The ADVIA Centaur® Erythropoietin (EPO) assay is for in vitro diagnostic use in the quantitative measurement of erythropoietin in pediatric and adult human serum or plasma (K2-EDTA, lithium heparin, sodium heparin) using the ADVIA Centaur XP system. Measurement of erythropoietin is used as an aid in the diagnosis of anemias and polycythemias.
Device Story
Fully automated, one-step sandwich immunoassay; uses direct chemiluminescent technology. Input: human serum or plasma (K2-EDTA, lithium heparin, sodium heparin). Mechanism: acridinium-ester-labeled monoclonal mouse anti-EPO antibody (Lite Reagent) binds EPO; solid phase consists of mouse anti-EPO monoclonal antibody-coated paramagnetic microparticles. Output: quantitative EPO concentration (mIU/mL). Used in clinical laboratories; operated by trained laboratory personnel. Healthcare providers use results to aid in diagnosis of anemias and polycythemias. Benefits: provides standardized, automated diagnostic information for hematological conditions.
Clinical Evidence
Bench-only testing. Performance validated via linearity (0.83–750.00 mIU/mL), dilution recovery (76-111%), and detection limits (LoQ 0.83 mIU/mL). Precision studies (N=80 per sample) showed within-lab CVs 2.6-8.4%. Method comparison against predicate (N=216, N=100, N=327) showed high correlation (r=0.99-1.00). Interference testing confirmed minimal impact from common substances and ESAs. Reference intervals established for adults (N=251) and pediatric populations (N=266).
Technological Characteristics
Chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA). Components: acridinium-ester-labeled monoclonal mouse anti-EPO antibody, anti-EPO monoclonal antibody-coated paramagnetic microparticles. Energy source: luminometer. Connectivity: ADVIA Centaur XP system. Standards: CLSI EP05-A3, EP06-A, EP07-A2, EP17-A2, EP25-A, EP28-A3c. Traceable to WHO 2nd International Reference Preparation (67/343) and 3rd WHO International Standard (11/170).
Indications for Use
Indicated for quantitative measurement of erythropoietin in pediatric and adult human serum or plasma to aid in the diagnosis of anemias and polycythemias.
Regulatory Classification
Identification
A erythropoietin assay is a device that measures the concentration of erythropoietin (an enzyme that regulates the production of red blood cells) in serum or urine. This assay provides diagnostic information for the evaluation of erythrocytosis (increased total red cell mass) and anemia.
Special Controls
*Classification.* Class II. The special control for this device is FDA's “Document for Special Controls for Erythropoietin Assay Premarket Notification (510(k)s).”
{0}
1
# 510(k) SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE DETERMINATION DECISION SUMMARY
A. 510(k) Number:
K183088
B. Purpose for Submission:
Clearance of a new device
C. Measurand:
Erythropoietin (EPO)
D. Type of Test:
Quantitative
E. Applicant:
Axis-Shield Diagnostics
F. Proprietary and Established Names:
ADVIA Centaur Erythropoietin (EPO) Assay
G. Regulatory Information:
1. Regulation section:
21 CFR 864.7250, Erythropoietin assay
2. Classification:
Class II
3. Product code:
GGT, Assay, Erythropoietin
4. Panel:
Hematology (81)
{1}
H. Intended Use:
1. Intended use(s):
The ADVIA Centaur® Erythropoietin (EPO) assay is for in vitro diagnostic use in the quantitative measurement of erythropoietin in pediatric and adult human serum or plasma (K2-EDTA, lithium heparin, sodium heparin) using the ADVIA Centaur XP system. Measurement of erythropoietin is used as an aid in the diagnosis of anemias and polycythemias.
2. Indication(s) for use:
Same as Intended Use.
3. Special conditions for use statement(s):
For prescription use only.
