Mapping the genealogy of medical device predicates in the United States
In the United States, medical devices are regulated and subject to review by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) before they can be marketed. Low-to-medium risk novel medical devices can be reviewed under the De Novo umbrella before they can proceed to market, and this process can be fairly cumbe...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2021-10, Vol.16 (10), p.e0258153 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | |
---|---|
container_issue | 10 |
container_start_page | e0258153 |
container_title | PloS one |
container_volume | 16 |
creator | Pai, Dhruv B |
description | In the United States, medical devices are regulated and subject to review by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) before they can be marketed. Low-to-medium risk novel medical devices can be reviewed under the De Novo umbrella before they can proceed to market, and this process can be fairly cumbersome, expensive, and time-consuming. An alternate faster and less-expensive pathway to going to market is the 510(k) pathway. In this approach, if the device can be shown to be substantially equivalent in safety and effectiveness to a pre-existing FDA-approved marketed device (or "predicates"), it can be cleared to market. Due to the possibility of daisy-chaining predicate devices, it can very quickly be difficult to unravel the logic and justification of how a particular medical device's equivalence was established. From patients' perspective, this minimizes transparency in the process. From a vendor perspective, it can be difficult to determine the right predicate that applies to their device. We map the connectivity of various predicates in the medical device field by applying text mining and natural language processing (NLP) techniques on data publicly made available by the FDA 78000 device summaries were scraped from the US FDA 510(k) database, and a total of 2,721 devices cleared by the 510(k) regulatory pathway in 2020 were used as a specific case study to map the genealogy of medical devices cleared by the FDA. Cosine similarity was used to gauge the degree of substantial equivalence between two medical devices by evaluating their device descriptions and indications for use. Recalls and complaints for predicate devices were extracted from the FDA's Total Product Life Cycle database using html scraping and web page optical character recognition to determine the similarity between class 1 recalled devices (the most severe form of device recall) and other substantially equivalent devices. A specific product code was used to illustrate the mapping of the genealogy from a De Novo device. The ancestral tree for the medical devices cleared in 2020 is vast and sparse, with a large number of devices having only 1-2 predicates. Evaluation of substantial equivalence data from 2003-2020 shows that the standard for substantial equivalence has not changed significantly. Studying the recalls and complaints, shows that the insulin infusion pump had the highest number of complaints, yet none of the recalled devices bore significant degree of text similarity to currently |
doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0258153 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2580002394</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A678258781</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_e6ad7cdad9bc40bca66b873afe122db7</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A678258781</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-35df4e0ff2d3e3cd76efa84484ac4a3c19a35dc467f2df02f37258fa8acaf64b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNklFrFDEUhQdRbK3-A8EBoeDDrskkm8m8CKVoXagUrPU13EluZrPMTsZJpth_b3Z3lA4oSB6S3Hz3JDmcLHtNyZKykr7f-nHooF32vsMlKVaSrtiT7JRWrFiIgrCnj9Yn2YsQtoSsmBTieXbCuKBSCnqaXX2Bvnddk8cN5g12CK1vHnJv8x0ap6HNDd47jXk_HPYRQ-66A33XuYgmv4374svsmYU24KtpPsvuPn38dvl5cX1ztb68uF5oIaq4YCtjORJrC8OQaVMKtCA5lxw0B6ZpBQnRXJSJsKSwrEw_SwhosILX7Cx7c9TtWx_U5EFQCSKEFKziiVgfCeNhq_rB7WB4UB6cOhT80CgYotMtKhRgSm3AVLXmpNYgRC1LBhZpUZi6TFofptvGOvmhsYsDtDPR-UnnNqrx90rySkjGksDbSWDwP0YM8R9PnqgG0qtcZ30S0zsXtLoQpUxkKWmiln-h0jC4czqlwLpUnzW8mzUkJuLP2MAYglrffv1_9ub7nD1_xG5SZOIm-HaMzndhDvIjqAcfwoD2j3OUqH2If7uh9iFWU4jZLyHL5AQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2580002394</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Mapping the genealogy of medical device predicates in the United States</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Pai, Dhruv B</creator><contributor>Mordaunt, Dylan A.</contributor><creatorcontrib>Pai, Dhruv B ; Mordaunt, Dylan A.