K190686 · The Binding Site Group , Ltd. · CFN · May 28, 2019 · Immunology
Device Facts
Record ID
K190686
Device Name
Optilite IgM CSF Kit
Applicant
The Binding Site Group , Ltd.
Product Code
CFN · Immunology
Decision Date
May 28, 2019
Decision
SESE
Submission Type
Traditional
Regulation
21 CFR 866.5510
Device Class
Class 2
Indications for Use
The Optilite IgM CSF Kit is intended for the quantitative in vitro measurement of IgM in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) using the Optilite analyser.
Device Story
The Optilite IgM CSF Kit is an in vitro diagnostic reagent system used on the Binding Site Optilite analyser. It measures IgM concentration in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples via immunoturbidimetry. The device uses sheep anti-human-IgM antibodies to react with IgM in the sample, forming insoluble complexes. As light passes through the reaction suspension, the analyser measures transmitted light, which is inversely proportional to the IgM concentration. The system automatically calculates concentrations using a stored calibration curve traceable to ERM-DA470k/IFCC. The device is intended for use in clinical laboratory settings by trained personnel. Results assist clinicians in assessing IgM levels in CSF, which may be relevant for diagnosing or monitoring neurological conditions. The kit includes latex reagent, calibrators, controls, and reaction buffer.
Clinical Evidence
Bench testing only. Method comparison study performed on 155 CSF samples (range 0.251–39.35 mg/L) comparing the subject device to the predicate. Passing & Bablok regression showed y = 1.02x – 0.07 (r=0.997). Concordance analysis at the 1.3 mg/L clinical cutoff demonstrated 100% positive agreement (95% CI: 95.1–100%) and 97.6% negative agreement (95% CI: 91.8–99.7%). Analytical studies confirmed linearity (0.11–4.0 mg/L), LoD (0.015 mg/L), and LoQ (0.11 mg/L). No significant interference observed for hemoglobin, bilirubin, acetaminophen, or acetylsalicylic acid.
Technological Characteristics
Quantitative immunoturbidimetric assay. Reagents include latex-enhanced sheep anti-human IgM antibodies, reaction buffer, and liquid-stabilized calibrators/controls containing sodium azide, EACA, benzamidine, and ProClin. Operates on the Binding Site Optilite analyser using photodiode-based light transmission measurement. Traceable to ERM-DA470k/IFCC. Measuring range 0.11–40 mg/L (via dilutions).
Indications for Use
Indicated for the quantitative measurement of IgM in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) to aid in the assessment of the body's ability to resist infectious disease in conjunction with other clinical and laboratory findings. For prescription use only.
Regulatory Classification
Identification
An immunoglobulins A, G, M, D, and E immunological test system is a device that consists of the reagents used to measure by immunochemical techniques the immunoglobulins A, G, M, D, an E (serum antibodies) in serum. Measurement of these immunoglobulins aids in the diagnosis of abnormal protein metabolism and the body's lack of ability to resist infectious agents.
Predicate Devices
The Binding Site Group Ltd Human IgM CSF Kit (K120750)
Submission Summary (Full Text)
{0}
1
# 510(k) SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE DETERMINATION DECISION SUMMARY
A. 510(k) Number:
K190686
B. Purpose for Submission:
Previously cleared analyte on a previously cleared instrument
C. Measurand:
IgM
D. Type of Test:
Quantitative, Immunoturbidimetry
E. Applicant:
The Binding Site Group, Ltd.
F. Proprietary and Established Names:
Optilite IgM CSF Kit
G. Regulatory Information:
1. Regulation section:
21 CFR 866.5510, Immunoglobulins A, G, M, D, and E immunological test system
2. Classification:
Class II
3. Product code:
CFN – Method, Nephelometric, Immunoglobulins (G, A, M)
4. Panel:
Immunology (82)
{1}
H. Intended Use:
1. Intended use:
The Optilite IgM CSF Kit is intended for the quantitative *in vitro* measurement of IgM in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) using the Optilite analyser.
2. Indication for use:
Same as intended use.
3. Special conditions for use statement:
For prescription use only.
4. Special instrument requirements:
The Binding Site Optilite analyser
I. Device Description:
The Optilite IgM CSF Kit comprises the following reagents:
Latex Reagent: Supplied in stabilised liquid form. Preservatives: 0.025% sodium azide, 0.1% E-amino-n-caproic acid (EACA) and 0.01% benzamidine, 0.05% ProClin.
Calibrator and Controls: Pooled human serum, supplied in stabilised liquid form containing 0.099% sodium azide, 0.1% EACA and 0.01% benzamidine as preservatives.