4. Special instrument requirements:
ADVIA Centaur XP
I. Device Description:
The device is a fully automated, one-step sandwich immunoassay which uses chemiluminescent technology. The assay utilizes an acridinium-ester-labeled monoclonal mouse anti-EPO antibody in the Lite Reagent. The Solid Phase consists of anti-EPO monoclonal antibody-coated paramagnetic microparticles. The assay consists of the following components:
- ADVIA Centaur EPO ReadyPack primary reagent pack; Lite Reagent which is a 10 mL reagent pack that contains monoclonal mouse anti-EPO antibody labeled with DMAE acridinium conjugate reagent in buffer with bovine serum albumin (BSA), surfactant, and sodium azide
- ADVIA Centaur EPO ReadyPack primary reagent pack; Solid Phase Reagent which is a 24 mL reagent pack that contains anti-EPO mouse monoclonal antibody coated streptavidin microparticles in buffer with BSA, surfactant, and preservatives
- ADVIA Centaur EPO Calibrator which is a 2.0 mL vial that contains recombinant human EPO, calf serum, sodium azide and preservative
J. Substantial Equivalence Information:
1. Predicate device name(s):
Beckman Coulter Access EPO Assay
{2}
2. Predicate 510(k) number(s):
K052223
3. Comparison with predicate:
| Similarities | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Item | Device | Predicate |
| Intended Use | The ADVIA Centaur Erythropoietin (EPO) assay is for in vitro diagnostic use in the quantitative measurement of erythropoietin in pediatric and adult human serum or plasma using the ADVIA Centaur XP system. Measurement of erythropoietin is used as an aid in the diagnosis of anemias and polycythemias. | The Access EPO assay is a paramagnetic particle, chemiluminescent immunoassay for the quantitative determination of erythropoietin levels in human serum and plasma (heparin) using the Access Immunoassay Systems. This assay is intended as an aid in the diagnosis of anemias and polycythemias. With the advent of the administration of recombinant erythropoietin as a biologic therapy to increase red blood cell mass, an erythropoietin assay may be used also to aid in the prediction and monitoring of response to recombinant erythropoietin treatment of anemias. |
| Assay technology | Chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA) | Chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA) |
| Measurement | Quantitative (mIU/mL) | Quantitative (mIU/mL) |
| Differences | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Item | Device | Predicate |
| Substrate/signal generation | Acridinium tracer | Alkaline phosphatase |
| Conjugate antibody | Monoclonal mouse anti-EPO antibody | Polyclonal chicken anti-recombinant mouse EPO antibody |
| Calibration | 2-point calibration using two levels | 6-level calibration |
| Calibration frequency | 14 days | 28 days |
| Specimen type | Human serum and plasma (K2EDTA, lithium heparin, sodium heparin) | Human serum and plasma (heparin) |
| Linear range | 0.83–750 mIU/mL | 3.2–557.2 mIU/mL |
{3}
| Differences | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Item | Device | Predicate |
| Measurement range | 0.83–750 mIU/mL | 0.6–750 mIU/mL |
| Calibration | 2-point calibration using two levels | 6-level calibration |
# K. Standard/Guidance Document Referenced (if applicable):
CLSI EP05-A3; Evaluation of Precision Performance of Qualitative Measurement Methods; Approved Guideline - Third Edition.
CLSI EP06-A; Evaluation of the Linearity of Quantitative Measurement Procedures: A Statistical Approach; Approved Guideline.
CLSI EP07-A2; Interference Testing in Clinical Chemistry; Approved Guideline - Second Edition.
CLSI EP17-A2; Evaluation of Detection Capability for Clinical Laboratory Measurement Procedures; Approved Guideline - Second Edition.
CLSI EP25-A; Evaluation of Stability of In Vitro Diagnostic Reagents; Approved Guideline.
CLSI EP28-A3c; Defining, Establishing, and Verifying Reference Intervals in the Clinical Laboratory; Approved Guideline - Third Edition.
# L. Test Principle:
The Access EPO assay is a two-site immunoenzymatic ("sandwich") assay. A sample is added to a reaction vessel along with the paramagnetic particles coated with mouse monoclonal anti-EPO, blocking reagent and the alkaline phosphatase conjugate. After incubation in a reaction vessel, materials bound to the solid phase are held in a magnetic field while unbound materials are washed away. Then, the chemiluminescent substrate is added to the vessel and light generated by the reaction is measured with a luminometer. The light production is directly proportional to the concentration of EPO in the sample. The amount of analyte in the sample is determined from a stored, multi-point calibration curve.
# M. Performance Characteristics (if/when applicable):
1. Analytical performance:
a. Precision/Reproducibility:
Precision performance was evaluated in a 20-day single site study and a 5-day multisite study conducted at three sites. Seven serum samples with different EPO
{4}
concentrations spanning 1.55–474.53 mIU/mL were tested in duplicate for two runs per day in the 20-day single site study and in triplicate in two runs per day in the 5-day multisite study.