</creatorcontrib><description>In the United States, medical devices are regulated and subject to review by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) before they can be marketed. Low-to-medium risk novel medical devices can be reviewed under the De Novo umbrella before they can proceed to market, and this process can be fairly cumbersome, expensive, and time-consuming. An alternate faster and less-expensive pathway to going to market is the 510(k) pathway. In this approach, if the device can be shown to be substantially equivalent in safety and effectiveness to a pre-existing FDA-approved marketed device (or "predicates"), it can be cleared to market. Due to the possibility of daisy-chaining predicate devices, it can very quickly be difficult to unravel the logic and justification of how a particular medical device's equivalence was established. From patients' perspective, this minimizes transparency in the process. From a vendor perspective, it can be difficult to determine the right predicate that applies to their device. We map the connectivity of various predicates in the medical device field by applying text mining and natural language processing (NLP) techniques on data publicly made available by the FDA 78000 device summaries were scraped from the US FDA 510(k) database, and a total of 2,721 devices cleared by the 510(k) regulatory pathway in 2020 were used as a specific case study to map the genealogy of medical devices cleared by the FDA. Cosine similarity was used to gauge the degree of substantial equivalence between two medical devices by evaluating their device descriptions and indications for use. Recalls and complaints for predicate devices were extracted from the FDA's Total Product Life Cycle database using html scraping and web page optical character recognition to determine the similarity between class 1 recalled devices (the most severe form of device recall) and other substantially equivalent devices. A specific product code was used to illustrate the mapping of the genealogy from a De Novo device. The ancestral tree for the medical devices cleared in 2020 is vast and sparse, with a large number of devices having only 1-2 predicates. Evaluation of substantial equivalence data from 2003-2020 shows that the standard for substantial equivalence has not changed significantly. Studying the recalls and complaints, shows that the insulin infusion pump had the highest number of complaints, yet none of the recalled devices bore significant degree of text similarity to currently marketed devices. The mapping from the De Novo device case study was used to develop an ancestry map from the recalled predicate (recalled due to design flaws) to current substantially equivalent products in the market. Besides enabling a better understanding of the risks and benefits of the 510(k) process, mapping of connectivity of various predicates could help increase consumer confidence in the medical devices that are currently in the marketplace.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258153</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34618861</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>San Francisco: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Analysis ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Complaints ; Computer and Information Sciences ; Data mining ; Engineering and Technology ; Equivalence ; FDA approval ; Genealogy ; History ; Innovations ; Insulin ; Life cycles ; Mapping ; Medical equipment ; Medical technology ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Natural language processing ; Neural networks ; Optical character recognition ; People and places ; Physical Sciences ; Physiological apparatus ; Product life cycle ; Similarity ; Tidal bores ; Websites</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2021-10, Vol.16 (10), p.e0258153</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2021 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2021 Dhruv B. Pai. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2021 Dhruv B. Pai 2021 Dhruv B. Pai</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-35df4e0ff2d3e3cd76efa84484ac4a3c19a35dc467f2df02f37258fa8acaf64b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-35df4e0ff2d3e3cd76efa84484ac4a3c19a35dc467f2df02f37258fa8acaf64b3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-6665-9903</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8496833/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8496833/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,2102,2928,23866,27924,27925,53791,53793</link.rule.ids></links><search><contributor>Mordaunt, Dylan A.</contributor><creatorcontrib>Pai, Dhruv B</creatorcontrib><title>Mapping the genealogy of medical device predicates in the United States</title><title>PloS one</title><description>In the United States, medical devices are regulated and subject to review by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) before they can be marketed. Low-to-medium risk novel medical devices can be reviewed under the De Novo umbrella before they can proceed to market, and this process can be fairly cumbersome, expensive, and time-consuming. An alternate faster and less-expensive pathway to going to market is the 510(k) pathway. In this approach, if the device can be shown to be substantially equivalent in safety and effectiveness to a pre-existing FDA-approved marketed device (or "predicates"), it can be cleared to market. Due to the possibility of daisy-chaining predicate devices, it can very quickly be difficult to unravel the logic and justification of how a particular medical device's equivalence was