K181159 · Lin-Zhi International, Inc. · DJG · Dec 3, 2018 · Clinical Toxicology
Device Facts
Record ID
K181159
Device Name
LZI Fentanyl Enzyme Immunoassay
Applicant
Lin-Zhi International, Inc.
Product Code
DJG · Clinical Toxicology
Decision Date
Dec 3, 2018
Decision
SESE
Submission Type
Traditional
Regulation
21 CFR 862.3650
Device Class
Class 2
Attributes
Real-World Evidence
Real-World Evidence
Submission
Device
Sponsor
RWD Sources
RWE Use Summary
Key Tags
K181159 · Dec 3, 2018
LZI Fentanyl Enzyme Immunoassay
Lin-Zhi International, Inc.
De-identified patient urine samples from hospital clinics, substance abuse clinics, and emergency departments
Retrospective analysis of over 7,000 clinical urine samples to support the clinical validity of the 5 ng/mL norfentanyl cutoff by comparing positivity rates against a previously cleared fentanyl assay.
Patients presenting at hospital clinics, substance abuse clinics, and emergency departments; Sample Size: >7,000; Number of Sites: Multiple (hospital clinics, substance abuse clinics, emergency departments)
1 ng/mL fentanyl cutoff (k161216)
Positivity and negativity rates of norfentanyl vs fentanyl
Indications for Use
The LZI Fentanyl Enzyme Immunoassay is intended for the qualitative determination of norfentanyl in human urine at the cutoff value of 5 ng/mL when calibrated against norfentanyl. The assay is designed for prescription use with a number of automated clinical chemistry analyzers. The assay provides only a preliminary analytical result. A more specific alternative chemical method (e.g., gas or liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry) must be used in order to obtain a confirmed analytical result. Clinical consideration and professional judgment should be exercised with any drug of abuse test result, particularly when the preliminary test result is positive.
Device Story
LZI Fentanyl Enzyme Immunoassay is a homogeneous enzyme immunoassay kit for qualitative detection of norfentanyl in human urine. Reagents (R1, R2) contain mouse monoclonal anti-norfentanyl antibody and G6PDH-labeled norfentanyl. Principle: competitive binding between sample norfentanyl and enzyme-labeled norfentanyl for antibody sites; G6PDH activity is proportional to free norfentanyl concentration. Active G6PDH converts NAD to NADH, causing absorbance change measured at 340 nm on Beckman Coulter AU680 analyzer. Used in clinical/substance abuse clinics/emergency departments; operated by laboratory technicians. Provides preliminary results; requires confirmation via LC/MS or GC/MS. Benefits include rapid screening for fentanyl metabolite exposure to inform clinical decision-making.
Clinical Evidence
Performance evaluated on AU680 analyzer. Precision testing (N=88) showed total %CV ranging from 2.6% to 20.8% across concentrations. Qualitative performance evaluated against 101 clinical samples, showing 100% agreement with positive samples and 86.5% agreement with negative samples. Interference noted with Boric Acid (1% w/v) and dextromethorphan.
Indicated for qualitative determination of norfentanyl in human urine at 5 ng/mL cutoff. Intended for prescription use in clinical settings using automated chemistry analyzers. Provides preliminary results requiring confirmation by GC/MS or LC/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).
{0}
1
# 510(k) SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE DETERMINATION DECISION SUMMARY ASSAY ONLY TEMPLATE
A. 510(k) Number:
k181159
B. Purpose for Submission:
New device
C. Measurand:
Norfentanyl
D. Type of Test:
Qualitative
E. Applicant:
Lin-Zhi International, Inc.
F. Proprietary and Established Names:
LZI Fentanyl Enzyme Immunoassay
G. Regulatory Information:
| Product Code | Classification | Regulation Section | Panel |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| DJG | Class II | 21 CFR 862.3650, Opiate test system | Toxicology (91) |
H. Intended Use:
1. Intended use(s):
See Indication(s) for use below.
2. Indication(s) for use:
The LZI Fentanyl Enzyme Immunoassay is intended for the qualitative determination of norfentanyl in human urine at the cutoff value of 5 ng/mL when calibrated against norfentanyl. The assay is designed for prescription use with a number of automated clinical chemistry analyzers.
