Retrospective clinical samples from patients with defined EBV disease states (primary, reactivated, seronegative, past infection) were used to establish clinical correlation and performance characteristics (sensitivity, specificity, agreement) of the Copalis EBV-M assay compared to standard IFA testing.
Clinical Correlation Study; Retrospective clinical cohort analysis; Follow-up/Duration: Not applicable
Pediatric, adult, transplant donor, and transplant recipient populations representing various EBV disease states (primary, reactivated, seronegative, past); Sample Size: Not explicitly totaled, but includes multiple cohorts (e.g., 12 pediatric primary, 59 adult primary, 39 reactivated, 41 transplant recipients, etc.); Number of Sites: 2 clinical laboratories and DiaSorin
IFA (Immunofluorescence Assay) for EBV markers
Sensitivity, specificity, and agreement of Copalis EBV-M assay vs. IFA
Serial Sample Study; Retrospective longitudinal analysis of serial patient samples; Follow-up/Duration: 2 to 960 days following onset of illness
7 patients with EBV infection; Sample Size: 7 panels
IFA (Immunofluorescence Assay)
Detection of IgM marker patterns over time
Indications for Use
The Copalis® EBV-M Antibody Assay uses Coupled Particle Light Scattering technology in a microparticle agglutination-based assay for the qualitative detection of IgM antibodies to the EBV VCA antigen. The assay is designed for human serum using the Copalis I® Immunoassay System. The presence of VCA IgM antibodies is used as an aid in the diagnosis of EBV associated mononucleosis when used in coniunction with other EBV serologies in pediatric, adult, transplant donor and transplant recipient populations.
Device Story
The Copalis® EBV-M Antibody Assay is an in vitro diagnostic test for human serum. It utilizes Coupled Particle Light Scattering (Copalis®) technology on the Copalis I® Immunoassay System. Polystyrene microparticles coated with synthetic VCA antigen are contained in a reaction well; dried reagent is reconstituted with buffer. Patient sample is added and incubated for 10 minutes. If IgM antibodies to VCA are present, microparticles agglutinate, reducing the monomer population. The reaction mixture passes through a flow cell; the instrument measures light scattering to determine residual monomer concentration. This concentration is compared to a cutoff value to determine reactivity. The assay is performed in clinical laboratories. Results aid clinicians in diagnosing EBV-associated mononucleosis by identifying primary infection or confirming serological status in conjunction with other markers (IgG, EBNA, EA, heterophile).
Clinical Evidence
Clinical evaluation included prospective and retrospective analysis of fresh (12%) and frozen (88%) samples from pediatric, adult, transplant donor, and recipient populations. Primary infection sensitivity was 100% (12/12 pediatric; 59/59 adult). Specificity in seronegative populations was 95.2% (pediatric) and 100% (adult). Reactivated disease specificity was 74.4%. Serial sample studies (n=7) showed Copalis® closely matched expected marker patterns and, in 3/7 cases, detected IgM for a longer duration than IFA. Reproducibility was assessed across 3 sites with 6 samples; %CV ranged from 1.3% to 26.7%.
Technological Characteristics
Uses Coupled Particle Light Scattering technology. Components: Polystyrene microparticles coated with synthetic VCA antigen. Instrument: Copalis I® Immunoassay System. Principle: Microparticle agglutination measured via light scattering in a flow cell. Form factor: Test cup with reaction well. Connectivity: Standalone instrument. Software: Automated analysis of monomer concentration vs. cutoff values.
Indications for Use
Indicated for the qualitative detection of IgM antibodies to the Epstein-Barr Virus (EBV) VCA antigen in human serum. Used as an aid in the diagnosis of EBV-associated mononucleosis in pediatric, adult, transplant donor, and transplant recipient populations, in conjunction with other EBV serologies.