established. From patients' perspective, this minimizes transparency in the process. From a vendor perspective, it can be difficult to determine the right predicate that applies to their device. We map the connectivity of various predicates in the medical device field by applying text mining and natural language processing (NLP) techniques on data publicly made available by the FDA 78000 device summaries were scraped from the US FDA 510(k) database, and a total of 2,721 devices cleared by the 510(k) regulatory pathway in 2020 were used as a specific case study to map the genealogy of medical devices cleared by the FDA. Cosine similarity was used to gauge the degree of substantial equivalence between two medical devices by evaluating their device descriptions and indications for use. Recalls and complaints for predicate devices were extracted from the FDA's Total Product Life Cycle database using html scraping and web page optical character recognition to determine the similarity between class 1 recalled devices (the most severe form of device recall) and other substantially equivalent devices. A specific product code was used to illustrate the mapping of the genealogy from a De Novo device. The ancestral tree for the medical devices cleared in 2020 is vast and sparse, with a large number of devices having only 1-2 predicates. Evaluation of substantial equivalence data from 2003-2020 shows that the standard for substantial equivalence has not changed significantly. Studying the recalls and complaints, shows that the insulin infusion pump had the highest number of complaints, yet none of the recalled devices bore significant degree of text similarity to currently marketed devices. The mapping from the De Novo device case study was used to develop an ancestry map from the recalled predicate (recalled due to design flaws) to current substantially equivalent products in the market. Besides enabling a better understanding of the risks and benefits of the 510(k) process, mapping of connectivity of various predicates could help increase consumer confidence in the medical devices that are currently in the marketplace.</description><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Complaints</subject><subject>Computer and Information Sciences</subject><subject>Data mining</subject><subject>Engineering and Technology</subject><subject>Equivalence</subject><subject>FDA approval</subject><subject>Genealogy</subject><subject>History</subject><subject>Innovations</subject><subject>Insulin</subject><subject>Life cycles</subject><subject>Mapping</subject><subject>Medical equipment</subject><subject>Medical technology</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Natural language processing</subject><subject>Neural networks</subject><subject>Optical character recognition</subject><subject>People and places</subject><subject>Physical Sciences</subject><subject>Physiological apparatus</subject><subject>Product life cycle</subject><subject>Similarity</subject><subject>Tidal bores</subject><subject>Websites</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNklFrFDEUhQdRbK3-A8EBoeDDrskkm8m8CKVoXagUrPU13EluZrPMTsZJpth_b3Z3lA4oSB6S3Hz3JDmcLHtNyZKykr7f-nHooF32vsMlKVaSrtiT7JRWrFiIgrCnj9Yn2YsQtoSsmBTieXbCuKBSCnqaXX2Bvnddk8cN5g12CK1vHnJv8x0ap6HNDd47jXk_HPYRQ-66A33XuYgmv4374svsmYU24KtpPsvuPn38dvl5cX1ztb68uF5oIaq4YCtjORJrC8OQaVMKtCA5lxw0B6ZpBQnRXJSJsKSwrEw_SwhosILX7Cx7c9TtWx_U5EFQCSKEFKziiVgfCeNhq_rB7WB4UB6cOhT80CgYotMtKhRgSm3AVLXmpNYgRC1LBhZpUZi6TFofptvGOvmhsYsDtDPR-UnnNqrx90rySkjGksDbSWDwP0YM8R9PnqgG0qtcZ30S0zsXtLoQpUxkKWmiln-h0jC4czqlwLpUnzW8mzUkJuLP2MAYglrffv1_9ub7nD1_xG5SZOIm-HaMzndhDvIjqAcfwoD2j3OUqH2If7uh9iFWU4jZLyHL5AQ</recordid><startdate>20211007</startdate><enddate>20211007</enddate><creator>Pai, Dhruv B</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6665-9903</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20211007</creationdate><title>Mapping the genealogy of medical device predicates in the United States</title><author>Pai, Dhruv B</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-35df4e0ff2d3e3cd76efa84484ac4a3c19a35dc467f2df02f37258fa8acaf64b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Complaints</topic><topic>Computer and Information Sciences</topic><topic>Data mining</topic><topic>Engineering and Technology</topic><topic>Equivalence</topic><topic>FDA approval</topic><topic>Genealogy</topic><topic>History</topic><topic>Innovations</topic><topic>Insulin</topic><topic>Life cycles</topic><topic>Mapping</topic><topic>Medical equipment</topic><topic>Medical technology</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Natural language processing</topic><topic>Neural networks</topic><topic>Optical character recognition</topic><topic>People and places</topic><topic>Physical Sciences</topic><topic>Physiological apparatus</topic><topic>Product life cycle</topic><topic>Similarity</topic><topic>Tidal bores</topic><topic>Websites</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Pai, Dhruv B</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Access via ProQuest (Open Access)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Pai, Dhruv B</au><au>Mordaunt, Dylan