The DRI Hydrocodone Assay is a homogeneous enzyme immunoassay for the qualitative and/or semi-quantitative determination of the presence of hydrocodone and its metabolites in human urine at a cutoff concentration of 300 ng/mL. The assay is intended to be used in laboratories and provides a simple and rapid analytical screening procedure to detect hydrocodone and its metabolites in human urine. The assay is designed for use with a number of clinical chemistry analyzers. The semi-quantitative mode is for the purpose of enabling laboratories to determine an appropriate dilution of the specimen for confirmation by a confirmatory method such as liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) or permitting laboratories to establish quality control procedures. The assay provides only a preliminary analytical test result. A more specific alternative chemical method must be used to obtain a confirmed analytical result. Gas chromatography/ mass spectrometry (GC/MS) or liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) is the preferred confirmatory method.
Device Story
DRI Hydrocodone Assay is a liquid, ready-to-use homogeneous enzyme immunoassay for urine drug screening. Input: human urine sample. Principle: competitive binding between drug in sample and G6PDH-labeled drug for fixed antibody sites; free drug in sample displaces labeled drug, increasing enzyme activity. Output: spectrophotometric measurement at 340 nm (NAD to NADH conversion) proportional to drug concentration. Used in clinical laboratories on chemistry analyzers (e.g., Indiko Plus). Results are preliminary; used by clinicians to identify specimens requiring confirmatory testing via LC-MS/MS or GC/MS. Benefits: rapid screening for hydrocodone/metabolites to support clinical decision-making regarding patient medication adherence or toxicology screening.
Clinical Evidence
No clinical data. Performance established via bench testing, including precision studies (CLSI EP5-A3), linearity (CLSI EP6-A), and analytical specificity/interference (CLSI EP7-A2). Method comparison study performed on 136 urine samples against LC-MS/MS reference method.
Technological Characteristics
Homogeneous enzyme immunoassay. Reagents: mouse monoclonal anti-hydrocodone antibody, G6P, NAD, and G6PDH-labeled hydrocodone derivative. Detection: spectrophotometric at 340 nm. Form factor: liquid, ready-to-use. Connectivity: designed for clinical chemistry analyzers. Shelf-life: 18 months; on-board stability: 60 days.
Indications for Use
Indicated for the qualitative and/or semi-quantitative screening of hydrocodone and its metabolites in human urine at a 300 ng/mL cutoff. For prescription use in laboratory settings. Not for definitive diagnosis; requires confirmation by GC/MS or LC-MS/MS.
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
DRI Hydrocodone assay (k150502)
Submission Summary (Full Text)
{0}
1
510(k) SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE DETERMINATION
DECISION SUMMARY
ASSAY ONLY TEMPLATE
A. 510(k) Number:
k173195
B. Purpose for Submission:
Adding a previously cleared test (DRI Hydrocodone Assay) to the Indiko Family Analyzer
C. Measurand:
Hydrocodone
D. Type of Test:
Qualitative and semi-quantitative homogeneous enzyme immunoassay
E. Applicant:
Microgenics Corporation
F. Proprietary and Established Names:
DRI Hydrocodone Assay
G. Regulatory Information:
1. Regulation section:
21 CFR 862.3650, Opiate test system
2. Classification:
Class II
3. Product code:
DJG
4. Panel:
Toxicology (91)
{1}
H. Intended Use:
1. Intended use(s):
Refer to Indications for Use below
2. Indication(s) for use:
The DRI Hydrocodone Assay is a homogeneous enzyme immunoassay for the qualitative and/or semi-quantitative determination of the presence of hydrocodone and its metabolites in human urine at a cutoff concentration of 300 ng/mL. The assay is intended to be used in laboratories and provides a simple and rapid analytical screening procedure to detect hydrocodone and its metabolites in human urine. The assay is designed for use with a number of clinical chemistry analyzers.
The semi-quantitative mode is for the purpose of enabling laboratories to determine an appropriate dilution of the specimen for confirmation by a confirmatory method such as liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) or permitting laboratories to establish quality control procedures. The assay provides only a preliminary analytical test result. A more specific alternative chemical method must be used to obtain a confirmed analytical result. Gas chromatography/ mass spectrometry (GC/MS) or liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) is the preferred confirmatory method.
