Scaida BrainCT-ICH is a radiological computer aided notification software indicated for use in the analysis of non-contrast head CT images of adult patients (ages 22 and above). The device is intended to assist trained radiologists in workflow triage by flagging and communicating suspected positive findings of pathologies in head CT images, for Intracranial Hemorrhages (ICH). The suspected ICH could be part of any of these five subtypes: Intraparenchymal hemorrhage (IPH), Intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH), Subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH), Subdural hemorrhage (SDH), and Epidural Hemorrhage (EDH). The Scaida BrainCT-ICH device does not provide this ICH subclassification to the user; it uses an artificial intelligence algorithm to analyze images, and it identifies cases with suspected ICH only. The device does not alter the original medical image, does not remove cases from the queue, and is not intended to be used as a diagnostic device or for use in patients under 22 years of age. If the clinician does not view the case, or if a case is not flagged, cases remain to be processed per the standard of care. The results of Scaida BrainCT-ICH are intended to be used in conjunction with other patient information and based on professional judgment, to assist with triage/prioritization of medical images. Notified radiologists are responsible for viewing full images per the standard of care.
Device Story
Scaida BrainCT-ICH is a software-only radiological triage tool; integrates with hospital/clinic DICOM-compliant worklist applications. Inputs: non-contrast head CT images. Processing: deep learning AI algorithm analyzes images to detect suspected intracranial hemorrhage (ICH); does not perform subclassification. Outputs: notification of suspected ICH to radiologist worklist. Operational context: runs on off-the-shelf or virtual servers; operates in parallel to standard clinical workflow. Impact: assists radiologists in prioritizing urgent cases; does not alter images or remove cases from queues. Benefits: potentially faster identification of ICH cases; supports clinical decision-making via triage prioritization.
Clinical Evidence
Retrospective study of 294 cases from three US institutions (63.9% ICH, 36.1% non-ICH). Ground truth established by three ABR-certified neuroradiologists. Performance metrics: sensitivity 0.867 (95% CI: 0.811-0.908), specificity 0.887 (95% CI: 0.812-0.934), AUC 0.926. Study met predefined criteria (lower bounds of CI > 80%).
Technological Characteristics
Software-only device; no patient contact. Operates on standard off-the-shelf or virtual servers. Integrates via DICOM. Uses deep learning AI algorithm for image analysis. No energy delivery, biocompatibility, or sterility requirements.
Indications for Use
Indicated for adult patients (ages 22+) undergoing non-contrast head CT scans. Assists radiologists in triage by flagging suspected Intracranial Hemorrhage (ICH) cases, including IPH, IVH, SAH, SDH, and EDH. Not for use in patients under 22; not a diagnostic device.
Regulatory Classification
Identification
Radiological computer aided triage and notification software is an image processing prescription device intended to aid in prioritization and triage of radiological medical images. The device notifies a designated list of clinicians of the availability of time sensitive radiological medical images for review based on computer aided image analysis of those images performed by the device. The device does not mark, highlight, or direct users' attention to a specific location in the original image. The device does not remove cases from a reading queue. The device operates in parallel with the standard of care, which remains the default option for all cases.