Reaction Buffer: Contains 0.099% sodium azide as a preservative.
J. Substantial Equivalence Information:
1. Predicate device name:
The Binding Site Group Ltd Human IgM CSF Kit
2. Predicate 510(k) number:
K120750
{2}
3. Comparison with predicate:
| Similarities | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Item | Device Optilite IgM CSF Kit | Predicate The Binding Site Group Ltd Human IgM CSF Kit |
| Intended Use | The Optilite IgM CSF Kit is intended for the quantitative in vitro measurement of IgM in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) using the Optilite analyser. | Human IgM CSF kit for use on SPAPLUS is intended for the quantitative measurement of human IgM in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples using the SPAPLUS analyser. Measurement of this immunoglobulin aids in the assessment of the body's lack of ability to resist infectious disease in conjunction with other clinical and laboratory findings. |
| Analyte | IgM | Same |
| Traceability | ERM-DA470k/IFCC | Same |
| On-board stability | 30 days | Same |
| Reference interval | < 1.3 mg/L | Same |
| Assay type | Quantitative | Same |
| Antibody | Sheep anti-human IgM | Same |
| Method | Turbidimetric | Same |
| Differences | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Item | Device Optilite IgM CSF Kit | Predicate The Binding Site Group Ltd Human IgM CSF Kit |
| Calibrator | Liquid stabilized human serum | Lyophilized |
| Open-vial stability | Three months | Two months |
| Measuring range | 0.11 – 4 mg/L (1+0) 1.0 – 40 mg/L (1+9) | 0.3 – 7 mg/L (1+0) 3.0 – 70 mg/L (1+9) |
| Instrument | Binding Site Optilite | Binding Site SPAplus |
| Specimen type | CSF | CSF |
K. Standard/Guidance Document Referenced (if applicable):
CLSI EP17-A2 Evaluation of Detection Capability for Clinical Laboratory Measurement Procedures; Approved Guideline - Second Edition
CLSI EP07-A2 Interference Testing in Clinical Chemistry, Approved Guideline - Second Edition
CLSI EP6-A: Evaluation of the Linearity of Quantitative Measurement Procedures: A Statistical Approach
CLSI EP05-A2 Evaluation of Precision Performance of Quantitative Measurement Methods; Approved Guideline - Third Edition
{3}
L. Test Principle:
The determination of soluble antigen concentration by turbidimetric methods involves the reaction with specific antiserum to form insoluble complexes. When light is passed through the suspension formed, a portion of the light is transmitted and focused onto a photodiode by an optical lens system. The amount of transmitted light is indirectly proportional to the specific protein concentration in the test sample. Concentrations are automatically calculated by reference to a calibration curve stored within the instrument.
M. Performance Characteristics:
1. Analytical performance:
The results of all the studies met the Manufacturer's pre-specified acceptance criteria.
a. Precision/Reproducibility:
The precision study was performed over five working days, in duplicate and with two runs per day. The study was conducted using three instruments and three reagent lots (for levels 2, 3 and 4 of sample concentrations). Level 1 sample was tested at a later date using one reagent lot. Level 1 sample was contrived by adding native pooled CSF sample (from 19 different clinical samples) to a mock CSF matrix. Level 2 sample is a native CSF sample. Level 3 sample was contrived by spiking native CSF sample with 0.2% of affinity-purified IgM from normal human sera. Level 4 sample was contrived by spiking native CSF sample with 0.6% of affinity-purified IgM from normal human sera.