{1}
The assay provides only a preliminary analytical result. A more specific alternative chemical method (e.g., gas or liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry) must be used in order to obtain a confirmed analytical result. Clinical consideration and professional judgment should be exercised with any drug of abuse test result, particularly when the preliminary test result is positive.
3. Special conditions for use statement(s):
For prescription use only.
For in vitro diagnostic use only.
4. Special instrument requirements:
Beckman Coulter AU680 Clinical Chemistry Analyzer
I. Device Description:
The LZI Fentanyl Enzyme Immunoassay is a kit comprised of two reagents, R1 and R2, which are bottled separately but sold together within the kit.
The R1 solution contains mouse monoclonal anti-norfentanyl antibody, glucose-6-phosphate (G6P) nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD), stabilizers, and sodium azide (0.09 %) as a preservative. The R2 solution contains glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PDH) labeled with norfentanyl in buffer with sodium azide (0.09 %) as a preservative.
J. Substantial Equivalence Information:
1. Predicate device name(s):
Immunalysis SEFRIA Fentanyl Urine Enzyme Immunoassay
2. Predicate 510(k) number(s):
k161216
3. Comparison with predicate:
| Similarities and Differences | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Item | Candidate Device
LZI Fentanyl Enzyme
Immunoassay | Predicate
Immunalysis SEFRIA
Fentanyl Urine Enzyme
Immunoassay
k161216 |
| Intended Use | In vitro diagnostic device intended for the qualitative | Same |
{2}
| Similarities and Differences | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Item | Candidate Device
LZI Fentanyl Enzyme Immunoassay | Predicate
Immunalysis SEFRIA
Fentanyl Urine Enzyme
Immunoassay
k161216 |
| | determination of the presence of drugs of abuse in human urine | |
| Analyte | Norfentanyl | Fentanyl |
| Cutoff | 5 ng/mL | 1 ng/mL |
| Matrix | Urine | Same |
| Calibrator Levels | 0, 2.5, 5, 10, 20 ng/mL | 0, 1, 2, 4 ng/mL |
| Assay methodology | Absorbance change measured spectrophotometrically at 340 nm | Absorbance change measured spectrophotometrically at 570 nm |
## K. Standard/Guidance Document Referenced (if applicable):
Not applicable.
## L. Test Principle:
The LZI Fentanyl Enzyme Immunoassay is a homogeneous enzyme immunoassay with ready-to-use liquid reagents. It detects and is calibrated against norfentanyl, the major metabolite of fentanyl in human urine. The assay is based on competition between drug in the sample and drug labeled with the enzyme glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PDH) for a fixed amount of antibody in the reagent. In the absence of drug in the sample, norfentanyl-labeled G6PDH conjugate is bound to antibody, and the enzyme activity is inhibited. When free norfentanyl is present in the sample, it competes with norfentanyl-labeled G6PDH for antibody binding, allowing for maximal enzyme activity. Thus G6PDH activity is proportional to the amount of free fentanyl in the sample. Active G6PDH converts nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD) to NADH, resulting in an absorbance change that can be measured spectrophotometrically at 340 nm.
## M. Performance Characteristics (if/when applicable):
### 1. Analytical performance:
#### a. Precision/Reproducibility:
The sponsor conducted a qualitative precision study on one Beckman Coulter AU680 analyzer using samples containing norfentanyl. Samples were prepared by spiking pooled negative human urine with norfentanyl to concentrations of ±25%, ±50%, ±75%, and ±100% of the cutoff. All concentrations were confirmed by GC/MS
{3}
testing. Samples were tested in two replicates per run, two runs per day for 22 days, total n = 88. Results are presented below. For within-run precision, the mean test results of each day's four data points were calculated and averaged for all 22 days.