The results of the 20-day single site precision study were found to be acceptable and are described in the table below:
| Sample | N | Mean | Within-Run | | Between-Run | | Between-Day | | Between-Lot | | Total | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | | SD | %CV | SD | %CV | SD | %CV | SD | %CV | SD | %CV |
| 1 | 240 | 1.81 | 0.10 | 5.49% | 0.09 | 5.09% | 0.08 | 4.23% | 0.11 | 6.34% | 0.19 | 10.69% |
| 2 | 240 | 4.74 | 0.16 | 3.45% | 0.12 | 2.58% | 0.10 | 2.19% | 0.20 | 4.25% | 0.31 | 6.44% |
| 3 | 240 | 9.71 | 0.24 | 2.48% | 0.23 | 2.36% | 0.11 | 1.10% | 0.36 | 3.69% | 0.50 | 5.15% |
| 4 | 240 | 26.23 | 0.62 | 2.37% | 0.67 | 2.55% | 0.60 | 2.30% | 0.95 | 3.61% | 1.45 | 5.52% |
| 5 | 240 | 97.48 | 1.75 | 1.80% | 2.01 | 2.06% | 1.96 | 2.01% | 2.76 | 2.84% | 4.31 | 4.42% |
| 6 | 240 | 225.95 | 4.02 | 1.78% | 5.30 | 2.35% | 2.69 | 1.19% | 4.97 | 2.20% | 8.73 | 3.86% |
| 7 | 240 | 586.83 | 10.69 | 1.82% | 8.51 | 1.45% | 6.10 | 1.04% | 7.77 | 1.32% | 16.86 | 2.87% |
The results of the 5-day multisite precision study were found to be acceptable and are described in the table below:
| Sample | N | Mean | Within Run | | Between Run | | Between Day | | Between Site | | Total | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | | SD | %CV | SD | %CV | SD | %CV | SD | %CV | SD | %CV |
| 1 | 90 | 1.60 | 0.10 | 6.52% | 0.00 | 0.00% | 0.07 | 4.27% | 0.03 | 1.72% | 0.13 | 7.98% |
| 2 | 90 | 4.24 | 0.13 | 3.16% | 0.03 | 0.82% | 0.10 | 2.36% | 0.00 | 0.00% | 0.17 | 4.03% |
| 3 | 90 | 10.21 | 0.23 | 2.30% | 0.15 | 1.44% | 0.17 | 1.63% | 0.09 | 0.90% | 0.34 | 3.29% |
| 4 | 90 | 27.84 | 0.50 | 1.79% | 0.40 | 1.44% | 0.46 | 1.66% | 0.43 | 1.56% | 0.90 | 3.23% |
| 5 | 90 | 99.63 | 1.78 | 1.79% | 0.95 | 0.95% | 1.14 | 1.15% | 1.47 | 1.47% | 2.74 | 2.75% |
| 6 | 90 | 266.91 | 3.89 | 1.46% | 4.90 | 1.83% | 0.44 | 0.16% | 5.22 | 1.95% | 8.16 | 3.06% |
| 7 | 90 | 481.47 | 7.08 | 1.47% | 5.72 | 1.19% | 4.80 | 1.00% | 8.43 | 1.75% | 13.30 | 2.76% |
In addition to the two studies described above, an additional precision study was conducted with four samples spiked with rhEPO and four native EPO samples at four different concentrations across the measurement range as well as three fresh samples at three different concentrations. Each sample was tested in 48 replicates over three days with two runs per day and eight replicates per run. The results of the study were found to be acceptable.
## b. Linearity/assay reportable range:
Three samples with elevated EPO concentrations (>600 mIU/mL) were diluted with a low concentration sample pool to create a nine-level dilution series per sample. Each sample was tested in five replicates, using three reagent lots on one ADVIA Centaur XP (analyzer). The linear range for the ADVIA Centaur Erythropoietin (EPO) assay is 0.83–750 mIU/mL.
## c. Traceability, Stability, Expected values (controls, calibrators, or methods):
Traceability
{5}
The ADVIA Centaur EPO assay is traceable to the World Health Organization (WHO) 2nd International Reference Preparation for Erythropoietin (Human, urinary derived); NIBSC code: 67/343. The ADVIA Centaur EPO assay is also traceable to the 3rd World Health Organization (WHO) International standard for Erythropoietin, recombinant, for bioassay; NIBSC code: 11/170.
## Sample Stability
A sample stability study was conducted with pooled serum and plasma samples as well as neat native samples to demonstrate stability under room temperature conditions for 8 hours. The pooled samples were tested at T0, 1, 2, 4, 18 and 20 hours. The native samples were tested at T0, 4, 8, 16, 24, and 25 hours. All subsequent time points were within acceptable limits of timepoint zero. Room temperature serum and plasma sample stability was established at 20 hours.