Results are summarized below:
Within-Laboratory Imprecision:
| Level | N | Mean (mg/L) | Within-Run | | Between-Run | | Between-Day | | Total | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | | SD | %CV | SD | %CV | SD | %CV | SD | %CV |
| 1 | 20 | 0.20 | 0.01 | 3.9 | 0.00 | 1.5 | 0.01 | 5.9 | 0.01 | 7.2 |
| 2 | 20 | 0.44 | 0.01 | 2.8 | 0.01 | 2.5 | 0.02 | 4.6 | 0.03 | 5.9 |
| 3 | 20 | 1.20 | 0.03 | 2.2 | 0.03 | 2.6 | 0.02 | 1.3 | 0.04 | 3.6 |
| 4 | 20 | 3.02 | 0.07 | 2.3 | 2.9 | 2.9 | 0.06 | 2.0 | 0.13 | 4.2 |
Instrument-to-Instrument and Lot-to-Lot Imprecision:
| Level | Mean (mg/L) | Between lot | | Between instrument | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | SD | %CV | SD | %CV |
| 1 | 0.20 | N/A | N/A | 0.01 | 5.07 |
| 2 | 0.44 | 0.02 | 4.32 | 0.01 | 2.57 |
| 3 | 1.20 | 0.02 | 1.86 | 0.00 | 0.28 |
| 4 | 3.02 | 0.03 | 1.07 | 0.07 | 2.36 |
{4}
b. Linearity/assay reportable range:
The linearity study was conducted using mock CSF samples that covered the range of the standard sample dilution (1+0) from 0.04 mg/L to 4.28 mg/L. Mock CSF samples were contrived by spiking in purified IgM into a mock CSF matrix. The analyte concentrations of the high and low mock CSF samples were selected in order to cover at least 10% beyond the limits of the measuring range of the assay (1.1 – 4.4 mg/L). A dilution series with 11 levels was prepared by blending the high pool and low pool. Three replicates of each level of the dilution series were run and the mean value calculated. Data were analyzed using linear regression and deviation from linearity according to CLSI guideline EP6-A. The results demonstrate that the assay is linear over the range of 0.11 – 4.0 mg/L at the standard 1+0 sample dilution. This confirms the analytical measuring interval is linear over the range 0.11 – 4 mg/L (neat, 1+0).
c. Traceability, Stability, Expected values (controls, calibrators, or methods):
Traceability:
The calibration of the assay is traceable to ERM-DA470k/IFCC.
Stability:
Real-time stability: The purpose of this study was to validate the stability of the Optilite IgM CSF kit when stored at the recommended storage temperature of 2–8°C for the duration of the kit shelf life. The study was performed with one master calibrator (662 mg/L), low control (1.87 mg/L) and high control (3.94 mg/L) using three reagent lots at time points of 0, 3, 6.5, 10, 13 and 19 months. The Optilite IgM CSF Reagent, Calibrator and Controls have a shelf life of up to 18 months.
Open-vial stability: The purpose of this study was to validate the open-vial stability of the Optilite IgM CSF kit reagents when stored at 2–8°C for three months as stated in the product insert. Two samples were used for this study: a low control (1.87 mg/L), and high control (3.94 mg/L), which were run on days 0, 33, 61 and 111 with three lots. The Optilite IgM CSF Reagent, Calibrator and Controls can be stored opened at 2–8°C for up to three months.
On-board stability: The purpose of this study was to confirm the stability of the Optilite IgM CSF kit, once opened and stored ‘on-board’ the Optilite analyzer for a period of at least 30 days. Two samples were used for this study: a low control (1.87 mg/L), and high control (3.94 mg/L), which were run on days 0, 7, 14, 21, 28 and 35 for lot 1, on days 0, 7, 18, 21, 28 and 35 for lot 2, and on days 0, 4, 7, 14, 21, 28 and 35 for lot 3. The Optilite IgM CSF Reagent can be stored on-board the Optilite Analyser for up to 30 days.
{5}
6
d. Detection limit:
The purpose of this analytical sensitivity study was to estimate the Limit of Blank (LoB) and Limit of Detection (LoD) and to validate the Limit of Quantitation (LoQ) of the Optilite IgM CSF Kit, to ensure that these meet the pre-defined criteria. The study was carried out using mock CSF samples designed to mimic patient samples as closely as possible.
LoB: The LoB study was carried out using four samples of mock CSF matrix. Samples were run five times each per day, over three days to give a total of 60 replicates. The LoB results were ranked from lowest to highest concentration, and the LoB was estimated to be the result equivalent to the concentration at the 95th percentile. The LoB for the assay was determined to be 0 mg/L.
LoD: Four mock CSF sample matrices spiked with purified IgM were used to calculate the LoD. Samples were run five times each per day, over three days. Samples were targeted so that they were close to the bottom of the measuring range (0.11 mg/L) for the neat (1+0) dilution. The LoD for the assay was determined to be 0.015 mg/L.
LoQ: Four mock CSF pooled samples were diluted with mock CSF matrix targeting the concentrations close to the bottom of the standard measuring range (0.11 mg/L). These samples were run five times over three days. The LoQ was validated and set to be the bottom of the measuring range, 0.11 mg/L.
e. Analytical specificity:
Interference:
Two samples were tested: mock CSF matrix spiked with purified IgM (1.296 mg/L, and 2.978 mg/L), with clinically relevant concentrations to evaluate the effects of hemoglobin, bilirubin, acetaminophen and acetylsalicylic acid on the results of the assay. The two contrived samples were spiked separately with the interferents and with appropriate blank material to create 'negative' control samples. No significant assay interference effects were observed in CSF when tested with hemoglobin (1 g/L), bilirubin (80 mg/L), acetaminophen (1324 μmol/L) or acetylsalicylic acid (3.62 mmol/L).
