
| bReliable Change Total Percent Change reflects the total percentage of cases falling outside the confidence interval, summing both improvement and decline. | | | | | | | |
## Conclusion:
ImPACT QT falls within the generic type of device regulated under 21 CFR 882.1471, Computerized Cognitive Assessment Aid for Concussion, Product Code POM. The differences between the two devices described above do not affect either the safety or effectiveness of ImPACT QT for its intended use and do not raise new questions of safety and effectiveness; therefore, ImPACT QT is substantially equivalent to the Predicate Device ImPACT.
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.