Search Results

The WBR Half Dose is indicated for the acquisition, formatting and storage of scintigraphy camera output data. It is capable of processing and displaying the acquired information in traditional formats, as well as in pseudo three dimensional renderings, and in various forms of animated sequences, showing kinetic attributes of the image organs.

The WBR Half dose is a modification of labeling of the legally marketed device. The device is an image processing system, which is interfaced to gamma cameras, processes the cameras' acquired data utilizing parallel and non - parallel beams and produce high resolution images. The images can be transfered to any other PACS device, which is DICOM or Interfile compatible. The modified labeling claims that, as far as the acquired information density is maintained. the same image quality is achieved either by fast acquisition or by reduced dose acquisition modes.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the WBR Half Dose device, which is an image processing system for gamma cameras. It primarily focuses on the regulatory aspects, device description, and substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

Crucially, the document does NOT contain a detailed study report with specific acceptance criteria, device performance metrics, sample sizes, expert qualifications, or ground truth establishment relevant to the device's image processing claims.

The safety and effectiveness section vaguely states: "Bench and clinical data demonstrate that reconstructed images are equivalent or of better resolution comparing to images that are reconstructed by filter back projection. No adverse affects have been detected." This is a general statement and not a detailed study.

Therefore, most of the requested information cannot be extracted from the provided text.

Here is what can be inferred or explicitly stated based on the text, with clear indications of missing information:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

The document does not explicitly define acceptance criteria in a quantitative manner. The closest statement regarding performance is a qualitative claim of equivalence or improvement:

Detailed Study Information (Much of this information is missing from the provided text)

1. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:

   • Sample size: Not specified in the document. The text only mentions "Bench and clinical data."
   • Data provenance: Not specified (e.g., country of origin, retrospective or prospective).

2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:

   • Number of experts: Not specified.
   • Qualifications of experts: Not specified.

3. Adjudication method for the test set:

   • Not specified.

4. If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance:

   • The document does not mention an MRMC study. The device is primarily an "image processing system" that claims "high resolution images" and "equivalent or of better resolution." It's not described as an AI-assisted diagnostic tool for human readers, but rather a system for generating images. Therefore, the concept of "human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance" as typically understood in MRMC studies for diagnostic AI, does not directly apply to this device's description.

5. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:

   • The claims around "equivalent or of better resolution" could imply a standalone evaluation of image quality, but the specifics of how this was measured (e.g., against a reference standard or objective metrics) and whether human interpretation was completely excluded from the evaluation are not provided. The device itself is an algorithm only in the sense that it processes data to produce images without direct human intervention in the processing step.

6. The type of ground truth used:

   • Not specified. Given the claim is about "resolution," the ground truth would likely relate to objective image quality metrics or potentially human perception of image quality. Pathology or outcomes data are typically used for diagnostic accuracy claims, which are not the primary focus here.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable/Not specified. The document describes a "Special 510(k) Submission" for a "modification of labeling of the legally marketed device." It's an "image processing system," and while such systems involve algorithms, the text does not indicate that it uses machine learning/AI models that require a separate "training set" in the modern sense. It implies traditional image reconstruction algorithms.

8. How the ground truth for the training set was established:

   • Not applicable/Not specified, as a "training set" in the context of modern machine learning is not explicitly mentioned or implied. If it refers to data used for algorithm development/tuning, the method for establishing ground truth for such data is not provided.

Ask a specific question about this device