Regulatory Classification
Identification
Epstein-Barr virus serological reagents are devices that consist of antigens and antisera used in serological tests to identify antibodies to Epstein-Barr virus in serum. The identification aids in the diagnosis of Epstein-Barr virus infections and provides epidemiological information on diseases caused by these viruses. Epstein-Barr viruses are thought to cause infectious mononucleosis and have been associated with Burkitt's lymphoma (a tumor of the jaw in African children and young adults) and postnasal carcinoma (cancer).
Predicate Devices
Gull Laboratories EBV IgM IFA
Submission Summary (Full Text)
{0}------------------------------------------------
K991459
MAY 1 4 1999
May 5, 1999
## 510 (k) SUMMARY
Judith J. Smith SUBMITTED BY: DiaSorin, Inc. 9175 Guilford Rd. Suite 100 Columbia, MD 21046 NAME OF DEVICES: Copalis® EBV-M Antibody Assay Trade Name: Immunoassay for the Detection of Common Names/Descriptions: lqM Antibodies to VCA antigen of Epstein Barr Virus EBV Serology Test Classification Names: PREDICATE DEVICES: Gull Laboratories EBV IgM IFA
## DEVICE DESCRIPTION:
INTENDED USE: The Copalis® EBV-M Antibody Assay uses Coupled Particle Light Scattering technology in a microparticle agglutination-based assay for the qualitative detection of IgM antibodies to the EBV VCA antigen. The assay is designed for human serum using the Copalis I® Immunoassay System. The presence of VCA IgM antibodies is used as an aid in the diagnosis of EBV associated mononucleosis when used in coniunction with other EBV serologies in pediatric, adult, transplant donor and transplant recipient populations.
KIT DESCRIPTION: Coupled Particle Light Scattering (Copalis®) technology provides a rapid method for the measurement of antibodies to specific pathogens. The Copalis® EBV-M Antibody Assay is a microparticle agglutination test using the Copalis® light scattering technology. Polystyrene microparticles are coated with svnthetic VCA antigen and are contained within a special covered reaction well in the test cup. The dried reagent is reconstituted with a reaction buffer on the instrument at the start of the assay. Patient sample is added to the reaction mixture and incubated for 10 minutes. The presence of IgM antibodies specific to the VCA antigen in the patient sample results in agglutination of the monomer microparticles to form aggregates. The reaction mixture is passed through a flow cell and the instrument uses light scattering technology to measure the monomer concentration. The decrease in the monomer population resulting from agglutination is related to the amount of antibody in the sample. The residual monomer concentration in each reaction mixture is compared to a cutoff values to determine sample reactivity and nonreactivity.
## PERFORMANCE DATA:
Clinical Correlation: Fresh (12%) and frozen (88%) samples were analyzed at two clinical laboratories and at DiaSorin. Patients from the disease states defined below and representing the eastern, midwestern and western United States were tested.
{1}------------------------------------------------
The screening population is a group of samples from patients suspected of disease. The samples were chosen for each disease state population based upon comparison to expected patterns of serological testing results for the 4 EBV markers (EBV VCA IgG and IgM, EBNA, and EA), and for primary infection, heterophile test . For primary infection, the first level of inclusion/exclusion was based on IFA results for VCA IgM, VCA IgG and EBNA. Samples with positive results for the VCA antigen and negative results for the EBNA were included and further examined. The next level of inclusion/exclusion criteria was based upon the heterophile results. A positive result is expected for this test in acute EBV infection. Samples with positive VCA IgM, VCA IgG, and heterophile test and negative EBNA result were included in the primary infection population. If a negative result was obtained on the heterophile test, the results of the EA IFA test were examined. A positive EA IFA resulted in inclusion of the sample. A negative EA IFA result resulted in exclusion of the sample. A summary of the expected marker patterns for the EBV markers is summarized below.