A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Mapping the genealogy of medical device predicates in the United States</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><date>2021-10-07</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>16</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>e0258153</spage><pages>e0258153-</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>In the United States, medical devices are regulated and subject to review by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) before they can be marketed. Low-to-medium risk novel medical devices can be reviewed under the De Novo umbrella before they can proceed to market, and this process can be fairly cumbersome, expensive, and time-consuming. An alternate faster and less-expensive pathway to going to market is the 510(k) pathway. In this approach, if the device can be shown to be substantially equivalent in safety and effectiveness to a pre-existing FDA-approved marketed device (or "predicates"), it can be cleared to market. Due to the possibility of daisy-chaining predicate devices, it can very quickly be difficult to unravel the logic and justification of how a particular medical device's equivalence was established. From patients' perspective, this minimizes transparency in the process. From a vendor perspective, it can be difficult to determine the right predicate that applies to their device. We map the connectivity of various predicates in the medical device field by applying text mining and natural language processing (NLP) techniques on data publicly made available by the FDA 78000 device summaries were scraped from the US FDA 510(k) database, and a total of 2,721 devices cleared by the 510(k) regulatory pathway in 2020 were used as a specific case study to map the genealogy of medical devices cleared by the FDA. Cosine similarity was used to gauge the degree of substantial equivalence between two medical devices by evaluating their device descriptions and indications for use. Recalls and complaints for predicate devices were extracted from the FDA's Total Product Life Cycle database using html scraping and web page optical character recognition to determine the similarity between class 1 recalled devices (the most severe form of device recall) and other substantially equivalent devices. A specific product code was used to illustrate the mapping of the genealogy from a De Novo device. The ancestral tree for the medical devices cleared in 2020 is vast and sparse, with a large number of devices having only 1-2 predicates. Evaluation of substantial equivalence data from 2003-2020 shows that the standard for substantial equivalence has not changed significantly. Studying the recalls and complaints, shows that the insulin infusion pump had the highest number of complaints, yet none of the recalled devices bore significant degree of text similarity to currently marketed devices. The mapping from the De Novo device case study was used to develop an ancestry map from the recalled predicate (recalled due to design flaws) to current substantially equivalent products in the market. Besides enabling a better understanding of the risks and benefits of the 510(k) process, mapping of connectivity of various predicates could help increase consumer confidence in the medical devices that are currently in the marketplace.</abstract><cop>San Francisco</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>34618861</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0258153</doi><tpages>e0258153</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6665-9903</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
ispartof | PloS one, 2021-10, Vol.16 (10), p.e0258153 |
issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_plos_journals_2580002394 |
source | DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
subjects | Analysis Biology and Life Sciences Complaints Computer and Information Sciences Data mining Engineering and Technology Equivalence FDA approval Genealogy History Innovations Insulin Life cycles Mapping Medical equipment Medical technology Medicine and Health Sciences Natural language processing Neural networks Optical character recognition People and places Physical Sciences Physiological apparatus Product life cycle Similarity Tidal bores Websites |
title | Mapping the genealogy of medical device predicates in the United States |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-20T05%3A09%3A40IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Mapping%20the%20genealogy%20of%20medical%20device%20predicates%20in%20the%20United%20States&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Pai,%20Dhruv%20B&rft.date=2021-10-07&rft.volume=16&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=e0258153&rft.pages=e0258153-&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0258153&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA678258781%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2580002394&rft_id=info:pmid/34618861&rft_galeid=A678258781&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_e6ad7cdad9bc40bca66b873afe122db7&rfr_iscdi=true |