Special Controls
Radiological computer aided triage and notification software must comply with the following special controls: 1. Design verification and validation must include: i. A detailed description of the notification and triage algorithms and all underlying image analysis algorithms including, but not limited to, a detailed description of the algorithm inputs and outputs, each major component or block, how the algorithm affects or relates to clinical practice or patient care, and any algorithm limitations. ii. A detailed description of pre-specified performance testing protocols and dataset(s) used to assess whether the device will provide effective triage (e.g., improved time to review of prioritized images for pre-specified clinicians). iii. Results from performance testing that demonstrate that the device will provide effective triage. The performance assessment must be based on an appropriate measure to estimate the clinical effectiveness. The test dataset must contain sufficient numbers of cases from important cohorts (e.g., subsets defined by clinically relevant confounders, effect modifiers, associated diseases, and subsets defined by image acquisition characteristics) such that the performance estimates and confidence intervals for these individual subsets can be characterized with the device for the intended use population and imaging equipment. iv. Standalone performance testing protocols and results of the device. v. Appropriate software documentation (e.g., device hazard analysis; software requirements specification document; software design specification document; traceability analysis; description of verification and validation activities including system level test protocol, pass/fail criteria, and results). 2. Labeling must include the following: i. A detailed description of the patient population for which the device is indicated for use. ii. A detailed description of the intended user and user training that addresses appropriate use protocols for the device. iii. Discussion of warnings, precautions, and limitations must include situations in which the device may fail or may not operate at its expected performance level (e.g., poor image quality for certain subpopulations), as applicable. iv. A detailed description of compatible imaging hardware, imaging protocols, and requirements for input images. v. Device operating instructions. vi. A detailed summary of the performance testing, including: test methods, dataset characteristics, triage effectiveness (e.g., improved time to review of prioritized images for pre-specified clinicians), diagnostic accuracy of algorithms informing triage decision, and results with associated statistical uncertainty (e.g., confidence intervals), including a summary of subanalyses on case distributions stratified by relevant confounders, such as lesion and organ characteristics, disease stages, and imaging equipment.
*Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special controls for this device are:(1) Design verification and validation must include:
(i) A detailed description of the notification and triage algorithms and all underlying image analysis algorithms including, but not limited to, a detailed description of the algorithm inputs and outputs, each major component or block, how the algorithm affects or relates to clinical practice or patient care, and any algorithm limitations.
(ii) A detailed description of pre-specified performance testing protocols and dataset(s) used to assess whether the device will provide effective triage (
*e.g.,* improved time to review of prioritized images for pre-specified clinicians).(iii) Results from performance testing that demonstrate that the device will provide effective triage. The performance assessment must be based on an appropriate measure to estimate the clinical effectiveness. The test dataset must contain sufficient numbers of cases from important cohorts (
*e.g.,* subsets defined by clinically relevant confounders, effect modifiers, associated diseases, and subsets defined by image acquisition characteristics) such that the performance estimates and confidence intervals for these individual subsets can be characterized with the device for the intended use population and imaging equipment.(iv) Stand-alone performance testing protocols and results of the device.
(v) Appropriate software documentation (
*e.g.,* device hazard analysis; software requirements specification document; software design specification document; traceability analysis; description of verification and validation activities including system level test protocol, pass/fail criteria, and results).(2) Labeling must include the following:
(i) A detailed description of the patient population for which the device is indicated for use;
(ii) A detailed description of the intended user and user training that addresses appropriate use protocols for the device;
(iii) Discussion of warnings, precautions, and limitations must include situations in which the device may fail or may not operate at its expected performance level (
*e.g.,* poor image quality for certain subpopulations), as applicable;(iv) A detailed description of compatible imaging hardware, imaging protocols, and requirements for input images;
(v) Device operating instructions; and
(vi) A detailed summary of the performance testing, including: test methods, dataset characteristics, triage effectiveness (
*e.g.,* improved time to review of prioritized images for pre-specified clinicians), diagnostic accuracy of algorithms informing triage decision, and results with associated statistical uncertainty (*e.g.,* confidence intervals), including a summary of subanalyses on case distributions stratified by relevant confounders, such as lesion and organ characteristics, disease stages, and imaging equipment.
{0}
FDA U.S. FOOD & DRUG ADMINISTRATION
November 25, 2025
mlHealth 360
% Sujata Ghatpande
Regulatory Consultant
Product Success Inc.
#7, 1 Aspenwood Drive
Port Moody, BC V3H4X8
Canada
Re: K250694
Trade/Device Name: Scaida BrainCT-ICH (v1.0)
Regulation Number: 21 CFR 892.2080
Regulation Name: Radiological Computer Aided Triage And Notification Software
Regulatory Class: Class II
Product Code: QAS
Dated: October 28, 2025
Received: October 28, 2025
Dear Sujata Ghatpande:
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 (the 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. Although this letter refers to your product as a device, please be aware that some cleared products may instead be combination products. The 510(k) Premarket Notification Database available at https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpmn/pmn.cfm identifies combination product submissions. 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.