| 5 ng/mL Cutoff Result | | Within Run (N=22) | | Total Precision (N=88) | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Norfentanyl Concentration | % of Cutoff | N | Assay Result | N | Assay Result |
| 0 ng/mL | 0 % | 22 | 22 Negative | 88 | 88 Negative |
| 1.25 ng/mL | 25.0 % | 22 | 22 Negative | 88 | 88 Negative |
| 2.5 ng/mL | 50.0 % | 22 | 22 Negative | 88 | 88 Negative |
| 3.75 ng/mL | 75.0 % | 22 | 22 Negative | 88 | 88 Negative |
| 5 ng/mL | 100.0 % | 22 | 2 Positive/20 Negative | 88 | 26 Positive/62 Negative |
| 6.25 ng/mL | 125.0 % | 22 | 22 Positive | 88 | 88 Positive |
| 7.5 ng/mL | 150.0 % | 22 | 22 Positive | 88 | 88 Positive |
| 8.75 ng/mL | 175.0 % | 22 | 22 Positive | 88 | 88 Positive |
| 10 ng/mL | 200.0 % | 22 | 22 Positive | 88 | 88 Positive |
b. Linearity/assay reportable range:
Not applicable, this device is intended for qualitative use only.
c. Traceability, Stability, Expected values (controls, calibrators, or methods):
The LZI Fentanyl Enzyme Immunoassay is traceable to a commercially available norfentanyl standard.
d. Detection limit:
Not applicable.
e. Analytical specificity:
Cross reactivity from structurally related compounds was evaluated by testing pooled negative urine samples spiked with these compounds. Samples were tested in duplicate. The compounds and concentrations tested and the calculated cross-reactivity are provided in the table below. Percent cross-reactivity was calculated as the lowest concentration of the compound where the assay response was positive/the cutoff concentration x 100.
| Compound | Concentration Tested (ng/mL) | % Cross-Reactivity | Test Result |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Fentanyl | 2.50 | 200.0 % | Positive |
| Norfentanyl | 5.00 | 100.0 % | Positive |
| 4-Fluoro-isobutyryl Fentanyl | 35 | 14.29% | Negative |
| 9-HydroxyRisperidone | 100,000 | 0.01% | Negative |
| Acetyl Fentanyl | 7 | 71.43% | Positive |
{4}
| Compound | Concentration Tested (ng/mL) | % Cross-Reactivity | Test Result |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Acetyl Norfentanyl | 100 | 5.00% | Negative |
| Acryl Fentanyl | 3.5 | 142.86% | Positive |
| Alfentanil | 100,000 | 0.01% | Negative |
| Butyryl Fentanyl | 3.5 | 142.86% | Positive |
| Carfentanil Oxalate | 100,000 | 0.01% | Negative |
| Cis-d, I 3-Methylfentanyl | 8.5 | 58.82% | Negative |
| Despropionylfentanyl(4-ANPP) | 100,000 | 0.01% | Negative |
| Furanyl Fentanyl | 6 | 81.97% | Positive |
| Isobutyryl Fentanyl | 20 | 25.00% | Negative |
| Labetalol Hydrochloride | 100,000 | 0.01% | Negative |
| MT-45 | 100,000 | 0.01% | Negative |
| Norcarfentail Oxalate | 100,000 | 0.01% | Negative |
| Ocfentanil | 3.5 | 142.86% | Positive |
| Para-fluoro butyrl Fentanyl (P-FBF) | 5.5 | 90.91% | Positive |
| para-Fluorofentanyl | 3.05 | 163.93% | Positive |
| Remifentanil | 100,000 | 0.01% | Negative |
| Risperidone | 100,000 | 0.01% | Negative |
| Sufentanil | 100,000 | 0.01% | Negative |
| Thienyl Fentanyl | 3.5 | 142.86% | Negative |
| Thiofentanyl | 3.2 | 156.25% | Positive |
| Trans-d, I 3-Methylfentanyl | 6 | 83.33% | Positive |
| Trazodone | 100,000 | 0.01% | Negative |
| U-47700 | 100,000 | 0.01% | Negative |
| Valeryl Fentanyl | 95 | 5.26% | Negative |
| ω-1-Hydroxy Fentanyl | 320.0 | 1.56% | Negative |
Potential interference from endogenous substances was evaluated by spiking these substances into pooled negative human urine containing norfentanyl at $+25\%$ and $-25\%$ of the $5\mathrm{ng / mL}$ cutoff (3.75 ng/mL and 6.25 ng/mL). Samples were tested in duplicate.
