Search Results

The iLab Ultrasound Imaging System is intended for ultrasound examinations of intravascular pathology. Intravasular ultrasound is indicated for patients who are are candidates for transluminal procedures such as angioplasty and atherectomy.

The iLab Ultrasound Imaging System is designed for real time viewing of intravascular anatomies and is intended to be a basic diagnostic tool for imaging and evaluation of patients who are candidates for transluminal procedures. The Permanent Pullback Sled is a device which is used with the iLab Ultrasound Imaging System. The permanent sled is a mechanized device to assist with the acquisition of two-dimensional images obtained from compatible Boston Scientific intravascular ultrasound imaging catheters. This device is designed to be used with Boston Scientific IVUS catheters that have telescoping capability where the catheter anchor housing can engage in the anchor post of the sled.

The provided text does not contain information about acceptance criteria and a study proving the device meets those criteria in the typical sense of a clinical or performance study with detailed metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or accuracy.

Instead, this document is a 510(k) premarket notification for the iLab™ Ultrasound Imaging System, specifically regarding a modification to a "Permanent Pullback Sled." The focus is on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a previously cleared predicate device.

Here's an analysis of the available information based on your requested points:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

   The document describes design verification testing for the modified "Permanent Pullback Sled." The acceptance criteria were primarily "Pass/Fail" for each test. The reported performance is that "All predetermined acceptance criteria were met."

   Test Category	Acceptance Criteria	Reported Performance
   Design Verification Tests	Pass/Fail	Met
   Motordrive Pullback	Pass/Fail	Met
   Force to Open Latch	Pass/Fail	Met
   Motordrive/Pullback Sled Connection	Pass/Fail	Met
   Linear Velocity	Pass/Fail	Met
   Cleaning Materials Exposure	Pass/Fail	Met
   Acoustic Noise	Pass/Fail	Met
   Holding Force of Nose Section to Anchor Seal	Pass/Fail	Met
   Sled Travel Distance	Pass/Fail	Met
   Nose Clip Insertions	Pass/Fail	Met
   Sled Pullbacks	Pass/Fail	Met
   Environmental Requirements	Pass/Fail	Met
   Packaging Validation	Pass/Fail	Met
   Visual Inspection	Pass/Fail	Met
   Functional Testing	Pass/Fail	Met

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

   The document doesn't specify sample sizes for each design verification test. It refers to "fully packaged units" for packaging validation but doesn't give a number.
   The data provenance is from "Design verification testing" and "packaging testing" performed on the "permanent sled," implying in-house bench testing by Boston Scientific Corporation, likely in the USA (where Boston Scientific is headquartered and the submission was made). This would be considered prospective bench testing rather than using retrospective clinical data.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience)

   This type of information is not applicable and not present in the document. The "ground truth" for bench testing typically refers to engineering specifications and measurements, not expert clinical interpretation.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set

   This is not applicable as the testing described is engineering design verification, not a clinical study involving human readers and adjudicated outcomes.

5. 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

   No MRMC study was done. This document describes a modification to an ultrasound imaging system component, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool requiring such a study.

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

   No standalone algorithm performance study was done. The device is an ultrasound imaging system and a mechanical sled component, not an AI algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.)

   For the "Design verification testing" and "Packaging validation," the ground truth implicitly refers to the engineering specifications and requirements for the device. Each test had a pre-defined "Pass/Fail" criterion based on these specifications.

8. The sample size for the training set

   This is not applicable. There is no mention of an algorithm or a training set for machine learning in this submission for an ultrasound system component.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established

   This is not applicable, as there is no training set mentioned.

Ask a specific question about this device