3. Special conditions for use statement(s):
For prescription use only.
4. Special instrument requirements:
Performance characteristics provided in this submission were determined on the Indiko Plus Analyzer.
I. Device Description:
The DRI Hydrocodone assay is supplied as a liquid ready-to-use homogeneous enzyme immunoassay, comprised of two reagents (Reagent A and Reagent E) which are bottled separately but sold together within the same kit.
Reagent A: Contains mouse monoclonal anti-Hydrocodone antibody, glucose-6-phosphate (G6P), and nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD) in Tris buffer with sodium azide as a preservative.
Reagent E: Contains Hydrocodone derivative labeled with glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PDH) in Tris buffer with sodium azide as a preservative.
{2}
J. Substantial Equivalence Information:
1. Predicate device name(s):
DRI Hydrocodone assay
2. Predicate 510(k) number(s):
k150502
3. Comparison with predicate:
| Similarities and Differences | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Item | Candidate Device k173195 | Predicate Device k150502 |
| Intended Use | Homogeneous enzyme immunoassay for the qualitative and/or semi-quantitative determination of the presence of hydrocodone and its metabolites in human urine. | Same |
| Measured Analyte | Hydrocodone and its metabolites | Same |
| Test Matrix | Urine | Same |
| Cutoff Levels | 300 ng/mL | Same |
| Methodology | Homogeneous Enzyme Immunoassay | Same |
| Antibody | Mouse Monoclonal | Same |
| Storage | 2–8°C until expiration date | Same |
| Platform | Indiko Plus | Beckman AU680 |
K. Standard/Guidance Document Referenced (if applicable):
- CLSI EP5-A3: Evaluation of Precision Performance of Quantitative Measurement Methods; Approved Guideline -Third Edition, 2014.
- CLSI EP7-A2: Interference Testing in Clinical Chemistry; Approved Guideline -Second Edition, 2005.
- CLSI EP9-A3: Method Comparison and Bias Estimation Using Patient Samples; Approved Guideline -Third Edition, 2013.
- CLSI EP6-A: Evaluation of the Linearity of Quantitative Measurement Procedures, a Statistical Approach; Approved Guideline, 2003.
{3}
- CLSI EP25-A: Evaluation of Stability of Tn Vitro Diagnostic Reagents; Approved Guideline, 2009.
## L. Test Principle:
The DRI Hydrocodone Assay is a homogeneous enzyme immunoassay. The assay uses specific antibodies that can detect Hydrocodone and its metabolites. The assay is based on competition between a drug labeled with glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PDH) and free drug from the urine sample, for a fixed amount of specific antibody binding sites. In the absence of free drug from the sample, mouse monoclonal anti-hydrocodone antibody binds to the drug labeled with G6PDH and causes a decrease in enzyme activity. In the presence of free drug, the free drug occupies the antibody binding sites, allowing the drug bound G6PDH to interact with the substrate, resulting in enzyme activity. This phenomenon creates a direct proportional relationship between the drug concentration in urine and enzyme activity. The enzyme activity is determined spectrophotometrically at 340 nm by measuring the conversion of nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD) to NADH.