| Antibody | Seronegative | Primary | Reactivated | Past |
|--------------|--------------|---------|-------------|------|
| IgM anti-VCA | - | + | - | - |
| IgG anti-VCA | - | + | + | + |
| Anti EBNA | - | - | + | -/+ |
| Anti-EA | - | + | + | + |
| Heterophile | - | + | N/A | N/A |
## Summary of Expected Patterns for EBV Antigen Reactivity
The age of the primary disease population varied from 1 to 48 years of age (mean and median age: 22 years old). The age of the patients with reactivated disease varied from 3 to 68 (mean: 27, median 23). The age range of the seronegative group was 1 to 74 (mean: 14, median: 12). The Copalis EBV-M Antibody Assay was compared to expected marker patterns in the defined disease states and separated into adult and pediatric populations. The results of these studies are summarized below with the 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Equivocal results by Copalis or IFA or non-specific staining by IFA were not included in the calculations.
| Expected Pattern | Heterophile +; VCA IgM +; VCA IgG +; EBNA –; EA + | |
|----------------------|---------------------------------------------------|-----------------|
| | Pediatric | Adult |
| Copalis®/IFA Result* | EBV VCA IgM | EBV VCA IgM |
| Sensitivity | 12/12 = 100% | 59/59* = 100.0% |
| (95% CI) | (73.5 - 100.0%) | (93.9 - 100.0%) |
| Specificity | NA | NA |
| Agreement | 12/12 = 100% | 59/59 = 100.0% |
| Prevalence Copalis® | 12/12 = 100% | 59/61 = 96.7% |
| Prevalence IFA | 12/12 = 100% | 61/61 = 100.0% |
#### Primary Disease State Population
*(2 Copalis equivocal/IFA positive)
{2}------------------------------------------------
### Reactivated Disease State Population
| Expected Pattern | VCA IgM a; VCA IgG +; EBNA +; EA + |
|----------------------|------------------------------------|
| Copalis®/IFA Resultb | EBV VCA IgM |
| Sensitivity | NA |
| Specificity | 29/39 = 74.4% |
| (95% CI) | (57.8 – 87.0%) |
| Agreement | 29/39 = 74.4% |
| Prevalence Copalis® | 10/39 = 25.6% |
| Prevalence IFAc | 0/39 = 0% |
3 Literature reports show that IgM can be present in reactivated disease '
°2 Copalis equivocal/IFA negative, 1 Copalis equivocal/IFA non-specific staining (nss); 1 Copalis negative/IFA nss °Prevalence of IFA before exclusion was 4/50 = 8%
#### EBV Screening Population
| Expected Pattern | VCA IgM -/+<br>(Primary, Reactiviated, Seronegative, or Past | |
|-------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------|
| | Pediatric | Adult |
| Copalis®/IFA* Result | EBV VCA IgM | EBV VCA IgM |
| Sensitivity<br>(95% CI) | N/A | N/A |
| Specificity<br>(95% CI) | 13/13 = 100.0%<br>(75. - 100.0%) | 25/28* = 89.3%<br>(71.8-97.7) |
| Agreement | 13/13 = 100.0% | 25/28 = 89.3% |
| Prevalence Copalis® | 0/14 = 0.0% | 3/29 = 10.3% |
| Prevalence IFA | 0/14 = 0.0% | 0/29 = 0.0% |
(1 Copalis equivocal/IFA negative)
## SeroNegative Population
| Expected Pattern | VCA IgM -; VCA IgG -; EBNA -; EA - | |
|-------------------------|------------------------------------|-------------------------------|
| | Pediatric | Adult |
| Copalis®/IFA* Result | EBV VCA IgM | EBV VCA IgM |
| Sensitivity<br>(95% Cl) | NA | NA |
| Specificity<br>(95% Cl) | 40/42 = 95.2%<br>(83.8 - 99.4%) | 8/8 = 100%<br>(63.1 - 100.0%) |
| Agreement | 40/42 = 95.2% | 8/8 = 100.0% |
| Prevalence Copalis® | 2/42 = 4.8% | 0/8 = 0% |
| Prevalence IFA | 0/42 = 0% | 0/8 = 0% |
*(no equivocal results)
## Apparently Healthy Adult Population
| Expected Pattern | - |
|----------------------|----------------|
| Copalis®/IFA* Result | EBV VCA IgM |
| Sensitivity | NA |
| Specificity | 91/97 = 93.8% |
| (95% CI) | (82.0 - 97.8%) |
| Agreement | 91/97 = 93.8% |