The following endogenous substances, at the concentrations listed below, did not interfere with the assay:
| Compound | Concentration Tested (mg/dL) |
| --- | --- |
| Acetone | 1000 |
| Ascorbic Acid | 1500 |
| Bilirubin | 2 |
| Creatinine | 500 |
| Ethanol | 1000 |
| Galactose | 10 |
| Gamma globulin | 500 |
| Glucose | 3000 |
{5}
| Compound | Concentration Tested (mg/dL) |
| --- | --- |
| Hemoglobin | 300 |
| Beta-Hydroxybutyric Acid | 100 |
| Human Serum Albumin | 500 |
| Oxalic Acid | 100 |
| Riboflavin | 7.5 |
| Urea | 6000 |
| Uric Acid | 10 |
| Sodium Azide | 1000 |
| Sodium Chloride | 6000 |
Citric Acid (800 mg/dL) and Potassium Chloride (6000 mg/dL) were evaluated by spiking these compounds into processed negative urine containing norfentanyl at +50% and -50% of the 5 ng/mL cutoff (2.5 ng/mL and 7.5 ng/mL). The sponsor stated that no significant interference was observed.
Boric acid at a concentration of 1% w/v was evaluated by spiking the potential interferent into processed negative urine containing norfentanyl at +25% and -25% of the 5 ng/mL cutoff (3.75 ng/mL and 6.25 ng/mL). The labeling contains the following limitation:
Boric acid at 1% w/v may cause false negative results. Boric acid is not recommended as a preservative for urine.
**Effect of pH:** The sponsor evaluated the effect of pH using pooled negative human urine containing norfentanyl at +25% and -25% of the 5 ng/mL cutoff (3.75 ng/mL and 6.25 ng/mL). pH values of 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, 7.0, 8.0, 9.0, 10.0 and 11.0 did not significantly interfere with the test.
**Effect of specific gravity:** The sponsor evaluated the effect of specific gravity on the test results using drug free urine samples containing norfentanyl at +25% and -25% of the 5 ng/mL cutoff (3.75 ng/mL and 6.25 ng/mL). Specific Gravity values of 1.003, 1.004, 1.007, 1.011, 1.012, 1.017, 1.018, 1.021, 1.024, 1.028 did not interfere with the test.
Potential interference from structurally unrelated compounds was evaluated by spiking these compounds into pooled negative human urine containing norfentanyl at +25% and -25% of the 5 ng/mL cutoff (3.75 ng/mL and 6.25ng/mL). Samples were tested in duplicate. The following non-structurally related substances at the concentrations listed below did not significantly interfere with the assay.
| Compound | Concentration Tested (ng/mL) |
| --- | --- |
| Acetaminophen | 100,000 |
| 6-Acetylmorphine | 10,000 |
{6}
| Compound | Concentration Tested (ng/mL) |
| --- | --- |
| Acetylsalicylic Acid | 100,000 |
| Amitriptyline | 100,000 |
| Amlodipine Besylate | 100,000 |
| Amoxicillin | 100,000 |
| d-Amphetamine | 100,000 |
| Atorvastatin | 20,000 |
| Buprenorphine | 100,000 |
| Bupropion | 100,000 |
| Caffeine | 100,000 |
| Carbamazepine | 100,000 |
| Cetirizine | 100,000 |
| Chlorpheniramine | 100,000 |
| Chlorpromazine | 100,000 |
| Clomipramine | 100,000 |
| Codeine | 100,000 |
| Desipramine | 100,000 |
| Diphenhydramine | 100,000 |
| Duloxetine | 100,000 |
| Fluoxetine | 100,000 |
| Fluphenazine | 100,000 |
| Gabapentin | 100,000 |
| Hydrocodone | 100,000 |
| Hydromorphone | 100,000 |
| Ibuprofen | 100,000 |
| Imipramine | 100,000 |
| Lisinopril | 100,000 |
| Losartan | 10,000 |
| Loratidine | 100,000 |
| MDA (3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine) | 100,000 |
| MDEA | 100,000 |
| MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine) | 100,000 |
| Meperidine | 100,000 |
| Metformin | 100,000 |
| Metoprolol | 100,000 |
| Methadone | 100,000 |
| Morphine | 100,000 |
| Nicotine | 100,000 |
| Nortriptyline | 100,000 |
| Omeprazole | 100,000 |