## M. Performance Characteristics (if/when applicable):
### 1. Analytical performance:
#### a. Precision/Reproducibility:
A precision study was performed following CLSI EP5-A3. Drug free urine samples were spiked with hydrocodone at 0, 75, 150, 225, 300, 375, 450, 525 and 600 ng/mL, representing 0, 25, 50, 75, 100, 125, 150, 175 and 200% of the device cutoff (300 ng/mL). Each level sample was tested in duplicate per run, two runs per day for twenty consecutive days (total n= 80/level/reagent lot) using 2 lots on one Indiko Plus analyzer in both qualitative and semi-quantitative modes. The results of one representative lot are shown below:
Qualitative Precision Result:
| Concentration as % of the Cutoff Level | Target Hydrocodone spiked concentration (ng/mL) | Hydrocodone concentration determined by LC-MS/MS (ng/mL) | DRI Hydrocodone Assay # Negative / # Positive |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 80 Neg / 0 Pos |
| 25 | 75 | 89.5 | 80 Neg / 0 Pos |
| 50 | 150 | 174.85 | 80 Neg / 0 Pos |
| 75 | 225 | 243.37 | 80 Neg / 0 Pos |
| 100 | 300 | 318.50 | 4 Neg / 76 Pos |
| 125 | 375 | 410.66 | 0 Neg / 80 Pos |
| 150 | 450 | 501.62 | 0 Neg / 80 Pos |
| 175 | 525 | 592.11 | 0 Neg / 80 Pos |
| 200 | 600 | 667.52 | 0 Neg / 80 Pos |
{4}
Semi-Quantitative Precision Result:
| Concentration as % of the Cutoff Level | Target Hydrocodone spiked concentration (ng/mL) | Hydrocodone concentration determined by LC-MS/MS (ng/mL) | DRI Hydrocodone Assay # Negative / # Positive |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 80 Neg / 0 Pos |
| 25 | 75 | 89.5 | 80 Neg / 0 Pos |
| 50 | 150 | 174.85 | 80 Neg / 0 Pos |
| 75 | 225 | 243.37 | 80 Neg / 0 Pos |
| 100 | 300 | 318.50 | 7 Neg / 73 Pos |
| 125 | 375 | 410.66 | 0 Neg / 80 Pos |
| 150 | 450 | 501.62 | 0 Neg / 80 Pos |
| 175 | 525 | 592.11 | 0 Neg / 80 Pos |
| 200 | 600 | 667.52 | 0 Neg / 80 Pos |
b. Linearity/assay reportable range:
A drug recovery study in the semi-quantitative mode was conducted by spiking a drug free urine pool with hydrocodone and using serial dilutions with a negative urine pool to achieve concentrations ranging from 100 ng/mL to 1000 ng/mL, and testing each level on one lot of reagent, calibrators and controls. Each concentration was tested in five replicates on the Indiko Plus analyzer. The mean of the five replicates tested was defined as the observed drug concentration value. The percent recovery range was defined as the range in observed percent recoveries amongst the five replicates at each concentration. The results of are summarized below:
| Target concentration (ng/mL) | Observed concentration (ng/mL) | % Recovery Range |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | 0 | N/A |
| 100 | 95 | 80-120 |
| 200 | 219 | 160-240 |
| 300 | 331 | 240-360 |
| 400 | 427 | 320-480 |
| 500 | 529 | 400-600 |
| 600 | 624 | 480-720 |
| 700 | 696 | 560-840 |
| 800 | 798 | 640-960 |
| 900 | 893 | 720-1080 |
| 1000 | 911 | 800-1200 |
{5}
c. Traceability, Stability, Expected values (controls, calibrators, or methods):
Calibrators for this device were previously cleared in k150502.
d. Detection limit:
Not applicable.
e. Analytical specificity:
An analytical specificity study to evaluate interference from non-structurally and structurally related compounds was performed in the qualitative and semi-quantitative modes. The study design and results were the same for each mode (qualitative and semi-quantitative modes) and are shown in the tables below.
Cross-Reactivity of Hydrocodone and Its Metabolites
To evaluate potential cross-reactivity for the DRI Hydrocodone assay, structurally similar compounds were spiked into drug free urine at concentrations that will yield a result that is equivalent to the 300ng/mL cutoff. Percent cross-reactivity for compounds with no observed cross-reactivity was calculated using the highest concentration tested. The percent cross-reactivity is presented in the table below.
