Cleared Traditional

K922713 - KODAK AMERLITE MAB FT3 ASSAY (FDA 510(k) Clearance)

Class II Chemistry device cleared through predicate-based substantial equivalence - typically does not require clinical trials.

K922713 · Eastman Kodak Company · Chemistry device
Download Printable Device Report (PDF)
Optimized for regulatory review, auditing and printing
Oct 1992
Decision
143d
Days
Class 2
Risk

K922713 is an FDA 510(k) clearance for the KODAK AMERLITE MAB FT3 ASSAY. Classified as Radioimmunoassay, Free Thyroxine (product code CEC), Class II - Special Controls.

Submitted by Eastman Kodak Company (Rochester, US). The FDA issued a Cleared decision on October 26, 1992 after a review of 143 days - within the typical 510(k) review window.

This device falls under the Chemistry FDA review panel, regulated under 21 CFR 862.1695 - the FDA in vitro diagnostics and chemistry framework. The Traditional 510(k) pathway establishes clearance through substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, without requiring clinical trial data.

Device pattern: Standard predicate-based submission. Standard predicate reliance. This clearance follows a standard predicate-based equivalence path within the Chemistry review framework, consistent with the majority of Class II 510(k) submissions.

View all Eastman Kodak Company devices

Submission Details

510(k) Number K922713 FDA.gov
FDA Decision Cleared Substantially Equivalent - Traditional 510(k) (SESE)
Date Received June 05, 1992
Decision Date October 26, 1992
Days to Decision 143 days
Submission Type Traditional
Review Panel Chemistry (CH)
Summary Summary PDF
Third-party Review No - reviewed directly by FDA
Regulatory Context
Review time vs. panel average
55d slower than avg
Panel avg: 88d · This submission: 143d
Pathway characteristics
Predicate-based equivalence. No clinical trials required.

Device Classification

Product Code CEC Radioimmunoassay, Free Thyroxine
Device Class Class 2 - Special Controls
CFR Regulation 21 CFR 862.1695
What this classification means

Class II devices require demonstration of substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device. This pathway does not require clinical trials - it relies on engineering equivalence and performance data. Most Chemistry devices follow this clearance model.