U.S. Food & Drug Administration
10903 New Hampshire Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20993
www.fda.gov
{1}
K250694 - Sujata Ghatpande
Page 2
Additional information about changes that may require a new premarket notification are provided in the FDA guidance documents entitled "Deciding When to Submit a 510(k) for a Change to an Existing Device" (https://www.fda.gov/media/99812/download) and "Deciding When to Submit a 510(k) for a Software Change to an Existing Device" (https://www.fda.gov/media/99785/download).
Your device is also subject to, among other requirements, the Quality System (QS) regulation (21 CFR Part 820), which includes, but is not limited to, 21 CFR 820.30, Design controls; 21 CFR 820.90, Nonconforming product; and 21 CFR 820.100, Corrective and preventive action. Please note that regardless of whether a change requires premarket review, the QS regulation requires device manufacturers to review and approve changes to device design and production (21 CFR 820.30 and 21 CFR 820.70) and document changes and approvals in the device master record (21 CFR 820.181).
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-related adverse events) (21 CFR Part 803) for devices or postmarketing safety reporting (21 CFR Part 4, Subpart B) for combination products (see https://www.fda.gov/combination-products/guidance-regulatory-information/postmarketing-safety-reporting-combination-products); good manufacturing practice requirements as set forth in the quality systems (QS) regulation (21 CFR Part 820) for devices or current good manufacturing practices (21 CFR Part 4, Subpart A) for combination products; and, if applicable, the electronic product radiation control provisions (Sections 531-542 of the Act); 21 CFR Parts 1000-1050.
All medical devices, including Class I and unclassified devices and combination product device constituent parts are required to be in compliance with the final Unique Device Identification System rule ("UDI Rule"). The UDI Rule requires, among other things, that a device bear a unique device identifier (UDI) on its label and package (21 CFR 801.20(a)) unless an exception or alternative applies (21 CFR 801.20(b)) and that the dates on the device label be formatted in accordance with 21 CFR 801.18. The UDI Rule (21 CFR 830.300(a) and 830.320(b)) also requires that certain information be submitted to the Global Unique Device Identification Database (GUDID) (21 CFR Part 830 Subpart E). For additional information on these requirements, please see the UDI System webpage at https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/device-advice-comprehensive-regulatory-assistance/unique-device-identification-system-udi-system.
Also, please note the regulation entitled, "Misbranding by reference to premarket notification" (21 CFR 807.97). For questions regarding the reporting of adverse events under the MDR regulation (21 CFR Part 803), please go to https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/medical-device-safety/medical-device-reporting-mdr-how-report-medical-device-problems.
For comprehensive regulatory information about medical devices and radiation-emitting products, including information about labeling regulations, please see Device Advice (https://www.fda.gov/medical-
{2}
K250694 - Sujata Ghatpande
Page 3
devices/device-advice-comprehensive-regulatory-assistance) and CDRH Learn (https://www.fda.gov/training-and-continuing-education/cdrh-learn). Additionally, you may contact the Division of Industry and Consumer Education (DICE) to ask a question about a specific regulatory topic. See the DICE website (https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/device-advice-comprehensive-regulatory-assistance/contact-us-division-industry-and-consumer-education-dice) for more information or contact DICE by email (DICE@fda.hhs.gov) or phone (1-800-638-2041 or 301-796-7100).
Sincerely,
Jessica Lamb, Ph.D.
Assistant Director
Imaging Software Team
DHT8B: Division of Radiological Imaging Devices and Electronic Products
OHT8: Office of Radiological Health
Office of Product Evaluation and Quality
Center for Devices and Radiological Health
Enclosure
{3}
Scaida BrainCT-ICH
Page 9 of 45
| Indications for Use | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Please type in the marketing application/submission number, if it is known. This textbox will be left blank for original applications/submissions. | K250694 | ? |
| Please provide the device trade name(s). | | ? |
| Scaida BrainCT-ICH | | |
| Please provide your Indications for Use below. | | ? |
| Scaida BrainCT-ICH is a radiological computer aided notification software indicated for use in the analysis of non-contrast head CT images of adult patients (ages 22 and above).