A similar study was conducted with pooled serum and plasma samples as well as neat native samples at multiple concentrations across the measurement range to demonstrate stability under refrigerated storage conditions. All timepoints were within acceptable limits of timepoint zero. Sample stability for serum and plasma was established at 7 days under refrigerated storage conditions (2–8°C).
Sample stability studies were also conducted to substantiate sample storage claims at -20°C with pooled samples at multiple concentrations across the measurement range to demonstrate stability under frozen storage conditions for 7 days. Each sample was tested at multiple timepoints and the results of the study were within acceptable limits. Sample stability was established for serum and plasma samples at -20°C for 7 days.
Lastly, a freeze-thaw study was performed with multiple pooled serum and plasma samples at concentrations across the measurement range. The results of the study support the claimed maximum number of three freeze-thaw cycles for both serum and plasma samples.
## d. Detection limit:
The limit of blank (LoB) was determined by testing four blank samples (calf serum) on one analyzer with three reagent lots, over three days. Each sample was analyzed in one run per day and five replicates per run, providing a total of 180 replicates. LoB was calculated by rank ordering the 72 samples per microcuvette lot from low to high and averaging the 68th and 69th results (being the 95th percentile). LoB was determined to be 0.46 mIU/mL.
The limit of detection (LoD) was determined by testing human serum and plasma samples with low EPO concentrations. The study was conducted with 10 samples (eight serum and two plasma) by one analyzer and three reagent lots, over 5–6 days per reagent lot. Each sample was analyzed in one run per day and 3–6 replicates per run, providing 259–323 replicates per reagent lot. LoD was calculated by
6
{6}
nonparametric analysis and was determined to be 0.75 mIU/mL.
The limit of quantitation (LoQ) was determined by testing human serum and plasma samples with low EPO concentrations. The study was conducted with 10 samples (eight serum and two plasma) by one analyzer and three reagent lots, over 5–6 days per reagent lot. Each sample was analyzed in one run per day and 3–6 replicates per run, providing 259–323 replicates per reagent lot. LoQ was determined to be 0.83 mIU/mL.
e. Analytical specificity:
Interference studies were performed by spiking pooled human serum with rhEPO to achieve two levels (4–6 mIU/mL and 25–35 mIU/mL). Each of these samples were divided into a test pool with the potential interferent added and a control sample with no added interferent. For substances identified as interferents at the highest concentration tested, a concentration-response curve evaluating multiple concentrations of the interfering substance was generated to determine the non-interfering concentration. A total of 11 potential endogenous interferents and six potential exogenous interferents were evaluated. Each sample was tested in five replicates on one ADVIA Centaur XP. The highest tested concentrations at which no significant interference was observed (defined by the sponsor as ≤ 10% difference) are presented in the following table:
| Endogenous Substances | Highest concentration tested with no significant interference |
| --- | --- |
| Hemoglobin | 500 mg/dL |
| Conjugated bilirubin | 40 mg/dL |
| Unconjugated bilirubin | 60 mg/dL |
| Intralipid | 3000 mg/dL |
| Albumin | 6 g/dL |
| Cholesterol | 500 mg/dL |
| EPO Soluble Receptor | 15 ng/mL |
| Human gamma globulins (IgG) | 4.9 g/dL |
| Rheumatoid Factor | 200 IU/mL |
| Total protein | 12 g/dL |
| Triglycerides | 1000 mg/dL |
| Exogenous Substances | Highest concentration tested with no significant interference |
| Acetaminophen | 14 mg/dL |
| Acetylsalicylic acid | 50 mg/dL |
| Biotin | 100 mg/dL |
| Heparin | 8000 U/dL |
| Ibuprofen | 40 mg/dL |
| Silwet L720 | 0.2 mg/dL |
Cross Reactivity:
{7}
To determine the cross reactivity of potential cross reactants with the ADVIA Centaur EPO assay, two serum samples were examined. One sample was pooled normal serum at 4–6 mIU/mL and the other was pooled normal serum with spiked rhEPO to achieve an EPO concentration of 25–35 mIU/mL. Either one or four concentrations of the cross reactant was added to these two serum samples for the calculation of % cross-reactivity. No cross-reactivity was observed. The results of the study are present in the following table:
| Cross-Reactant | Concentration | % Cross reactivity |
| --- | --- | --- |
| α-2-Macroglobulin | 400 mg/dL | -0.01 |
| Transferrin (iron saturated) | 200 mg/dL | 0.00 |
| Transferrin (non-saturated) | 200 mg/dL | 0.00 |
| rh Thrombopoietin | 10,000 ng/mL | -0.01 |
| α-1-Acid Glycoprotein | 80 mg/dL | 0.01 |
| α-1-Antitrypsin | 200 mg/dL | 0.00 |
| α-and β-Globulins | 5 g/dL | 0.00 |
| Gamma Globulins | 6 g/dL | 0.00 |
f. Assay cut-off:
Not applicable
2. Comparison studies:
a. Method comparison with predicate device:
Four different method comparison studies were performed: single site (in-house) with frozen samples, multisite study with frozen samples, and two single site studies with native samples.