| Oxazepam | 100,000 |
| Oxycodone | 100,000 |
7
{7}
8
| Compound | Concentration Tested (ng/mL) |
| --- | --- |
| Oxymorphone | 100,000 |
| Phencyclidine (PCP) | 100,000 |
| Phenobarbital | 100,000 |
| (1S,2S)-(+)Pseudoephedrine | 100,000 |
| Quetiapine | 100,000 |
| Ranitidine | 100,000 |
| Salbutamol (Albuterol) | 100,000 |
| Sertraline | 100,000 |
| THC-COOH (11-Nor-Delta-9-THC-9-carboxylic acid) | 100,000 |
| L-Thyroxine | 10,000 |
| Tramadol | 100,000 |
| Zolpidem | 10,000 |
Dextromethorphan was found to interfere at 40,000 ng/mL:
| Compound | Concentration tested (ng/mL) | Test Result | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | Negative | -25% Cutoff | + 25% Cutoff |
| Dextromethorphan | 40,000 | Positive | Positive | Positive |
The labeling includes the following limitations:
Dextromorphan may cause false positive results at concentrations greater than 5 µg/mL.
f. Assay cut-off:
Analytical performance of the device around the claimed cutoff (5 ng/mL) is described in the precision section M.1.a above and accuracy section M.2.a below.
2. Comparison studies:
a. Method comparison with predicate device:
A total of 101 unaltered clinical samples were tested with the LZI Fentanyl Enzyme Immunoassay on the AU680 automated clinical analyzer. All samples were confirmed with LC/MS for norfentanyl concentrations. Results are shown below:
{8}
| Candidate Device Results | Negative by LC/MS analysis | < 50 % of the cutoff concentration by LC/MS analysis | Near Cutoff Negative (Between 50 % below the cutoff and the cutoff concentration by LC/MS analysis) | Near Cutoff Positive (Between the cutoff and 50 % above the cutoff concentration by LC/MS analysis) | High Positive (Greater than 50 % above the cutoff concentration by LC/MS analysis) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Positive | 0 | 1 | 6 | 8 | 41 |
| Negative | 21 | 19 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
Discordant samples:
| Sample # | LC/MS Norfentanyl (ng/mL) | Candidate Device Result |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 38* | 1.5 | Positive |
| 44 | 3.0 | Positive |
| 46 | 3.3 | Positive |
| 47 | 3.5 | Positive |
| 48 | 3.8 | Positive |
| 50 | 4.16 | Positive |
| 52 | 4.6 | Positive |
* This sample contained levels of fentanyl that contributed to the false positive result.
The sponsor provided additional information for FDA review that supports the clinical validity of a $5\mathrm{ng / mL}$ norfentanyl cutoff. Over 7,000 de-identified urine samples, originating from patients presenting at various hospital clinics, substance abuse clinics, and emergency departments were evaluated for the presence of fentanyl and norfentanyl using an LC/MS method. Approximately 600 samples contained amounts of either fentanyl or norfentanyl above the LC/MS method detection limit. Assuming a $1\mathrm{ng / mL}$ fentanyl cutoff (previously cleared in k161216), $89.1\%$ of these samples would have been determined to be positive for fentanyl. Assuming a $5\mathrm{ng / mL}$ norfentanyl cutoff, $93.6\%$ of these samples would have been determined to be positive for norfentanyl. $9.0\%$ of these samples were not above the $1\mathrm{ng / mL}$ fentanyl cutoff, but were above the $5\mathrm{ng / mL}$ norfentanyl cutoff. $4.5\%$ of these samples were above the $1\mathrm{ng / mL}$ fentanyl cutoff, but were not above the $5\mathrm{ng / mL}$ norfentanyl cutoff. Therefore, the sponsor provided sufficient information to support that a $5\mathrm{ng / mL}$ norfentanyl cutoff demonstrates similar positivity and negativity rates to the $1\mathrm{ng / mL}$ fentanyl cutoff.