The device is intended to assist trained radiologists in workflow triage by flagging and communicating suspected positive findings of pathologies in head CT images, for Intracranial Hemorrhages (ICH). The suspected ICH could be part of any of these five subtypes: Intraparenchymal hemorrhage (IPH), Intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH), Subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH), Subdural hemorrhage (SDH), and Epidural Hemorrhage (EDH). The Scaida BrainCT-ICH device does not provide this ICH subclassification to the user; it uses an artificial intelligence algorithm to analyze images, and it identifies cases with suspected ICH only.
The device does not alter the original medical image, does not remove cases from the queue, and is not intended to be used as a diagnostic device or for use in patients under 22 years of age. If the clinician does not view the case, or if a case is not flagged, cases remain to be processed per the standard of care.
The results of Scaida BrainCT-ICH are intended to be used in conjunction with other patient information and based on professional judgment, to assist with triage/prioritization of medical images. Notified radiologists are responsible for viewing full images per the standard of care.
Please select the types of uses (select one or both, as applicable).
☑ Prescription Use (Part 21 CFR 801 Subpart D)
☐ Over-The-Counter Use (21 CFR 801 Subpart C) | | |
{4}
K250694
# Contact Details: 21 CFR 807.92 (a) (1)
Contact Details:
| Applicant Name | mlHealth 360 Inc. |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant Address | Unit 204, 9900 King George Blvd Surrey
BC V3T0K9 Canada |
| Applicant Contact Telephone | +1(604) 369-087 |
| Applicant Contact | Mr. Kumar Surender Sinwar |
| Applicant Contact Email | surender@mlhealth360.com |
| Correspondent Name | Product Success Inc. |
| Correspondent Address | #7, 1 Aspenwood Drive Port Moody BC
V3H4X8 Canada |
| Correspondent Contact Telephone | 5144418227 |
| Correspondent Contact | Sujata Ghatpande |
| Correspondent Contact Email | sujata@ps.inc |
Device Name: 21 CFR 807.92 (a) (2)
| Device Name | Scaida BrainCT-ICH |
| --- | --- |
| Common Name | Radiological computer aided triage and notification software |
| Classification Name | Radiological Computer-Assisted Triage And Notification Software |
| Regulation Number | 892.2080 |
| Product Code(s) | QAS |
Legally Marketed Predicate Devices: 21 CFR 807.92 (a) (3)
| Predicate # | K211179 |
| --- | --- |
| Predicate Trade Name (Primary Predicate is listed first) | InferRead CT Stroke.AI |
| Product Code | QAS |
{5}
# Device description summary 21 CFR 807.92 (a) (4)
Scaida BrainCT-ICH is a radiological computer-assisted triage and notification software device that alerts of suspected intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) condition by analyzing non-contrast CT images.
The software needs to be integrated with a third-party worklist application to receive analysis requests and the corresponding DICOM images and return the ICH findings (whether suspected ICH is found) to the worklist to alert the radiologists. Scaida BrainCT-ICH solely provides a suspected ICH finding: displaying the detection is at the user's own discretion.
The device will be integrated as a part of a hospital's or a clinic's imaging workflow.
The device has no user interface and is a software-only device that has no contact with the patient.
# Intended use/Indications for Use (a) (5)
Scaida BrainCT-ICH is a radiological computer aided notification software indicated for use in the analysis of non-contrast head CT images of adult patients (ages 22 and above).
The device is intended to assist trained radiologists in workflow triage by flagging and communicating suspected positive findings of pathologies in head CT images, for Intracranial Hemorrhages (ICH). The suspected ICH could be part of any of these five subtypes: Intraparenchymal hemorrhage (IPH), Intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH), Subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH), Subdural hemorrhage (SDH), and Epidural Hemorrhage (EDH). The Scaida BrainCT-ICH device does not provide this ICH subclassification to the user; it uses an artificial intelligence algorithm to analyze images, and it identifies cases with suspected ICH only.