| Prevalence Copalis® | 6/97 = 6.2% |
| Prevalence IFA | 0/97 = 0% |
*(5 Copalis equivocal/IFA negative)
{3}------------------------------------------------
#### Transplant Recipients (Reactivated)
| Copalis®/IFA* Result | |
|----------------------|----------------|
| Sensitivity | NA |
| Specificity | 30/41 = 73.2% |
| (95% CI) | (57.1 - 85.8%) |
| Agreement | 3/42 = 71.4% |
| Prevalence Copalis® | 10/42 = 23.8% |
| Prevalence IFA | 4/46 = 8.7% |
*(3 Copalis equivocal/IFA positive; 3 Copalis equivocal/IFA negative; 1 Copalis negative/IFA nss; 1 Copalis equivocal/IFA nss)
#### Transplant Donors
| Copalis®/IFA* Result | |
|----------------------|----------------|
| Sensitivity | NA |
| Specificity | 46/50 = 92.0% |
| (95% CI) | (80.8 - 97.8%) |
| Agreement | 56/50 = 92.0% |
| Prevalence Copalis® | 4/46 = 8.7% |
| Prevalence IFA | 0/53 = 0% |
*(4 Copalis equivocal/IFA negative)
The Copalis® EBV-M Antibody Assay identified all patients with primary disease. It gave equivalent or better prevalence results than IFA in defined disease states when compared to the literature. Review of the data from serial samples (next section) shows that the Copalis® assay closely matches the expected pattern for the markers in primary infection (acute and convalescent). In the reactivated disease state population, the IFA result was negative in 10 samples in which the Copalis® assay results were positive. Although most tables of marker patterns in defined diseases state that the lgM should be negative in reactivated disease, literature reports show that IgM can be present in reactivated disease. Thus, the presence of IgM in this state is not unexpected.
### Serial Sample Studies
Seven serial sample panels were evaluated by Copalis® EBV-M Antibody Assay and by IFA. The panels were also tested for EBV VCA, EBNA and EA antibodies. The samples ranged from 2 to 960 days following onset of illness. The Copalis® assay was equivalent to IFA in the detection of marker patterns. In 3 of 7 patients, the Copalis® EBV-M assay detected the presence of IgM for more days than detected by IFA. In one sample, the Copalis® EBV-M assay and IFA detected IgM for the same number of days. The assay CI's show changes in IgM antibody titers more clearly than IFA. When reviewing all 4 markers together, in 6/7 patients the Copalis® assay pattern was more consistent with disease than IFA.
{4}------------------------------------------------
Reproducibility: Reproducibility studies were performed at the 3 sites using one lot of tests. Assay reproducibility was determined by testing 6 samples that spanned the range of the assay components CTRs. Samples were tested in duplicate once a day for 5 days. The results are summarized below.
| Sample | Mean<br>mg/dL | Within Run<br>%CV | %CV |
|-------------|---------------|-------------------|-------|
| Neg Control | 0.90 | -- | 1.3% |
| Pos Control | 2.25 | -- | 10.7% |
| RP 1 | 1.87 | 7.8% | 12.6% |
| RP 2 | 0.89 | 2.0% | 1.7% |
| RP 3 | 5.06 | 8.4% | 19.3% |
| RP 4 | 0.90 | 0.9% | 1.4% |
| RP 5 | 5.53 | 19.4% | 26.7% |
| RP 6 | 1.35 | 7.6% | 13.2% |
| N for RP | 30 | 30 | 30 |
REPRODUCIBILITY RESULTS FOR COPALIS® EBV-M ANTIBODY ASSAY - COMBINED SITES
{5}------------------------------------------------
Image /page/5/Picture/1 description: The image shows the logo for the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. The logo consists of a circular border with the text "DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES - USA" arranged around the top half of the circle. Inside the circle is an abstract symbol that resembles a stylized human figure or a bird in flight, composed of three curved lines.