Antigen Excess:
Turbidimetric assays can be susceptible to antigen excess with high concentration samples resulting in a falsely low result. This study is designed to investigate the antigen excess capacity of the Optilite IgM CSF kit, demonstrating that the native antigen excess capacity is robust enough to ensure that very high concentration samples flag correctly as "high activity". This error flag means the sample is in antigen excess. The antigen excess capacity is defined as the concentration at which
{6}
the resultant change in Optical Density (OD) is not reported lower than the OD given for the standard top calibrator. Antigen excess capacity was determined at neat dilution. A calibration curve was extended with the addition of three extra calibrator points; at $5\mathrm{mg / L}$ , $5.50\mathrm{mg / L}$ and $6.00\mathrm{mg / L}$ . The additional calibrator points were manufactured using IgM calibrator material diluted in the calibrator diluent. This curve spanned a measuring range of $0.1053 - 6.00\mathrm{mg / L}$ . The absorbance value for each calibrator point was analyzed to determine the antigen excess capacity of the assay. The concentration at which the absorbance value is increasing and there is no hook effect, whilst still above the standard calibrator value, is the proven antigen excess capacity of the assay. This study showed that the Optilite IgM CSF kit has sufficiently robust antigen excess capacity up to at least $5.5\mathrm{mg / L}$ at the $1 + 0$ sample dilution, which is equivalent to 1.375 times the top point of the standard calibration curve.
f. Assay cut-off:
Refer to expected values
# 2. Comparison studies:
a. Method comparison with predicate device:
Initially, a total of 219 native CSF samples from patients with various diagnoses were tested in this study. Additionally, 20 patient samples were spiked with purified IgM in order to cover the upper end of the measuring range as it was not possible to source native CSF samples with sufficiently high concentrations of IgM. Samples were stored at $-20^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$ before testing and in accordance with the recommendations in the product insert. Of the tested samples, 155 were within the measuring range and could be included in the study. A comparison study was performed by analyzing 155 CSF samples using the Optilite IgM CSF Kit and in comparison to the predicate.
Passing Bablok regression analysis generated the following results:
| Analyte | N | Sample Range | Passing & Bablok | Slope 95% CI | Intercept 95% CI |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| IgM | 155 | 0.251–39.35 mg/L | y = 1.02x – 0.07 | 0.99 to 1.04 | 0.04 to 0.09 |
The measured correlation coefficient was 0.997.
All samples were analyzed in singlicate on the new device and the predicate device. Overall, the results of the method comparison study demonstrate that the test device correlates well with the predicate in terms of overall concordance. Concordance analysis demonstrated $100\%$ positive agreement $(95\% \mathrm{CI} = 95.1 - 100)$ , and $97.6\%$ negative agreement $(95\% \mathrm{CI} = 91.8 - 99.7\%)$ between samples. Overall, $98.7\%$ of samples gave concordant results between test and predicate assays. Concordance was based on the clinical cutoff of $1.3\mathrm{mg / L}$ .
For additional information on the clinical samples used in the method comparison
{7}
study, see "Other clinical supportive data" section below.
b. Matrix comparison:
Not applicable
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):
Individual sample demographic information and admission diagnosis for the samples used in the method comparison study, where available, are summarized below:
| Age (years) – available on 125/136 | | Gender – available on 128/136 | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Range | Median | Male | Female | Unknown |
| 21–90 | 45.5 | 69 | 59 | 8 |
Admission diagnosis information:
| Group | Admission Diagnosis | Number |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Neurological | Intrathecal immunoglobulin synthesis | 34 |
| | Blood-brain barrier dysfunction | 31 |
| | Neuroborreliosis | 3 |
| | CNS disorders | 16 |
| | Multiple Sclerosis | 3 |
| Other | | 10 |
| Unknown | | 39 |
4. Clinical cut-off:
Refer to expected values
{8}
5. Expected values/Reference range:
The reference range of <1.3 mg/L was transferred from literature as was done for the predicate device¹,².
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.
¹ Reiber H, Peter JB. Cerebrospinal fluid analysis: disease-related data patterns and evaluation programs. J Neurol Sci 2001;184:101-22.
² Felgenhauer K. Laboratory diagnosis of neurological diseases. In Thomas L (Ed.) Clinical laboratory diagnosis, TH-books, Frankfurt/Main 1998; 1308-26.
9
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.