The device does not alter the original medical image, does not remove cases from the queue, and is not intended to be used as a diagnostic device or for use in patients under 22 years of age. If the clinician does not view the case, or if a case is not flagged, cases remain to be processed per the standard of care.
The results of Scaida BrainCT-ICH are intended to be used in conjunction with other patient information and based on professional judgment, to assist with triage/prioritization of medical images. Notified radiologists are responsible for viewing full images per the standard of care.
# Indications for Use Comparison 21 CFR 807.92 (a) (5)
The indications for use of the subject device are the same as that of the predicate device (K211179)
{6}
# Technological Comparison 21 CFR 807.92 (a) (6)
The subject device is substantially equivalent to the predicate device given the similar intended use, similar indications for use, and the overall performance from the subject device does not have significant differences as the predicate device. Both devices leverage artificial intelligence algorithms to identify ICH findings from non-contrast brain CT scans, and notify the radiologists to assist them in triage of medical images. Both devices are also intended to be used in conjunction with the clinician's professional judgement.
Results presented with this submission demonstrate that the Scaida BrainCT-ICH device is as safe and effective as the legally marketed predicate device InferRead CT Stroke.AI (K211179), as per the comparison table below.
| Item | Scaida BrainCT-ICH (Subject device) | InferRead CT Stroke.AI K211179 (Predicate device) | Comparison |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Intended use/indications for use | Radiological computer aided notification software indicated for use in the analysis of non-contrast head CT images of adult patients. The device is intended to assist trained radiologists in workflow triage by flagging and communicating suspected positive findings of Intracranial Hemorrhage (ICH). | Radiological computer aided triage and notification software for use in the analysis of Non-Enhanced Head CT images. The device is intended to assist hospital networks and trained radiologists in workflow triage by flagging suspected positive findings of Intracranial Hemorrhage (ICH). | Same |
| User population | Radiologist | Radiologist | Same |
| Patient population | Adult | Adult | Same |
| Anatomical region of interest | Head | Head | Same |
| Data acquisition protocol | NCCT | NCCT | Same |
| Segmentation of region of interest | No | No | Same |
| Algorithm | AI algorithm with database of images | AI algorithm with database of images | Same |
| Notification/prioritization | Yes | Yes, case-level indicator | Same |
| Preview images | No | Presentation of a preview of the study for initial assessment not meant for diagnostic purposes. The device operates in parallel with the standard of care, which remains the default option for all cases | Preview of images is not available |
| Alteration of original image | No | No | Same |
| Removal of cases from worklist queue | No | No | Same |
{7}
| Clinical standard of care workflow | In parallel to | In parallel to | Same |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Design: DICOM compliance | Yes | Yes | Same |
| Design: Computer Platform | Standard off-the-shelf server or virtual server | Standard off-the-shelf server or virtual server | Same |
| Design: Data acquisition | Acquires medical image data from DICOM compliant imaging devices and modalities | Acquires medical image data from DICOM compliant imaging devices and modalities | Same |
| Energy used and/or delivered | None – software only application. The software application does not deliver or depend on energy delivered to or from patients | None – software only application. The software application does not deliver or depend on energy delivered to or from patients | Same |
| Materials | N/A – Software only device | N/A – Software only device | Same |
| Biocompatibility | N/A – Software only device | N/A – Software only device | Same |
| Sterility | N/A – Software only device | N/A – Software only device | Same |
| Electrical Safety | N/A – Software only device | N/A – Software only device | Same |
| Mechanical Safety | N/A – Software only device | N/A – Software only device | Same |
| Chemical Safety | N/A – Software only device | N/A – Software only device | Same |
| Thermal Safety | N/A – Software only device | N/A – Software only device | Same |
| Radiation Safety | N/A – Software only device | N/A – Software only device | Same |
A history of safe use has been established for the predicate device with no history of design-related recalls or adverse events found in FDA databases (no Medical Device Recalls, no MAUDE entries related to safety and performance).