For the single site using frozen samples, a total of 222 frozen serum samples were thawed and measured in singlicate. Among these samples were: 22 infants (1 month to 2 years), 12 children (2 to 12 years), 20 adolescents (12 to 21 years), and 20 collected from EPO therapy donors. Additionally, five serum samples were collected from patients with the following conditions: chronic kidney disease, lymphoma, myeloma, non-renal anemia, polycythemia, and renal anemia. Ninety-two (41%) samples were from the U.S., 21 (10%) contrived, and 6 samples were excluded due to “device errors or a result not within the measurement interval of the predicate device or new device were excluded”. The study was performed with three reagent lots and testing was performed on the ADVIA Centaur XP for the subject assay and the Beckman Coulter Access Immunoassay system for the predicate assay. A total of 216 samples in the range of 3.29–691.60 mIU/mL were evaluated in the Passing-Bablok regression analysis. The results of the study are as follows: y= 0.99x + 0.81 mIU/mL, and r=0.99.
{8}
For the multisite study using frozen samples, testing using the candidate device ADVIA Centaur EPO assay was performed at three sites and testing using the predicate device, Beckman Access EPO, was performed at a single site. A total of 341 frozen serum samples were thawed and measured. Among these samples, 28 were adolescents (12 to 21 years) and 20 were collected from EPO therapy donors. Additionally, serum samples collected from patients with the following conditions were tested: chronic kidney disease, lymphoma, myeloma, non-renal anemia, and polycythemia. Fourteen samples were removed as nine samples generated no result by the instrument and five were outside the measurement range.
For the first single site study using native samples with endogenous EPO stored frozen, 140 samples were tested across the measurement range on both the candidate and predicate devices. This study included more samples at the lower end of the measuring range to cover medical decision limits around 1.5–2.5 mIU/mL and <1.4 mIU/mL. The results of the study are as follows: y = 1.00x + 0.23 mIU/mL.
For the second single site study using fresh native samples with endogenous EPO stored at room temperature, 100 samples were tested across the measurement range on both the candidate and predicate devices. This study included samples in the following range: 4.00–445.68 mIU/mL. The results of the study were evaluated with Passing-Bablok regression analysis. The results of the study are as follows: y = 1.07x – 0.00 mIU/mL, and r = 1.00. The 95% CI were reported for the slope (1.04, 1.10), intercept (-0.42, 0.41) and r value (1.00, 1.00).
b. Matrix comparison:
A study was performed to compare serum to the other five sample types including: K₂EDTA, LiHep, NaHep, PST (plasma separator tube), and SST (serum separator tube), using the ADVIA Centaur EPO assay. Each sample was tested in singlicate and the study was performed with one reagent lot. Samples were collected from 23 donors for each of the six sample types and each sample with each collection tube type was split into three aliquots: one was tested as the neat sample that ranged 4.39–33.32 mIU/mL, while the second and third aliquots were spiked with rhEPO to achieve about 300 and 600 mIU/mL to cover the medium and high end of the AMR, respectively. The results of the study were found to be acceptable.
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):
9
{9}
Not applicable
4. Clinical cut-off:
Not applicable
5. Expected values/Reference range:
A reference range study was performed to determine the expected EPO concentration for the adult population. A total of 251 serum samples collected from 128 apparently healthy adult males and 123 apparently healthy adult females in the U.S. Using non-parametric data analysis, the 95% central reference interval was calculated. The reference range for adult males and females are 5.41–36.90 mIU/mL and 2.92–35.17 mIU/mL, respectively.
In addition, a reference range study was performed for the pediatric population with a total of 266 serum samples collected from 140 apparently healthy males and 140 apparently healthy females in the U.S. A total of 14 samples in the infant group (>1 month – 2 years), 132 samples in the child group (>2–12 years), and 120 samples in the adolescent group (>12–21 years) were included in the data analysis.
N. Proposed Labeling:
The labeling is sufficient and it satisfies the requirements of 21 CFR Parts 801 and 809, as applicable.
O. Conclusion:
The submitted information in this premarket notification is complete and supports a substantial equivalence decision.
10
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.