# b. Matrix comparison:
Not applicable. This assay is intended to be used with urine samples only.
{9}
3. Clinical studies:
a. Clinical Sensitivity:
Not applicable.
b. Clinical specificity:
Not applicable.
c. Other clinical supportive data (when a. and b. are not applicable):
Not applicable.
4. Clinical cut-off:
Not applicable.
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.
10
Predicate graph will load when search results are available.
Embedding visualization will load when search results are available.
PDF viewer will load when search results are available.
Loading panels...
Select an item from Submissions
Click any panel, subpart, regulation, product code, or device to see details here.
Section Matches
Results will appear here.
Product Code Matches
Results will appear here.
Special Control Matches
Results will appear here.
Loading collections...
Loading
My Alerts
You will receive email notifications based on the filters and frequency you set for each alert.
Sort by:
Create Alert
Search Filters
Agent Token
Create a read-only bearer token for Claude, ChatGPT, or other agents that can call HTTP APIs.
Copy this now. It will not be shown again.
Connected apps
Apps you authorized through browser sign-in. Disconnecting revokes their access immediately.
Learn the FDA Browser
Two short videos show you everything — or skip straight to the written tutorial if you'd rather read. You can reopen this any time from the Tutorial button in the top bar.
Part 1 — Search, results, and everyday workflows 16 min
Part 2 — Embeddings: the galaxy map 3 min
1. Search: exact and fuzzy
Type a phrase like "coronary artery calcification" into the search box. You get two kinds of results. Exact results match the literal phrase — prefix searches work ("coronary artery calcificati") but suffix searches do not. Fuzzy results match on the meaning and intent of your phrase rather than the exact words, and are sorted by relevance score. Hover over the Exact or Fuzzy badge on any row to see exactly why it matched.
Use the checkboxes above the results to narrow: SaMD keeps only software-only devices, AI / ML keeps only devices with AI.
Exact vs. fuzzy search: what's the difference?
Exact matches on the literal phrase (prefix search works, suffix does not). Fuzzy matches on the meaning and intent of the phrase rather than the exact words. Hover over the badge on any row to see why it matched.
You search "coronary artery calcification" and want only software devices with AI. What two filters do you apply?
Narrow by SaMD (software-only devices), then narrow by AI/ML (devices with AI).
2. The results table
Scroll right in the results table. The intended use is extracted for you — no need to open the PDF. The device story gives a high-level snapshot of what the device does and how it's used. The AI Performance sub-table shows each output name, acceptance criteria, observed values, and development/test dataset descriptions — the same format Innolitics uses for regulatory strategy outputs, and the fastest high-level fingerprint of an AI device. It is AI-generated but has been very reliable in practice.
Where do you find a device's intended use without opening the PDF?
Scroll right in the search results table. The intended use column is extracted for you; no need to dig into the 510(k) summary PDF.
What does the AI Performance sub-table show, and why is it useful?
Output name, acceptance criteria, observed values, development dataset description, and test dataset description. It's the same format we use for regulatory strategy output and Fast 510(k) input, and the fastest high-level fingerprint of an AI device. AI-generated but reliable in practice.
3. Judging fuzzy relevance
Fuzzy results trail off in relevance as you scroll. Use three signals to decide how far down to go: the fuzzy badge explanations, the intended use column, and whether your target output (e.g., Cobb angle) still appears in the AI Performance sub-table. Once it stops appearing, you're past the relevant zone. A top hit with a low score (~0.4) and a stretched explanation is a hint the closest predicates are far away — the project may be headed for De Novo. Note the fuzzy search is a pattern match: it doesn't handle negation ("not") well, and hardware devices can appear — filter by SaMD/AI ML to cut them.
How do you judge how far down fuzzy search results to go?