{8}
# Non-Clinical and/or Clinical Tests Summary & Conclusions 21 CFR 807.92(b)
## Non-Clinical Tests
The following non-clinical tests were conducted:
1. Software Verification and Validation:
- Purpose: Software testing was conducted on the key software components of Scaida BrainCT–ICH to ensure the reliability, accuracy, and security of image processing and display functionalities.
- Tests Included: Verification of software requirements and risk controls
2. Retrospective study to evaluate software performance: We conducted a retrospective study with the Scaida BrainCT-ICH device to evaluate the software performance in identifying intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) findings from non-contrast head computed tomography (CT) scans. This study leveraged a deep learning algorithm to differentiate images containing ICH or not, using ground truth images annotated by trained neuro-radiologists, and therein provide notification from the findings.
## Clinical Tests
Clinical tests were not conducted as our comprehensive analysis and documentation, including nonclinical tests and performance evaluations, have provided substantial evidence demonstrating the equivalence of Scaida BrainCT-ICH to the predicate device.
## Conclusions
Below are the conclusions that were drawn based on nonclinical tests conducted comparing Scaida BrainCT-ICH and the predicate device:
1. Software Verification and Validation:
- Conclusion: Rigorous software verification and validation processes were conducted, ensuring that the subject device functions accurately and reliably when compared to the predicate device. 100% of the tests passed verification. The results demonstrated that the software meets specified requirements, providing a safe and effective platform for its intended use.
2. Performance Testing:
- Conclusion: The intended use, functionality and performance of the subject device Scaida BrainCT-ICH and the predicate device are equivalent. The result of the non-clinical performance testing is evidence that the subject device performs in an equivalent manner to the predicate device.
{9}
# Performance Data
mlHealth 360 Inc. conducted a retrospective study with the Scaida BrainCT-ICH device to evaluate the software performance in identifying intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) findings from non-contrast head computed tomography (CT) scans. This study leveraged a deep learning algorithm to differentiate images containing ICH or not, using ground truth images annotated by three ABR-certified trained neuro-radiologists, and therein provide notification from the findings. In the event of a tie for ground truth annotations, the most experienced neuroradiologist was the tie breaker.
A total of 294 cases were collected from three institutions in the United States (two of which independent of the development set), including a balanced proportion of 63.9% ICH cases and 36.1% non-ICH cases. Across institutions, the data was acquired on scanners from several manufacturers, including 53.4% GE Medical, 9.9% Siemens, and 36.7% Toshiba. The data also comprised of a diverse population of 50.7% females and 49.3% males, across different age groups (15.0% aged 22-40 years old, and 85.0% aged above 40 years old). The data was collected among various ICH subgroups such as 23.4% Intraparenchymal hemorrhage (IPH), 23.4% Subdural hemorrhage (SDH), 22.9% Intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH), 22.9% Subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH), and 7.4% Extradural/Epidural hemorrhage (EDH).
The performance of Scaida BrainCT-ICH reached a sensitivity of 0.867 (95% CI: 0.811-0.908) and a specificity of 0.887 (95% CI: 0.812-0.934). This demonstrates that this study met the predefined criteria on the validation dataset, having lower bounds of the CI from both sensitivity and sensitivity exceeding 80%. The area under the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve (AUC) was 0.926. This further demonstrates the clinically meaningful results from using the Scaida BrainCT-ICH to alert of suspected ICH from non-contrast head CT images.
# Conclusions
The subject device is substantially equivalent to the predicate device given the similar intended use, similar indications for use, and the overall performance from the subject device does not have significant differences as the predicate device. Both devices leverage artificial intelligence algorithms to identify ICH findings from non-contrast brain CT scans, and notify the radiologists to assist them in triage of medical images. Both devices are also intended to be used in conjunction with the clinician's professional judgement.
Results presented here demonstrate that the Scaida BrainCT-ICH device is as safe and effective as the legally marketed predicate device InferRead CT Stroke.AI (K211179).
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.