| Hydrocodone and its metabolites | Tested Concentration (ng/mL) | Pos/neg | % Cross-Reactivity |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Hydrocodone | 300 | Pos | 100 |
| Hydromorphone | 325 | Pos | 92 |
| Hydromorphone-3β-glucuronide | 185 | Pos | 162 |
| Norhydrocodone | 13,000 | Pos | 2 |
| Dihydrocodeine | 12,500 | Pos | 2 |
Cross-Reactivity of Opiates and Structurally Related Compounds
| Compounds | Tested Concentration (ng/mL) | % Cross-Reactivity |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 6-Acetyl Morphine | 100,000 | < 0.3 |
| Buprenorphine | 100,000 | < 0.3 |
| Buprenorphine 3β-D-Glucuronide | 100,000 | < 0.3 |
| Codeine | 150,000 | < 0.2 |
| Dextromethorphan | 250,000 | < 0.2 |
| EDDP | 150,000 | < 0.2 |
{6}
7
| Fentanyl | 100,000 | < 0.3 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Heroin | 100,000 | < 0.3 |
| Levorphanol | 22,000 | 1.7 |
| Methadone | 100,000 | <0.3 |
| Meperidine | 100,000 | <0.3 |
| Morphine | 150,000 | <0.2 |
| Morphine -3β-D-Glucuronide | 70,000 | <0.4 |
| Morphine -6 β-D-Glucuronide | 75,000 | <0.4 |
| Nalbuphine | 150,000 | <0.3 |
| Naloxone | 17,000 | 2.0 |
| Naltrexone | 75,000 | <0.3 |
| Norbuprenorphine | 100,000 | <0.3 |
| Norcodeine | 150,000 | <0.2 |
| Normorphine | 150,000 | <0.2 |
| Nor-Oxycodone | 110,000 | 0.3 |
| Oxycodone | 14,000 | 2.5 |
| Oxymorphone 6β-D- Glucuronide | 14,000 | 2.2 |
| Oxymorphone | 14,000 | 2.5 |
| Tapentadol | 100,000 | <0.3 |
| Thebaine | 100,000 | <0.3 |
| Tramadol | 100,000 | <0.3 |
## Structurally Unrelated Compounds
Potential interference from non-structurally related drugs was evaluated in the qualitative and semi-quantitative modes, by spiking these compounds at high concentrations in drug free urine spiked with hydrocodone at $\pm 25\%$ of the cutoff (225 and $375~\mathrm{ng / mL}$). Results obtained with two reagent lots were the same, and results from one representative lot are provided in the table below.
| Compounds | Spiked Concentration (ng/mL) | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | -25% Cutoff (225 ng/mL) | +25% Cutoff (375 ng/mL) |
| Acetaminophen | 500,000 | Neg | Pos |
| Acetylsalicylic acid | 500,000 | Neg | Pos |
| Amitryptyline | 100,000 | Neg | Pos |
| Amoxicillin | 100,000 | Neg | Pos |
| Amphetamine | 1,000,000 | Neg | Pos |
| Benzoylecgonine | 1,000,000 | Neg | Pos |
| Caffeine | 100,000 | Neg | Pos |
| Carbamazepine | 500,000 | Neg | Pos |
| Chlorpromazine | 100,000 | Neg | Pos |
| Clomipramine | 10,000 | Neg | Pos |
{7}
8
| Cimitidine | 500,000 | Neg | Pos |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Desipramine | 100,000 | Neg | Pos |
| Diphenhydramine | 100,000 | Neg | Pos |
| Doxepine | 100,000 | Neg | Pos |
| Ephedrine | 1,000,000 | Neg | Pos |
| Fluoxethine | 100,000 | Neg | Pos |
| Fluphenazine | 100,000 | Neg | Pos |
| Ibuprofen | 500,000 | Neg | Pos |
| Imipramine | 100,000 | Neg | Pos |
| Maprotiline | 100,000 | Neg | Pos |
| Nortryptiline | 100,000 | Neg | Pos |
| Oxazepam | 250,000 | Neg | Pos |
| Phencyclidine (PCP) | 100,000 | Neg | Pos |
| Phenobarbital | 100,000 | Neg | Pos |
| Ranitidine | 500,000 | Neg | Pos |
| Secobarbital | 100,000 | Neg | Pos |
| Thioridazine | 100,000 | Neg | Pos |
## Endogenous Compounds, pH and Specific Gravity
Potentially interfering substances were spiked into drug free urine spiked with 225 ng/mL or 375 ng/mL of hydrocodone. Samples were tested in replicates of five (n=5) in both qualitative and semi-quantitative modes. Results obtained in both modes were identical, and results are provided in the below table.