Use the relevancy signals: the fuzzy badge explanations, the intended use column, and whether the target output (e.g., Cobb angle) still appears in the AI Performance sub-table. Once it stops appearing, results are trailing off in relevancy.
4. Device detail page: chat and citations
Click a device name to open its detail page: device facts on the left, a chat window on the right. Ask something like "Describe the training data". The answer carries little citation bubbles — click one to jump to the highlighted passage in the source PDF, so you can verify every AI answer against the document. There's also a Download PDF button for sharing.
How do you verify an AI chat answer on the device detail page?
Click the citation bubbles to jump to the relevant highlight in the source document.
Reading rule for every project: how many summaries do you read in full?
At least the three most relevant 510(k) or De Novo summaries, in full. After that, use targeted chat questions to confirm your memory quickly. The tool supports this professional habit — it doesn't replace it.
5. Side-by-side comparison
Select multiple rows in the results table (aim for under ~10), then open the PDF Viewer tab. Ask one question — it goes to all selected devices in parallel, each with citations. This is the fastest way to compare and contrast devices: training data, PCCP scope, how they handled adding new scanners, and so on.
What does the side-by-side PDF viewer mode do?
Select multiple devices, open the PDF viewer tab, and ask one question (e.g., "Describe the training data"). It queries all selected devices simultaneously with citations, so you can compare and contrast quickly.
6. Collections
With rows selected, go to the Collections tab and create a labeled collection (e.g., "Cobb Angle Project"). Reload that selection any time — before a client call, pull up the collection and ask questions across all of its devices at once.
How do you save a set of selected devices for later use?
Select the rows, go to the Collections tab, and create a labeled collection (e.g., "Cobb Angle Project"). You can reload the selection anytime and carry it into the PDF viewer and other tabs that support selections.
7. Product codes and the regulations tree
Click a product code in the results to jump to it in the regulations tree — identification text, sibling product codes, and devices you can open in a PDF viewer on the right. Click a regulation number to see its identification, special controls, and related product codes. You can also search by product code or regulation number at the top of the tree. Always read the special controls if any exist for your device — it broadens your search and sharpens pre-kickoff research.
What can you do from the regulations tree view?
Browse product codes and regulation numbers, read the identification text and special controls, browse sibling product codes, open device PDFs on the right, and search by product code or regulation number at the top of the tree.
8. Chart view
Click Show Chart and segment by regulation number (or product code) to see which regulations dominate your result set. Clicking a regulation takes you into the regulations tree. Great for spotting that most matches are, say, hardware laparoscopic devices — a cue to go back and filter.
How do you see which regulations dominate a search result set?
Click "Show Chart" and segment by Regulation Number. Clicking a regulation takes you to the regulations tree.
9. The predicate graph
Open the Predicates tab for a family-tree view of predicate relationships. Click a node to trace its parents and children; selections from search carry over pre-selected. Commonly predicated devices are worth reading — a lot of people predicated them for a reason. The visual lineage is also handy on client calls, e.g. to show how a predicate family evolved and justify why your predicate still holds.
In the predicate graph, why are commonly predicated devices worth reading?
A lot of people predicated them for a reason. Clicking a node traces parents and children, and selections from search carry over pre-selected.
10. Embeddings: the galaxy map
The Embeddings tab plots every matching document in a 2-D "galaxy map" where semantically similar devices cluster together. Hover or click clusters to explore, and let AI label the clusters for you. Embeddings beat product codes for grouping: two devices can carry different product codes (LLZ vs. QIH) yet do the same thing — the embedding captures the meaning of the intended use and device story. This is also exactly how retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) works under the hood, and it makes a great visual on client calls.
Try it yourself
Head to the search page and work through a few of these AI/ML fuzzy searches to build intuition: perivascular fat on CT · aortic valve calcification opportunistic screening on noncontrast CT · breast cancer prediction on digital pathology slides · autism detection · gestational age prediction · a hearing aid that can also detect a pulse · foundation model based analysis of ECG · large language models · penetration test. Watch how the relevance scores, intended use, and AI Performance tables tell you when results stop being meaningful.