Food and Drug Administration 9200 Corporate Boulevard Rockville MD 20850
MAY 1 4 1999
DiaSorin c/o Carole Stamp TUV Product Service Inc. 1775 Old Highway 8 NW Suite 104 New Brighton, MN 55112
K991459 Re: Trade Name: Copalis® EBV-M Assay Regulatory Class: I
Product Code: LJN Dated: May 7, 1999 Received: May 10, 1999
Dear Ms. Stamp:
We have reviewed your Section 510(k) notification of intent to market the device referenced above and we have determined the device is substantially equivalent (for the indications for use stated in the enclosure) to legally marketed predicate devices marketed in interstate commerce prior to May 28, 1976, the enactment date of the Medical Device Amendments, or to devices that have been reclassified in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (Act). You may, therefore, market the device, subject to the general controls provisions of the Act. The general controls provisions of the Act include requirements for annual registration, listing of devices, good manufacturing practice, labeling, and prohibitions against misbranding and adulteration.
If your device is classified (see above) into either class II (Special Controls) or class III (Premarket Approval), it may be subject to such additional controls. Existing major regulations affecting your device can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21, Parts 800 to 895. A substantially equivalent determination assumes compliance with the Current Good Manufacturing Practice requirements, as set forth in the Quality System Regulation (QS) for Medical Devices: General regulation (21 CFR Part 820) and that, through periodic QS inspections, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will verify such assumptions. Failure to comply with the GMP regulation may result in regulatory action. In addition, FDA may publish further announcements concerning your device in the Federal Register. Please note: this response to your premarket notification submission does not affect any obligation you might have under sections 531 through 542 of the Act for devices under the Electronic Product Radiation Control provisions, or other Federal laws or regulations.
{6}------------------------------------------------
Page 2
Under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA-88), this device may require a CLIA complexity categorization. To determine if it does, you should contact the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) at (770)488-7655.
This letter will allow you to begin marketing your device as described in your 510(k) premarket notification. The FDA finding of substantial equivalence of your device to a Iegally marketed predicate device results in a classification for your device and thus, permits your device to proceed to the market.
If you desire specific advice for your device on our labeling regulation (21 CFR Part 801 and additionally 809.10 for in vitro diagnostic devices), please contact the Office of Compliance at (301) 594-4588. Additionally, for questions on the promotion and advertising of your device, please contact the Office of Compliance at (301) 594-4639. Also, please note the regulation entitled, "Misbranding by reference to premarket notification" (21 CFR 807.97). Other general information on your responsibilities under the Act may be obtained from the Division of Small Manufacturers Assistance at its toll free number (800) 638-2041 or at (301) 443-6597 or at its internet address "http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/dsmamain.html"
Sincerely yours,
Steven Butman
Steven I. Gutman, M.D., M.B.A. Director Division of Clinical Laboratory Devices Office of Device Evaluation Center for Devices and Radiological Health
Enclosure
{7}------------------------------------------------
# INDICATIONS FOR USE
510(k) Number (if known): K991459
Copalis® EBV-M Assay Device Name: Indications For Use: The Copalis® EBV-M Assay uses Coupled Particle Light Scattering technology in a microparticle agglutination-based assay for the qualitative detection of IgM antibodies to the EBV VCA antigen. The assay is designed for human serum using the Copalis® I Immunoassay System. The presence of VCA IgM antibodies is used as an aid in the diagnosis of EBV associated mononucleosis when used in conjunction with other EBV serologies in pediatric, adult, transplant donor and transplant recipient populations.
(PLEASE DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE - CONTINUE ON ANOTHER PAGE IF NEEDED) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
### Concurrence of CDRH, Office of Device Evaluation (ODE)
Woody Dubois
k) Number
Prescription Use (Per 21 CFR 801.109)
OR
Over-The-Counter Use _
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
(Optional Format 1-2-96)
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.