| Potential Interfering Substances | Concentration tested (mg/dL) | -25% Cutoff (225ng/mL) | +25% Cutoff (375ng/mL) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Acetaminophen | 10 | Negative | Positive |
| Acetone | 500 | Negative | Positive |
| Acetylsalicylic Acid | 10 | Negative | Positive |
| Ascorbic Acid | 150 | Negative | Positive |
| Caffeine | 10 | Negative | Positive |
| Creatinine | 400 | Negative | Positive |
| Ethanol | 10 | Negative | Positive |
| Galactose | 5 | Negative | Positive |
| Glucose | 1,000 | Negative | Positive |
| Hemoglobin | 150 | Negative | Positive |
| Human Serum Albumin (HSA) | 200 | Negative | Positive |
| Ibuprofen | 10 | Negative | Positive |
| Oxalic acid | 50 | Negative | Positive |
| Riboflavin | 3 | Negative | Positive |
| Sodium Chloride | 1,000 | Negative | Positive |
| Urea | 1,000 | Negative | Positive |
{8}
pH: Drug free urine specimens spiked with 225 or 375 ng/mL of hydrocodone were adjusted to varying pH (between pH 4.0 and pH 10.0). Samples were tested in replicates of five (n=5) in both qualitative and semi-quantitative modes. No positive or negative interference was observed at urine pH values ranging from 4.0 to 10.0 for each test mode.
Specific Gravity: Urine with specific gravity spanning the range within 1.003–1.031 was spiked with 225 and 375 ng/mL of hydrocodone. Samples were tested in replicates of five (n=5) in both qualitative and semi-quantitative. No positive or negative interference was observed at urine specific gravity values ranging from 1.003 to 1.031 in either test mode.
Assay cut-off:
Characterization of how the device performs analytically around the claimed cutoff concentration of 300 ng/mL hydrocodone is described in the precision section, M.1.a. above.
2. Comparison studies:
a. Method comparison with predicate device:
A total of 136 unaltered urine samples were analyzed by one lot of the DRI Hydrocodone Assay in one replicate, in both Qualitative and Semi-quantitative modes, and the results were compared to LC-MS/MS (liquid- chromatography-tandem mass spectroscopy). The results from the study in the two modes were identical and are summarized in the table below.
| Candidate Device Results | Negative | <50% of cutoff concentration by LC/MS (< 150ng/mL) | Near Cutoff Negative (Between 50% below the cutoff and the cutoff concentration by LC/MS) (150 ~ 299 ng/mL) | Near Cutoff Positive (Between the cutoff and 50% above the cutoff concentration by LC/MS) (300 ~ 450 ng/mL) | High Positive (Greater than 50% above the cutoff concentration by LC/MS) > 450 ng/mL |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Positive | 0 | 7* | 17* | 9 | 48 |
| Negative | 42 | 3 | 10 | 0 | 0 |
{9}
*Discordant Result Table
| Sample # | Immunoassay result | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | LC-MS/MS (ng/mL) | |
| | | Hydrocodone | Hydromorphone 3β-D Glucuronide |
| 46 | Positive | 126 | 179 |
| 47 | Positive | 132 | 160 |
| 48 | Positive | 126 | 314 |
| 49 | Positive | 82.7 | 128 |
| 50 | Positive | 138 | 677 |
| 51 | Positive | 131 | 126 |
| 52 | Positive | 73.3 | 262 |
| 63 | Positive | 162 | 218 |
| 64 | Positive | 249 | 356 |
| 65 | Positive | 253 | 265 |
| 66 | Positive | 160 | 739 |
| 67 | Positive | 270 | 88.6 |
| 68 | Positive | 217 | 158 |
| 69 | Positive | 236 | 90.4 |
| 70 | Positive | 282 | 242 |
| 71 | Positive | 295 | 433 |
| 72 | Positive | 167 | 149 |
| 73 | Positive | 193 | 756 |
| 74 | Positive | 214 | 434 |
| 75 | Positive | 207 | 706 |
| 76 | Positive | 298 | 190 |
| 77 | Positive | 198 | 262 |
| 78 | Positive | 157 | 124 |
| 79 | Positive | 287 | 79.9 |
b. Matrix comparison:
Not applicable. Urine is the only claimed matrix for the candidate device.
3. Clinical studies:
a. Clinical Sensitivity:
Not applicable.
{10}
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.
5. Expected values/Reference range:
Not applicable.
N. Proposed Labeling:
The labeling is sufficient and it satisfies the requirements of 21 CFR Parts 801 and 809, as applicable.
O. Conclusion:
The submitted information in this premarket notification is complete and supports a substantial equivalence decision.
11
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.